November 08, 2010
Thinking About Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney has the good looks of a President cast in Hollywood. His wife, Ann, would make an attractive first lady and, politically crass as it sounds, her multiple sclerosis would gain sympathy in a campaign. All five sons are handsome, successful and married to beautiful women. Eleven grandchildren round out the perfect family. His undergraduate college years (first two at Stanford, last two and degree at Brigham Young) demonstrated his academic skills, graduating first in his class. Harvard's joint business masters/law degrees program followed, this time in the top five percent of graduates.
In the business world, he worked for a consulting firm and started his own capital management company that was instrumental in launching several highly successful startups, Staples and Domino's Pizza to name two. When the Salt Lake City Olympics got into trouble, Mitt took the reins and is credited with saving the event from financial and organizational collapse.
In politics, his father, George, served three two-year terms as Republican governor of Michigan and sought the White House in 1968. Son Mitt ran for the U.S. Senate against Teddy Kennedy in 1994, led for a while in to polls, but ultimately lost by 17 percentage points. Mitt sought elective office again in 2002. This time he won and became the 70th Governor of Massachusetts. Facing likely defeat in 2006, Romney did not run for reelection but was soon on the trail in pursuit of the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. He lost out to John McCain but is widely expected to try again in 2012. He certainly has the resume and the skills but there are some problems.
Oddly, Romney's "Father Knows Best" (TV sitcom from the fifties) family gives some people pause. Maybe a good sex scandal would help soften the "too good to be true" persona. Former Senator and John Kerry running mate, John Edwards, who had a similar quandary, could put in a good word for him at the National Inquirer.
He is a member of an American home-grown religion, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, better known as the Mormons. Although Mitt says Jesus is his Lord and Savior, many Christians consider Mormonism a cult. This is because the LDS theology is at variance with orthodox Christianity as defined by the creeds and other Christian statements of faith.
He probably could get by the faith issue, America is more tolerant than in years past, but his core political philosophy will be a tougher nut to crack. As a candidate in past campaigns, he took some decidedly liberal stands on issue such as abortion, gay rights and immigration. He now touts himself as a conservative especially on financial matters but to claim the conservative mantle, he has flip-flopped on several aforementioned social issues. He may be able to slip by this by arguing he has learned his lesson since his days as a Republican candidate in one of the bluest of blue states.
The one signature program of his tenure as the Bay State governor has come back to haunt him. That is the Massachusetts Healthcare Law. Many consider it the model for Obamacare. Unfortunately, costs have far exceeded projections and the program is in jeopardy. When asked about it, Romney tends to obfuscate sounding like a typical politician who won't answer the question. There is something about him that says, "Slick" and it may turn off more than a few potential supporters.
If Mitt Romney hopes to be President of the United States, he must develop solid answers to the above problems. Meanwhile, among others, Governors Mitch Daniels - Indiana, Chris Christie - New Jersey, Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota and Bob McDonnell - Virginia are rumored to be looking at running. Any one of them would be a strong competitor for the top of the Republican ticket. Mr. Romney has his work cut out for him.
Posted by warrenpeterson at November 08, 2010
07:32 PM | Email This
Cross posted on: Clear Fog Blog
Romney and his millions won't win it. Last time out Huckabee, basically with no name and no money, got a late start but if he had money to begin with would have knocked Romney out earlier. Now Romney's only hope is that Palin and Huckabee both run and split their supporters and not too many other good candidates run.
Both Christie and Jeb Bush would probably take up Romney's votes. Huckabee and Palin would be in the 20s - 30s each as long as they stay in. So as long as there are lots of viable candidates Palin and Huckabee both could be picking up delegates equal to or more than others.
Pawlenty is going nowhere, Daniels and McDonnell, either and Pence likely not.
The only thing going for Romney is that he and his supporters won't be shy about crushing his competition early through leaked stories to the media and badmouthing. However, that didn't get him far enough last time.
2. All in all, a pretty accurate write-up -- except that he has 15 grandchildren currently. Romney is undoubtedly the most qualified person to lead our country back to an economic superpower. It would be a shame to pass up a man as knowledgable as Gov. Romney because you disagree with his religious preference.
3. All in all, a pretty accurate write-up -- except that he has 15 grandchildren currently. Romney is undoubtedly the most qualified person to lead our country back to an economic superpower. It would be a shame to pass up a man as knowledgable as Gov. Romney because you disagree with his religious preference.
There are a lot of very unpleasant aspects to the LDS church (read the excellent 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer) that would be brought up more and weigh heavily on voters minds as it got closer to election time.
Amazingly enough, I don't think there are any Republican candidates at the moment with a very good chance of beating Obama.
