Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then back your opinions up with logic and facts vs. making childish and snarky remarks to people you disagree with. Try to convince someone why your point is right. That's what politics is--a debate over ideas and directions. People disagree--the goal is to explain your position clearly and logically. I may not agree with lots of people, but if they can explain and justify their opinion I can respect it, and them. Saying you don't like me isn't going to change anyone's mind on an issue you care about.
I am not the one posting obvious smears on the candidates of my own party. That is the big difference. I don't care for several of the candidates and know some very questionable things on a few. I might comment if someone posts something, but I do not start threads that are inflammatory and frankly look and sound like something the Obama supporters put up. It makes your motives questionable here. You say you worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign, well you didn't learn much from him because he hated attacks on members of his own party and cautioned against it.
I support Mitt Romney because I think he is the most capable, intelligent person running and has the best leadership skills. He is someone I think this country could feel good about as our president. I supported him last election also and if he had been nominated, this country would probably be turned around by now. I know everything you can dig up on Mitt Romney. I have seen it, read it, defended it last time around. Remember that he has been vetted for several years now. Anything you can put up is not going to change my mind.
I don't have a feeling about you one way or another, because I don't know you, but I would imagine you aren't going to win any personality contests.
Now, I am through with this conversation. We can agree that we will usually disagree.
That is how little you know, all of the polling shows one of Romney's strongest areas is with Independents.
It's really funny for you to question my experience with politics...if you only knew, but I will just let that one slide for now. Watch and learn, that is all I am saying about that.
You don't seem to learn, do you. If you have something concrete to add to a debate on Romney--facts, strategy--anything--I'd love to hear it, but I'm tired of silly name calling games. Buh bye.
Sorry about the wrong link above--I was commenting on your response (in another thread) that you've never claimed to have political insider experience. I goofed.
He has gotten some flack because he was a Democrat and some of his views are anything but conservative as we have seen, but there is a difference in how many see Romney's changes and Perry's plus Perry's allignment with the Democratic party was 20 plus years ago. Many of us, as we mature see things differently. We could name many politicians that have switched from one party to another. You mention being PRes isn't the same as being governmor of a large state or a senator. Doesn't this apply to Romney as well. It would be impossible for any candidate running to know exactly what it is like to be Pres, they haven't been there. I am not taking sides as to how much Romeny has or hasn't flip flopped, but to your reasoning.
Nita
I'm not sure you understand my point. I'm saying I don't mind that Romney has changed his priorities based on the office he's running. I expect a good candidate to do that. But he gets criticism for it, most notably from Perry and from McCain in '08. They're trying to make it look like they're men of principle while Romney is not, but what they're essentially saying is that their philosophy to being a good president is the same as their philosophy to being a good governor or senator to their home state, because that's the record they're running on. Perry is an exceptional example of this as he is incredibly vague on what economic policies he would enact (while Romney released a detailed 59 point plan) and how he would tackle issues as president. His arguments invariably fall back to "look how many jobs I created in Texas, I'll just do what I did there." Romney on the other hand has made it very clear that his approach to being president will need to be innovative, and can't be the same as his approach as governor to Massachusetts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547
I can't speak for anyone else, but I guess my biggest concern is that I want to know who I'm voting for--it's about voting for a person with character. I'm in my 50s--my views on many issues are very different now than when I was a young woman--for instance, I've moved from prochoice to prolife as well. I understand change with time and maturity. I can also explain why I came to change those views.
With Romney (and evidently Perry too, although he's going nowhere) it's different. Romney is 64. He was my age when he was promoting some really liberal viewpoints. Suddenly, when he has to play to a national audience, he does a 180 on nearly every major issue to appeal to a more conservative base. By the time you hit middle age, you usually have a pretty clear sense of who you are and what you believe. You know yourself, and you've built a belief system. This huge change, at this point in his life, isn't ringing true to me, or lots of other people.
I'm a moderate R. I don't have a problem with more liberal viewpoints on social issues and some economic issues (I'm a Huntsman supporter) and I expect more conservative responses from most R's. Romney's positions don't bother me--it's the 180 he's made. What I really care about most is making sure we have a smart, ethical, principled person running the country--I'm tired of people in government just being in it for themselves, or being bought and sold by the highest bidder. I personally don't trust that the Romney we see is the person he really is. I also think the D's are going to rip him to shreds.
There comes a time when a politician simply can't achieve something based on where s/he's been unless s/he changes his/her approach. I don't know what Romney really thinks about these issues, but that's not going to make me rule him out because, for all I know, he still might have the most character of any of the candidates. I have to ask myself, do the other candidates appear principled and consistent in comparison because they actually are, or because that's what their political circumstances allowed/required them to do? Because it's pretty obvious that it would be impossible to be elected governor of MA and the GOP's presidential nominee with the same basic platform. Any serious politician would have to change in such circumstances, whether they wanted to or not. So I don't know of Romney's actually had a change of heart or if he was just playing the game, but I think any truly self-respecting politician would've had to do the same.
