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.
What's impressive about someone who has managed to make stupid undecided voters believe his lies? Do you mean that his degree of dishonesty is impressive? It's like saying Jerry Sandusky is impressive in the way that he was able to molest so many young boys and get away with it. Gee that is impressive!
So you're comparing Mitt Romney to Jerry Sandusky the child molester? And you call the undecided voters stupid.....puhleeze
What's impressive about someone who has managed to make stupid undecided voters believe his lies? Do you mean that his degree of dishonesty is impressive? It's like saying Jerry Sandusky is impressive in the way that he was able to molest so many young boys and get away with it. Gee that is impressive!
Tabatha,
It was tongue-in-cheek. I am actually shocked he may actually win the election considering how many times he's flip flopped on issues!
I don't know about that. In fact, the guy pretty much redefined the term "victory." He also seemed to change his mind about WMDs in that he was confident they existed in Iraq, and then he wasn't.
Kind of like John Kerry voting for war before he voted against it? Or was it the other way around?
I wouldn't say that having a deficit is always a bad thing (the US Government has run a deficit consistently since the 1980s, with the exception of a few years between 1998-2001 when Clinton briefly balanced the budget).
Actually since about 1970, when LBJ's Vietnam War spending and his "Great Society" welfare programs ended up costing much more than planned. Remember all the talk during the 1980 presidential election about deficit spending?
Remember, when Romney changes/alters a position it's flip-flopping. When Obama does it, it's called "evolving".
LindavG, I don't mean to pick on you, but I'd like to address your post in particular since you succinctly summed up an accusation raised with some frequency during the current campaign. When Romney was governor here, I didn't make it a way of life to follow everything he did and said, any more than I do with any political leader, so I can't necessarily go into a lot of detail about all of these points, but I'll try to hit most of them broadly, one at a time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
He had moderate positions on many issues when he was governor of Massachusetts but he completely flip-flopped when he decided to run for President. Examples:
- First pro-choice, now pro-life
This change actually happened WHILE he was governor, so not the best example to use if someone wants to paint him as conveniently leaning one way while governor of a leftward-leaning state and then the opposite way when he sought the Republican presidential nomination. As I understand it, this change in views happened at a time that Governor Romney was researching possible legislation about stem cell research or something along these lines, with the shift in positions to a significant degree resulting from Romney's learning details of actually what happened to fetuses with abortions, stem cell research, etc.
I'm in my fifties, and I certainly don't hold exactly the same views I did in my teens, twenties, thirties, etc. Not only have my views on some issues changed as I've matured and gained a greater understanding of life, but sometimes now I think deeply about questions it never even occurred to me to think about at all in my teens. In a similar way, this change of view about abortion appears to be based on a change in understanding about the issue in Romney's mature years, not political expediency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First pro-tough gun laws, now lifelong member of the NRA
My recollection is that this was more a matter of setting priorities, and not setting it as a high priority to try and change the established gun laws in this state (which probably would have been a waste of time to try to do anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First pro-universal health care as a model for the country, now against
He has stated clearly that he still believes this was the right move for this state, but does not feel the federal government should impose this on every state as blanket policy. I'm unsure of all the details, but apparently there are also some differences in the details between so-called Romneycare and so-called Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First pro-economic stimulus and government bail outs, now says it was a terrible idea
This is one of those issues I mentioned at the beginning of the post that I wasn't highly aware of when Romney was governor. A general observation I'll make is that what works at the state level will not always work at the federal level, and vice versa.
As far as Romney's stated position on this during the presidential race, this quote from LindavG's post is an example of how easy it is to spin, or misunderstand, a candidate's views if you just generally categorize his views on a broad type of issue, rather than considering the details.
Romney has made it clear that he sees a role for the government in providing financial stimulus to certain broad fields within industry that might be struggling but are important in our economy, with a careful plan and close management of the plan's implementation, but is against simply throwing money at individual businesses which either are in industries a political official favors as kind of a pet area (as with Obama and green energy) or have not made any changes that demonstrate the likelihood of their managing the bailout funds any better than they did their own funds when they got into a mess in the first place.