I guess it makes senes, it his Mitt's turn this time around. I mean, that's why we ran Bob Dole and that worked out so well.
Sorry, no, Mitt dosn't connect with most people and comes off as both soft and weak. The GOP can't just run the next person on the list again, they need to acutaly work to pick someone who can... you know, WIN.
The party needs to learn the lessons from 1996 and not just go with someone because his name finaly made it to the top of the list. It's been the plan for years and it usualy fails.
6. I consider Mitt Romney a better choice than John McCain but, in no way would he be my choice. Like McCain, Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper. Flip-floppers usually will state an opinion of policy and when they realize that there is some public sentiment against their position they flip-flop. That's what your typical politician does that has little to no principles along with wisdom and understanding. Plus, he is responsible for so-called Romneycare which is the same as Obamacare. That alone disqualifies him for President...PERIOD!
7. Romney doesn't excite me, though he is surely qualified for this job. Would rather see someone else but don't know who it should be at this. I like Chris Cristie, but I think NJ needs him at this time and he should wait til 2016, simply for that reason. But I really, really like his style and would love to see him as prez.
8. @4, jstar...Obama is destroying his appeal and his party as rapidly as any president in the history of the U.S. Unfortunately, he is destroying America as well. The question is...What candidate could the Republicans run that would lose to Obama?
As Michele noted, Romney is certainly technically qualified in all respects. Whether he can get enough people in enough primaries excited enough to vote for him in another go-round over as-yet unknown competitors is more of an open question. And as Warren noted: The Mass. Health Care thing ain't working out so well in practice, and Mitt can't avoid his association with that program.
Mitch Daniels has a record of competence across the board; although he's a bit lacking in the charisma factor. Then again: After ''hope & change'' by our current community-organizer in chief crashed and burned, maybe competence will be more valuable political currency in 2012. Mitch is high on my list.
But I also still like LA Gov. Bobby Jindal. Yeah; I know: He made one bad speech; IMO because he listened to the professional political handlers who pressed him to keep it simple and talk slow. Remember that Bill Clinton made an absolutely horrendus speech at the 1988 (D) National convention, and he came back in 1992.
Chris Christie is a great guy, but he's new at that level. And FWIW in his case I believe him when he sez that he is NOT gonna run for Pres in 2012.
Tim Pawlenty is almost certainly going to run; seems like a good guy; don't know if he can generate widespread enthusiasm.
An easier call for top of the VP list; assuming he lives up to the high expectations in his 1st 2 years in the Senate: Marco Rubio. If he does really well, he might even make a run at the top of the ticket. Nikki Haley of SC might be in the race for VP too; another smart young (R) Gov.
Oh; yeah: Then there's Ms. Sarah. I'm guessing she's probably gonna run; although I won't bet the ranch. She generates incredible enthusiasm among her partisans. Unfortunately, she also generates equal if not greater concern and worry among large number of Independents (not to mention even the bluest of Blue-Dog (D)s); that the (R) candidate has to win in order to beat Obama.
My summary take:
There are at least a few and probably several potential (R) candidates for Pres in 2012 that have a considerably better chance to beat Obama in the General, compared to Sarah Palin. Remember what happened to and with Sharron Angle, Ken Buck, and especially Christine O'Donnell:
Winning the nomination is not enough.
10. Mitt is the best choice for the economy. That fact alone earns my vote.
Doug, Huckabee didn't almost win anything; nor would he have come any closer than he did had he had more campaign cash earlier. In fact, despite all the favoritism afforded him by media, Huckabee never raked in the cash. Personally, though, he did. I recall he even left the campaign trail on a couple of occassions to do speeches for personal income thanks to his newfound spotlight. And since, of course, he's parlayed that into the celebrity of a tv show.
There's not a single thing wrong with any of that. But what is wrong is the claim that Huckabee came in second in 2008, that he would've done better had he raised more money sooner (since he never had material donations even after his fame), and mostly that he is electable on a national level. Despite how ubiquitious Huckabee was in national media, with his charm and humor, he was only ever a regional candidate. That is, he did well only in one geographic area of the country.
In contrast, Romney did well everywhere. He had the most secondplace finishes, and second-most firstplace finishes. He raised money from everywhere, too. Unlike Huckabee, he ended his campaign when he was mathematically eliminated, while Huckabee refused to aknowledge the futility of his own campaign, which had long been shot prior to Romney's. But that wasn't Huckabee's point; he went on SNL, even, and joked about it. Huckabee was after the spotlight, the fame, the new career, not the Presidency. Mike knows he can't be President. He's more than happy to be on the fringe, earning all the money from the sidelines. And there's nothing wrong with that, but you have to recognzie reality.