Of course it's a liability, but it's a liability for all of the top contenders. Obama, Perry, etc. have all done major 180s, as have many successful politicians in the past. There doesn't seem to be a concrete correlation between character, consistency, and success. The Democrats can attempt to sling mud at him for this, but I think to no avail when they don't have a resume worth printing.
I'm not sure you understand my point. I'm saying I don't mind that Romney has changed his priorities based on the office he's running. I expect a good candidate to do that. But he gets criticism for it, most notably from Perry and from McCain in '08. They're trying to make it look like they're men of principle while Romney is not, but what they're essentially saying is that their philosophy to being a good president is the same as their philosophy to being a good governor or senator to their home state, because that's the record they're running on. Perry is an exceptional example of this as he is incredibly vague on what economic policies he would enact (while Romney released a detailed 59 point plan) and how he would tackle issues as president. His arguments invariably fall back to "look how many jobs I created in Texas, I'll just do what I did there." Romney on the other hand has made it very clear that his approach to being president will need to be innovative, and can't be the same as his approach as governor to Massachusetts.
There comes a time when a politician simply can't achieve something based on where s/he's been unless s/he changes his/her approach. I don't know what Romney really thinks about these issues, but that's not going to make me rule him out because, for all I know, he still might have the most character of any of the candidates. I have to ask myself, do the other candidates appear principled and consistent in comparison because they actually are, or because that's what their political circumstances allowed/required them to do? Because it's pretty obvious that it would be impossible to be elected governor of MA and the GOP's presidential nominee with the same basic platform. Any serious politician would have to change in such circumstances, whether they wanted to or not. So I don't know of Romney's actually had a change of heart or if he was just playing the game, but I think any truly self-respecting politician would've had to do the same.
Of course it's a liability, but it's a liability for all of the top contenders. Obama, Perry, etc. have all done major 180s, as have many successful politicians in the past. There doesn't seem to be a concrete correlation between character, consistency, and success. The Democrats can attempt to sling mud at him for this, but I think to no avail when they don't have a resume worth printing.
you are right, I didn't understand totally what you were saying, your wording made it pretty confusing. I do agree with you, except for the Perry part. I am not belittling any Republican candidate and I will support the nominee, but I think Perry has been clear. What more can he say? X number of jobs have come to Texas while he has been governor.
He hasn't been unclear about that, he's been unclear about what he'd do as president. Much of what made Texas attractive to people and businesses Rick Perry can't take credit for. It was a great state in terms of job growth and unemployment before he was governor, so what did he do to maintain or improve that, and what specifically would he do as president? That's what I think he's been unclear on.
Like I said, Mitt Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan, and other candidates like Cain and Huntsman have detailed plans as well. Rick Perry's plan, as he presents it at the debates anyway, is basically along the lines of "lower the tax burden on the middle class, reform the tax code, discourage frivolous lawsuits" and so on. But I want to know the specifics. No one has been as specific as I'd like (for obvious reasons), but Perry just seems to say whatever will get him an applause.
You don't seem to learn, do you. If you have something concrete to add to a debate on Romney--facts, strategy--anything--I'd love to hear it, but I'm tired of silly name calling games. Buh bye.
Sorry about the wrong link above--I was commenting on your response (in another thread) that you've never claimed to have political insider experience. I goofed.
What you are missing here, is that I don't need or have to 'learn' anything from you of all people. I don't post low class smears on people in my own party...you do. That is all I have to know.
There is a difference in insider information and having years of involvement in politics because your family or husband's family have been or are in politics. It makes you learn a lot about the process. It doesn't mean you have insider information or anything that covert.
What you are missing here, is that I don't need or have to 'learn' anything from you of all people. I don't post low class smears on people in my own party...you do. That is all I have to know.
There is a difference in insider information and having years of involvement in politics because your family or husband's family have been or are in politics. It makes you learn a lot about the process. It doesn't mean you have insider information or anything that covert.
What you are missing here, is that I don't need or have to 'learn' anything from you of all people. I don't post low class smears on people in my own party...you do. That is all I have to know.
There is a difference in insider information and having years of involvement in politics because your family or husband's family have been or are in politics. It makes you learn a lot about the process. It doesn't mean you have insider information or anything that covert.
You haven't seemed to learn to quit while you're ahead. If you disagree with me--great. Give me a logical, intelligent reason WHY you disagree and I'll listen. Name calling me or anyone else because you can't think of anything else to say, and it makes you mad, just makes people laugh and discount everything you have to say. Is that what you want?
As far as your family being actively involved in politics--that's wonderful. This is a political board. Most people who are drawn to talking about issues tend to be very active on them in their communities and states as well, and having very extensive personal experience in that area is probably way more common here than you think.
Back to Romney--I think we're past the point in this country of rallying the troops to protect flawed candidates because it's good for the party. I care more about what's good for the country. We're dealing with some of the most difficult circumstances this country has faced in a lifetime, and we need to have open and honest conversations about who is the best candidate to get us out of this mess and why. It's not always pretty, but you can't make good choices without it. Not talking about Romney's flaws isn't going to fix them, because the other side is going to go for the jugular.
He also cannot win this nomination.
President Cain is more than able, and we are going to barely "save this Republic" as founded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