What this basically amounts to is that Romney is in favor of bailouts in some cases when this is handled in the way he views as the right way, but is against doing it Obama's way. That's not at all the same thing as saying that he said he was for it, then said he was against it. More like he's for one way of handling this situation, but not another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First against lobbying and believes the association between money and politics is wrong, now accepts tens of millions of dollars from corporations and interest groups for his campaign
Ya know, you can't get elected without funds. Sad but true. There is a certain reality here. Only Romney knows whether he would prefer that this were not true, but it is true. And there is a significant difference between the campaign contributions you have to have if you want to have any hope of being elected in the first place and the backroom deals made in face-to-face meetings between professional lobbyists and those who already hold elected office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First pro-amnesty for illegal immigrants, now argues for "self-deportation"
Going back to my statement at the beginning of the post, about not following every move by every political leader in every detail, this is one where I truly have no idea about what Romney's past positions were on the issue. I will at least point out that you need to be careful to look at the details of what a candidate says about one particular issue, not assume that his views on one specific issue mean that he absolutely must then be consistent on other issues in that general category or else he's flip-flopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LindavG
- First advocate for gay rights and against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', now says DADT seems to have worked but it's up to the military to decide
This one is the reason I quoted Busterkeaton at the top of the post. I can't be sure that you're endorsing Obama over Romney, but this might be reasonably assumed to be implicit in a criticism of one candidate in a political race. Given Obama's "evolving" views on this group of issues, this would seem to be a bad one to use as the basis for criticizing Romney.
The reality is that Governor Romney spoke against the idea of including same-sex couples in marriage. That became the law in this state as a result of a ruling by the state supreme court. When it became clear that this was going to stand, Romney suggested a compromise involving civil unions in lieu of marriage, which by the way many state legislators proposed. When the state supreme court made it clear that they were adamant that same-sex couples be included in MARRIAGE--that no other similar arrangement would suffice--the state political officials who had suggested some form of civil union backed away from this, apparently realizing this was a done deal.
However, Romney did push for enforcement of an old state law barring marriage in MA involving residents of other states who would not be eligible to be married in their own states. Of course there are many who would see this opposition to the extension of marriage to include same-sex couples as a negative, but it can hardly be said that Romney in the past was universally in favor of the entire set of issues falling under the umbrella labeled "gay rights."
Romney's position on DADT is another area I don't really know about. I will say that I'd be interested in knowing when he expressed the views LindavG described. If, for example, Romney expressed a certain view at the time DADT was first proposed or enacted, and a seemingly different view after the policy had been in effect for some time, that would be an example of the executive ability to evaluate, then later to re-evaluate, with a flexible mindset--a positive trait in a leader.
Some of this is an example of a point I made above, the point being that you have to look at details of a person's views on individual issues, not just expect someone to always lean the same way on any issue that falls into a certain broad group of issues. As a hypothetical example, it would be entirely possible for a governor to oppose the inclusion of same-sex couples in marriage, but on the other hand favor domestic partner benefits in his state, or favor allowing municipalities in the state to provide these benefits if they chose.
If you look at this only generally, you might assume that a person must lean the same way on each individual issue that falls into the general category labeled "gay rights." If you make this assumption, you're likely to view this hypothetical governor as a flip-flopper. After all, in the case of the marriage issue he was against "gay rights," but then suddenly he was for "gay rights" regarding domestic partner benefits. The fact is that they are separate issues, and it's entirely reasonable for the same person to lean one way on one issue and the opposite way on the other, despite the fact that both issues fall into the same general category.
It's unfortunate that the kind of highly intelligent person, capable of complex thinking that allows understanding of the nuances of issues, expresses exactly the kinds of complicated thoughts which can easily be spun simplistically into the idea that he's a flip-flopper. What you may really be looking at is the kind of ability to engage in deep, complex thought that would be a very positive trait to have in a president. Do I claim to know for sure that this describes Romney? No. But at least consider the possibility, because if you look at his accomplishments in business, the Olympics, balancing the state budget as governor, etc., it's clear that he's no dummy. That then leads to the real possibility that he is exactly the kind of complex thinker I'm talking about.