12. James is right, Mitt is the most qualified. So he made a few silly choices in his early political career but he changed. You can't tell me guys that you haven't changed you mind ever. Let's get behind him and get Obama out of there so we can get our country back. Mitt will probably want just one term anyway and that will make the tea party happy.
13. Thank you Dan, I couldn't have said it any better. The reality is, who is going to get us out of this mess we're in...Mitt, who will get the economy growing again...Mitt, who will bring respect to the office of the Presidency...Mitt. Obama has been trying to discredit Mitt and not the other republicans...why? Maybe Mitt is the real threat to Obama? Come on guys lets band together and unite in one effort and back Mitt Romney and get Obama out.
We need to review the length of court time involved in these oil spills . Mitt Romney is thinking about president in 2012 .How will he ezplain the ongoing oil spill lawsuits in Massachusetts ?
Mitt Romney was the 70th Governor of Massachusetts from Jan 2,2003 to Jan 4,2007. During his one term the Buzzards Bay oil spill happened during April 2003 .
On April 27, 2003, eight years ago the Bouchard Barge B-120 hit an obstacle in Buzzards Bay, creating a 12-foot rupture in its hull and discharging an estimated 100,000 gallons of No. 6 oil. The oil is known to have affected an estimated 90 miles of shoreline, killed 450 numerous bird species, and recreational use of the bay, such as shell fishing and boating.
Since the 2003 oil spill the US Coast Guard has appealed the 2004 Massachusetts Oil Spill Prevention Act and one Massachusetts property damage lawsuit has dragged on for eight years. Republican Mitt Romney is laying the groundwork for a possible White House campaign in 2012, hiring a team of staff members and consultants.
Mitt Romney signs Mass healthcare bill
Ford builds Edsels
Ah, no thanks.......
The questions raised about Mitt Romney have been answered but I doubt people are really "wanting" to listen. Those who have ears to hear more truth than fiction might enjoy this
I do believe though that a person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still.
With those words in mind...it is my opinion after watching/studying Romney for three years, that he is our best hope. I have frequented
often and found it honest and what I deem accurate
I got a notice of this page from a Google Alert for Multiple Sclerosis.
It states that Mitt Romney's wife, who has MS, would be good for the sympathy vote, basically.
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. I saw a man with MS ask her about medical marijuana and she walked away and rolled her eyes.
This girl with MS was NOT impressed with that attitude. I have (and had) many friends with MS in my 20 years and if they can keep people alive longer, then let them be comfortable as well.
But do not insult people by rolling your eyes.
Mitt Romney is a capable administrator and likely would be a good leader, but he is way too eager to please. There is a lack of genuinity to him. Mitt's flip flops on issues over the years demonstrate that. There is a lack of geunuinity to Barack Obama too, but he managed to hide it better.
Mitt Romney has to speak candidly about his passions, his goals for the country, deal with Romneycare vs. Obamacare, and explain and sell us why he is the guy to lead us. Get us to believe. Romney's core problem is the same problem Pawlenty has, they don't fire up people to follow them.
As for being LDS, a small minority will never vote for a Mormon, but that can be overcome. That is a challenge, just like JFK had to covercome, but not an insurmountable hurdle.
19. To all those Mitt Romney supporters...What has Romney done for Massachusetts? Is there anything that you can brag about? Is there anything that is so good that it can offset his Romneycare that is failing Massachusetts?
20. I suspect the 2012 republican candidate for president will be someone who is not yet on our radar screens. It won't be Mitt Romney and I doubt it will be Sarah Palin.
Daniel, when Romney entered as Governor of MA, the state was $3B in debt. After one term, Romney left the state with just over $300M in surplus. That is, while adding the healthcare system you foolishly deride and decry - oh, without raising taxes, by the bye.
Mitt's the first person to tell you that Commonwealth Care isn't perfect (not coincidentally what's most burdensome about it are things he originally vetoed, only to see the 85%-Democrat state Legislature override the vetos), but trying to make it one and the same with Obamacare is shameless. Polling of support for CC indicates that, across the entire spectrum of poor to wealthy, those in Mass. are happy with it. Some costs have gone up, and ahead of projections, yes. But they are in no way far outside of projections. They are in no way jeopardizing the system. Premiums, to credit it a bit, have come down and the number of insureds has increased to 98%.
Everyone recognizes is THE issue antiRomneys have to exploit. That's not bad for him and it's not nearly as good for you as you think because, all in all, Commonwealth care represents 1.5% of the MA state budget. So, while it's in no way perfect and can certainly be improved upon, it is no albatross for Romney nationally. In fact, I'd wager it'll turn into a positive.