In any case, take a look at Obama. The guy who was going to balance the budget, who described it as "unpatriotic" to run huge budget deficits, who has in a bit less than four years overseen a 60 percent increase in the national debt. The guy who talked about no red states, no blue states, only the United States, who as president has totally snubbed Republicans and pretty much refused to deal with them at all, and who has steered taxpayers' money toward his pet projects (green energy) and those particular groups who strongly support him (labor unions). The guy who was going to bring a whole new transparency to the presidency, who has turned out to be probably the most secretive president since Nixon. The guy with the "evolving" views on gay issues. It's really kind of laughable for Obama's supporters to display straight faces when they hit his opponent with accusations of being a flip-flopper.
Goolsbyjazz, just curious . . . why did you start this thread? Are you trying to decide which candidate to vote for, or are you just curious about how people here view Romney (even though, as you might have expected, the posts in this thread show a wide range of views)?
Regarding Romney as governor of MA, well, he did turn a budget deficit into a surplus. It's interesting to note that he did this partly by doing what he has proposed to advocate as president, namely, simplifying the corporate tax code to reduce the number of loopholes.
Look at this success with managing the state's budget, Romney's success as a corporate CEO, and the way he turned around the Olympics when they were dealing with both budget troubles and scandal, and it is clear that he lives up to his claim of being a capable executive. In fact, he may have been rather modest in his own descriptions of his ability as an executive. All indications are that he's not just capable in this area, but highly so.
Whether that means he can deal with foreign policy, social issues, and any other issues that require something other than pure managerial capability is an unanswered question at this point. That leaves the question of whether you want to continue with Obama or go with an unknown when it comes to those issues lying outside the pure realm of executive skills. Personally, I think that as president, Obama has been an abysmal failure across the board, but of course your mileage may vary. Given my view of Obama, though, it's an easy choice for me to go with Romney, whose abilities in some areas are a bit of an unknown, but who has proven to be highly capable in those areas where his accomplishments are known.
Goolsbyjazz, just curious . . . why did you start this thread? Are you trying to decide which candidate to vote for, or are you just curious about how people here view Romney (even though, as you might have expected, the posts in this thread show a wide range of views)?
Regarding Romney as governor of MA, well, he did turn a budget deficit into a surplus. It's interesting to note that he did this partly by doing what he has proposed to advocate as president, namely, simplifying the corporate tax code to reduce the number of loopholes.
Look at this success with managing the state's budget, Romney's success as a corporate CEO, and the way he turned around the Olympics when they were dealing with both budget troubles and scandal, and it is clear that he lives up to his claim of being a capable executive. In fact, he may have been rather modest in his own descriptions of his ability as an executive. All indications are that he's not just capable in this area, but highly so.
Whether that means he can deal with foreign policy, social issues, and any other issues that require something other than pure managerial capability is an unanswered question at this point. That leaves the question of whether you want to continue with Obama or go with an unknown when it comes to those issues lying outside the pure realm of executive skills. Personally, I think that as president, Obama has been an abysmal failure across the board, but of course your mileage may vary. Given my view of Obama, though, it's an easy choice for me to go with Romney, whose abilities in some areas are a bit of an unknown, but who has proven to be highly capable in those areas where his accomplishments are known.
Ogre, I pretty much know who I will vote for. I am a former newspaper reporter and wanted to get some perspective from people who lived under Romney's leadership in Massachusetts. I did expect to hear the various viewpoints which have been great. I also find politics very interesting and this election, in particular, has not disappointed in that area.
The fact Romney was governor of MA, just that simple fact impacts - Mass has a crazy-mania-liberal rep nationwide.
No matter the election outcome, it's heartening to see a general move of most coming to their senses regarding Obama.
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.
Given my view of Obama, though, it's an easy choice for me to go with Romney, whose abilities in some areas are a bit of an unknown, but who has proven to be highly capable in those areas where his accomplishments are known.