Romney? ....just another big-spending, big government "compassionate" conservative. Reading some of the above comments I've come to realize:
1. how we got into the economic mess we're presently in.
2. how we got stuck with McCain on the ballot in '08.
3. why conservatives stayed home in droves in '08.
4. why Dimocrats presently occupy the White House
C'mon, people, we can do much better than Romney. Don't let limp-wristed moderates and the leftist media dictate our ticket in '12.
Come on...Attila. Do you really think that someone who has not been mention, will appear at the last moment and take the election for the GOP? Get Real!
Let me make a prediction: Sarah Palin WILL be part of the team that will take Obama down.
24. Hey Dan...First of all, Obamacare is based on Romneycare. Secondly, Romneycare is failing to meet its promises and obligations and costs are going up. It does support abortion at taxpayers expense. Naturally, the numbers of insured is going to increase with the taxpayers forced to pay for it. It's a Socialist Rip-Off and anybody forcing anybody to buy anything, let alone to pay for some body's abortion is a Crime against Liberty and Principle. Plus, there are many things Romney has flipped on. Not just once per item but, several times on some items. What does that tell you? Once again, he is responsible for so-called Romenycare which is the same as Obamacare. That alone disqualifies him for President...PERIOD!
25. @jstar 'Under the Banner of Heaven' by Jon Krakauer???? Are you serious??? Jon Krakauer could not even write a good book about mountain climbing which he is good at. I read his book and found so many things a miss and twisted to meet his point of view. That book has been reviewed by many different sources and found to be so inaccurate. As a member of the Church I found myself saying so often.. "Really.. is that what I believe???" "Wow.. I didn't know I believe that!!!" He is so off the mark it is not funny. But hey.. if you want to find out about Mormons.. or Catholics.. or Muslims.. why would you go to someone who doesn't believe what they believe? Really.. with all the ANTI Mormon books out there.. why do we need one more?
26. Why would we want a big government republican as our candidate when the public is demanding small government candidates?
Good write up. A couple of points to watch in regards to his Mormon faith. Will he be called to take stand on controversial quasi-Mormon writings, like those from Beck's favorite author, Cleon Skousen. How about Beck's "white horse prophecy" reference? Where does Mitt stand on these controversial parts of his faith?
What is it with you Republicans? Maybe that Democrat ad is right, "XXXX is going to eat your children, vote for the Democrat?"
Romney is the anti-Obama. Every president is the antithesis of the one before him. He is good lucking and competent. Our country needs competent.
Mitch Daniels would be the anti-Obama. People are sick of the schtick.
Obamacare is bad. Romneycare is good.
This is why I am no longer a Republican. The Republicans are a bunch of socialists too. At least the Democrats don't lie about what they are.
And I think it is sick how you just support the Republicans regardless. If Obama was a Republican you would support him too. Because deep down you don't care about the issues. You just want to "win".
You are as destructive to America as the Democrats are. In fact the Progressives couldn't have done all the things they have done to this country without you!
30. CNR: But don't you see... Romneycare is good because the alternative is something horrible like Obamacare. Do you want Obamacare? :)
Obama stole his Obamacare from Romney. It is just Romney's plan enacted on a Federal level for all of America.
I would rather have Obama than Romney. When a Republican socialist is in office conservative opposition is muted (got to support our guy right). At least with Obama people are waking up to what he is and are rallying against him and to progressivism/socialism.
In many ways Republican progressives scare me more than progressive Democrats. Unlike progressive Democrats, progressive Republicans know how to "turn up the heat gradually" (using the frog in the boiling water story).
I will also go on record as saying, Romney would not win, nor would I ever support him. The field for President from the GOP looks strong in 2016, but less so in 2012. Michael Medved is discussing this at length. Marco Rubio will be ready by then for one thing. Chris Christie is NOT running for President in 2012 !
There are other GOP's that are stronger with a better chance to win than Romney, such as Thune, Pawlenty, Daniel and possibly another dark horse. In short, it is better that no one who ran in 2008 runs from the GOP in 2012. Obama believes that Huckabee will most likely be his opponent in 2012 - not likely.
Daniel, ... and the New Testament's based off the Old Testament, yet the will of God is completely different in each. In MA, Commonwealth Care is not any crime against liberty or principle; it's legal and it enjoys the support of the people of that state. Nationally, Obamacare is not supported by the people of the nation and it is unconstitutional. You lose on the basis of state rights versus federal abuse of power. End of argument.
Furthermore, you admit that insureds in MA rose, but refuse to acknowledge premiums have come down - which is by a factor near 50%, fyi. And again, we're talking about 1.5% the state budget. If you don't like it, don't live in MA. Don't like Obamacare, too bad. CC provides subsidies to those who don't have employer-provided medical insurance and cannot afford it on their own. Obamacare seeks to create a public option, or a government insurance company, in effect. That is night and day. Argue this one on the merits, not on apples to oranges, bud.
Name more of Romney's 'plenty' of flips. No one flipped more than McCain in 2008. Maybe Obama, but the point is the only powder anyone had on Romney back then was meagerly breaking out the flip flop labelmaker. Back then, "republicans" weren't against what he'd done to improve the state of healthcare in MA. (By the way, some 37 other states have and are studying it, to adopt elements of it or reject others in how they plan to deal with the state of medical insurance in their own states.) Not even the ones running against him, mind you. Instead, all they did was echo the liberal media who insisted he was a flip flopper. They pointed to, to what? Abortion.
Well, Romney in 2005 wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe explaining his change of position to being pro-Life. IT happened when he sided with life in the stem cell debate, which landed on his desk as Governor. You and I can speculate all you want, but given who he is, the life he leads, the family he has, it's more likely he ran for Gov. with no real attention to that debate since Governors play no real role in it. Yet, when he was in position where he could, he came down on the side of life. He explained himself. I don't think he was ever truly pro-Choice, but who cares since he made the right play and, at the very least, is a convert to our side -- isn't that the point of the whole debate?
Face it, in the 2008 and current climate of cultural identity being paramount, not even Ronald Reagan would've been our nom. Afterall, you, Daniel, would disqualify him on 2 grounds according to your logic: he was once pro-choice, and the second is that he committed what you'd consider the ultimate flip-flop since, before he was Republican, he was a LIFE-LONG Democrat. And, peering into Reagan's presidency, he did raise some taxes, too.
Cooler heads prevail in 2012. We shouldn't be trying to knock any of our potential candidates down.
Why do conservatives do this to themselves repeatedly? Bob Dole? John McCain? Mitt Romney?
For crying out loud, why don't we just all get behind Lindsey Graham as our nominee in 2012?
We have all kinds of rising stars in the Republican Party. In my opinion the best of them is Chris Christie. Christie has a serious conservative backbone, and has no trouble explaining why he believes in conservative principles. And we're talking about Romney? Why don't we just fall on our own swords?
36. Dan...Your first part of your first sentence stating that the New Testament is based off the Old Testament is True. Your second second part of the first sentence saying the will of God is completely different in each is not True for Christ stated: He did not come to destroy the law and the prophets rather, He came to fulfill them. Also, why would the New Testament need to have anything to do with the Old Testament at all let alone be based off the Old Testament? Your fundamental belief in the Old Testament in relation to the New Testament is faulty at best. I would venture to guess that you are a Mormon. Is that right?
You also, state that in MA, Commonwealth Care is not any crime against liberty or principle because, it is legal and it enjoys the support of the people of that state. What a Crock! There are plenty of so-called legal laws, regulations and codes both Federal and State that are unconstitutional across this Nation and are therefore Mute. Your CC or Romneycare IS illegal/unconstitutional because, it forces people to buy health insurance or be fined if they don't. It forces people to pay for abortion as well. Yes, it certainly IS a Crime against Liberty, Purse and Principle whether, it would be Federal or State. Then, you make your final statement of the paragraph that I lose on the bases of State Rights versus Federal abuse of power. Again, What a Crock! You definitely are not dealing with the Truth. The Truth is Romneycare is costing the State a whole lot more than, what was thought or planned for. It is proving to be untenable and the so-called premiums are to be accelerate UP to meet the runaway cost.
As far as Romney being a Flip Flopper, it is well established by numerous recorded examples of public record. You want to see a list...Just, Google it. There are plenty of them to see.
Naah...There are better people out there to choose from than, Romney...PERIOD!
37. "He probably could get by the faith issue, America is more tolerant than in years past"
Yeah, right. Howard Hughes, Yes. Surrounded himself with LDS because of their book-honesty.
But Fundamentalists? Think again. Grew up with this lot, and they'll stay home before voting LDS. Cult status = single issue disqualification despite common values. Sad but true.
Roger Williams (theologian), John Locke and Jefferson sound reeeeeeal good right about now
Daniel, I'm not mormon. Nor christian or jew, muslim, hindu or buddhist. If anything, I'd say deist, meaning I believe in God based on the existence of life, the universe and probability.
The Bible may say Jesus said one thing or the other, same with the Book of Mormon or Koran. My point is it matters very little. What matters is honor, merit and being and doing good. When no one's looking. My understanding of the OT vs. NT isn't booksmart at all. But elemental to the OT is a vengeful God. In the NT it is one of forgiveness. Therefore, the will is complete opposite.
On the difference of CC and Obamacare, we won't agree since you refuse to acknowledge the legality of the former contrasted to the unconstitutionality of the latter. And failing to provide examples of your flipflopping allegations is just that, a failure.
There may be better candidates than Mitt for 2012. We'll see. My wager is there is not. Petraeus, as Tim said, I'd agree with entirely; we need another Eisenhower. Christie, maybe. But '12's likely too soon for him. AS it is for Paul Ryan. Yawnplenty, er, Pawlenty's down there in the alsorans with Huckabee and Jindal and Palin.
Well, Dan your a deist. You should read the Bible and not make assumptions that may have been placed in your ear by others and along with your own misconceptions. God is a loving God. He wants man to do right rather than, wrong. Yes, there is a price to pay if you continue to do wrong. The Old Testament gave the law to man which includes the Ten Commandments. These things are explained in the Bible. If God did not love man then, why did he bother to create man? Why does he bother to tell man the best way to live? Life is a school for man as well as a chance for man, who is given free will, to prove himself as to whether, he chooses to be someone of value or not. Whether, he chooses to do right or wrong. Yes, bad things can happen if you refuse to follow the tenets of the Lord. It's your choice. God is a forgiving God in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. After all, he did show mercy to the Israelites when they were worshiping the Golden Calf when, Moses returned from Mt. Sinai. There are a number of other examples as well. The New Testament is based on God's giving his only begotten son to die on the cross for our sins so, that through him we can have everlasting life. So read the Bible and seek the Truth for the Truth shall set you free.
Your take on Petraeus is highly suspect. Most so-call military men at the higher levels of rank have gotten there not, because of their military skills but, because of their political skills. A good military general is extremely rare. Most are just, politicians wearing a military uniform. After all we have had well over a 150,000 troops equipped with the best weapons and we can't defeat 10 or 15 thousand insurgents? What a Laugh!
Bottom Line: Get over Romney, there are better than, he.
I admire your faith. I don't disparage anyone's. I recognize that those who regularly worship are generally happier, healthier, more successful, etc. When I attend, it's between episcopalian and methodist services, though I've been to others too. But I can't for a second claim that I am a true christian since it's dishonorable to say you believe something you doubt is true -- I'd rather be wrong before God than to walk in saying I believed something I doubted. I don't believe any words in any text is The Word of God. Fable, philsophy, legend, myth, law... but each form of faith claiming to be the only path to God? And in that regard, I deem all religions wrong.
And as it pertains to politics, we do our side the great misjustice of dividing ourselves because of parochialism despite our common values. I found myself defending mormonism for two years starting in late 2007 because of the bigotry of hypocritical fools on our own team. From what I observe, there's nothing really to criticize about mormons: they live clean, don't drink or smoke, marry young, have big families, work hard, are well-educated, amass wealth, are generous, proud and love America. I'd say their moral conditioning is, if not the, then certainly among the best of followers of all faith.
Considering Petraeus a viable and desireable candidate for President is suspect? He may not be Schwartzkopf or Patton, but he's no Powell or Wesley. Now, what is suspect is your notion that he and we, our military, couldn't defeat 'insurgents'. And at that you scoff. You have a conception problem here. The war as it has been and is being waged is an act of charity to the insurgents. (Maybe it's christlike?) You see, it's not as if we couldn't destroy them in a blink, just as we could've the Vietnamese. This is, effectively, the Middle East's last chance. We spill our blood to democratize them. It'll be one or two, maybe three, generations of effort, sacrifice and loss before we will know if it works. If it does not and terror strikes by islamicists continue and spread to soft targets, then the natural path of civilization will dictate what is essentially the Godfather Doctrine: if anything should happen to my children on their way to school, I'm holding you responsible. That is, whatever despot or pseudoroyal family is running whatever country over there will be held accountable for not containing their own people. Something in civilisation gets attacked, then we click on one of our 'best weapons' and take out a city. No troops. No reconstruction efforts. No apologies. This is nature's inevitable course -- that civilisation will be colder and more barbaric than barbarism could ever achieve in order to save itself. So, you know, you lol at what you think is our inablity to defeat a few insurgents, yet you miss the entire point; that's the only hilarity here.
41. Two sure recipes for defeat in 2012 - Palin and Romney. Either one would lose to an unpopular Obama. The TEA party will hopefully stay strong and keep anything stupid like that, (with all due respect) from happening. In order for Obama-losi care to be repealed and replaced, Prez BO must be defeated in 2012.
42. Dan...Your take on our ability to destroy the insurgents in the blink of an eye is simplistic and wrong. Yes, we could carpet bomb the area with nuclear weaponry and be done with it but, that's not the desirable way to wipe out a whole nation of innocent to get a few bad guys. No, there are other ways it can be done if it was done wisely. Unfortunately, our politicians and so-called military experts are not wise and also, not all that smart. It is our politicians that lost the Vietnam war and it is our politicians along with out military hierarchy that is screwing up the Mid-East war as well.
Let's observe some basic Truths. First...There is only one God and one God's truth. The reason there are so many religions is not because of God, it is because of man. Make sense so far? Yes, some churches claim to be the only path to God or claim to be the true church. That is wrong and it is man's doings and not, God's doing. However, the Bible has truth preserved within its pages and should be read whether, you are a Methodist, Catholic, Baptist, etc. Man is not perfect and neither are his churches. Yet, even though man and his churches are not perfect, God will be there for man and will be there for his churches as long as they are truly trying to seek and follow his word. God will give to those who believe in him and follow his word, the light to see truth where other men will remain in darkness. Some men will have a little light. Some men a lot more. Most of these men fall somewhere in between. Only, the few have this blessing of the light. Most men stand in darkness. If you wish to obtain this blessing of the light then, seek the Lord. Seek to do according to his teachings and pray for the light.
Bottom Line: You can be highly intelligent and well read but, without the light you still will be fumbling in the dark. Our institutions of higher learning are filled with professors who are as pointy head as they come. Food for thought...There is no man who is well known for not, for his intellect but, for his wisdom who does not believe in God.
43. Romney is going to lose if the GOP tries to run him in 2012. His silence on the current state of the US and the economy is very troubling. Where has he been? What has he been doing? What is his stance on the issues? The last thing the GOP needs is another weak RINO candidate.
44. Romney is going to lose if the GOP tries to run him in 2012. His silence on the current state of the US and the economy is very troubling. Where has he been? What has he been doing? What is his stance on the issues? The last thing the GOP needs is another weak RINO candidate.
45. Sure he was for gay rights and passed a health care bill when he was gov, and his dad ran AMC into the dirt, like he wanted to do to GM and Chrysler, you red's should love the flip flopper
46. Sure he was for gay rights and passed a health care bill when he was gov, and his dad ran AMC into the dirt, like he wanted to do to GM and Chrysler, you red's should love the flip flopper
47. Thinking about Mitt Romney gives me a migraine.
The politicians screw up everything, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. You can't lay that on the military; they're just doing what the powers that be allow. If our military were let loose, it' be a wrap.
Now, I have all the faith there is in God, so much so that I don't require any text or priest to back it up and reassure me. I've always recognized that religions are constructs of man, not God. I don't see how that was introduced into our conversation. I'll add to it, though, as it's my belief that God would dislike, more than any of us, any human disparaging any other's creed since, in his view, all religion is Man's attempt to reach God.
I also realized I mistakenly left out a crucial point from before. You (I think it was you) lamented why the GOP insists upon retreading losers, in essence. You cited Bob Dole and John McCain and then stated Mitt Romney's the next one of those. My answer to that is twofold: First, the atlernative is giving the keys to a rookie, which is what Democrats do on a feel good whim and BAM, we get stuck with Obama. Secondly, how many times did Reagan run before he won the GOP nomination? The answer is 3 times. It took Icon Ron 3 tries to secure the nom, before sweeping to an easy general election victory. Romney is a vastly superior general election candidate to both McCain and Dole. He could be better than Reagan was in that facet as well. His potential to be one of our better presidents is very ripe as well. I don't pull any punches and I don't disguise anything; I am a Romney die hard. I am because I think and believe he would be a great President, in large part due to the fact that his skillset and accomplishments happen seem the antidote to our present ills. In any event, let's not try to ruin our roster, Ok?
Dan...Your confidence in the military of being able to handle things easily and successfully if the politicians would just, step aside and let the military do its job is way over done. In the first place, there are not that many wise, bright, imaginative and people of good foresight wanting to remain in the military as a career. The prevailing climate in the military does not encourage the ambitions of such people. In fact, it discourages and prevents such people from moving forward within the military. In times of great Crisis is the only time you will get a reasonable amount of good people willing and wanting to remain in the military and serve out the need of a Nation under duress. At other times, those who can truly do it, will not remain and be hamstrung by the jealous and job protecting crap-heads that the military is so full of. After all, it is a Government entity were politics rule and where the truly capable are looked upon as a threat and are kept down. That's why the vast majority of the truly capable will soon turn away from Government and seek the Private Sector where they are more in control of their destiny and appreciated. No, the military is filled with politico types in the hierarchy and the other lessor career types are mostly made up of the dull, less enlighten and the go along to get along. As I said before, a good general is extremely rare in the military...PERIOD!
I'm glad you have faith in God. You are wrong to think that knowing what is written in the Bible is not important and will not serve you in your understanding as to where it is at. Here's a passage: You are to question, question everything for the world is full of deceit. You'll find that a lot of solid sayings of truth that are commonly used are from the scriptures. You are also, wrong in thinking God would dislike any human disparaging any others creed and in his view all religion is man's attempt to reach God. There are religions that are pagan and are devoted to idol worship and not to God. There are religions that have severely contaminated the word of God for reasons to exalt the founders of said religion to give them power and control over a multitude. Take Islam as an example. The plain fact is, there are some churches that preach a better truth than, others. It is up to you to try and select the better church. If you are knowledgeable in the Bible, for some, a church is not all that necessary for them. However, many others need and enjoy the assembly and the preaching from a good pastor. It benefits them, it feeds them and helps them live a more better and enjoyable life.
There are others who are available for the presidency that have superior faith, works and enlightenment than, Romney. It is up to you to check it out.
As you see it. But as I see it, there isn't a better prospect for Presidency among our known GOP talent. Availability means nothing. Electability is what matters first.
If faith, works and enlightenment are your primary criteria for presidential qualifications, then am I right to presume you're a Huckabee champion? I mean, if you're stating there are others whose standings in those qualities are 'superior' to Romney then, since he ran his entire campaign as a Baptist minister for President, Mike springs to mind. The problem with him - aside from his economic populism - is that he isn't a general election candidate, you see; he only did well in one, small geographic in the entire nation, which is well over 300M by now. This is why cultural identity won't win the day at the ballot box of the presidency.
Daniels, Thune, Pawlenty. . .of that group only Thune has a shot. Yawnplenty's horrible and Daniels is about as dynamic as Bloomberg. I'm high on Paul Ryan. He's by far the most promising of the younger generation of Republicans coming up through the ranks. Maybe he can advance his stature in time now that we have congress, but it's highly unlikely. Rubio'll be even another cycle away from that. At least, that's the way it should work: our guys accomplish stuff before they seek higher office, unlike what Democrats do. Maybe Marco will end up in the Vice President spot since he brings obvious advantages to whomever eventually wins the nomination.
But, the smart money remains solidly on Romney in '12 for obvious reasons. He's accomplished, organized, has the best infrastructure and fundraising ability, is sharp, a great debator, and he's an actual adult, too. That is, he's not out on the news sqwaking about every little issue whenever anything happens. He's always civil, also. Most importantly, he has the broadest appeal to voters of every stripe. He splits conservatives with others (Mitt has the lion's share of the economic conservative vote, about half of the national security take, one-quarter of the socials), but is way out in front among moderates, swings and independents. This is the group that sealed the wins for Bush in 2000 and 2004 and for Obama in 2008. Presently this middle ground of American voters is flocking from Obama. Romney, simply put, is the best chance to win in 2012 if the dynamics of today continue into the election.
It's up to you to admit it.
We all have our opinions. It is good to have an exchange with others in order to hear and examine any information that may be overlooked. If someone is able to point out something that you may have overlooked and needs to be considered...That's Great! I don't want to be lacking in my awareness any more than, I can help. If one is able to point out some needed information that I may be missing and improves my awareness even, to the point that I may find myself to be wrong hopefully, I will be humble and appreciative to always thank him. I don't want to be any dumber than I can help. However, this should not be a contest as to who can win a debate. It should always be an effort to search and arrive at the Truth...PERIOD!
You appear to be a strong supporter of Romney. The reality that must be considered is that Romney has some serious strikes against him. He has and in some cases and still is pro-choice, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-Romneycare/Obamacare and others that do not endear the majority of Americans to him. Also, he is known as a flip flopper to the point no one can trust him on anything. No, there are others that are more electable than, Romney.
The one I support in the mix of a presidential team would be Palin. Palin is getting a lot of positive exposure and has a lot of things to be proud of politically while governor of Alaska. She is continuing to becoming more popular especially, with the full backing of the Tea Party. Something you should consider.
The GOP needs a fresh name and face in 2012. Not the retreads from 2008. Since Obama has proven once again that legislators make horrible executives, the GOP also needs a candidate with executive leadership experience at the state level. The only candidate on the horizon that fits these requirements is Tim Pawlenty. I don't know a lot about him just yet, but I am very interested in hearing what he has to say.
If you are interested I recently posted about this on my site at thelastasylum.com. I also have a straw poll going for all of the potential GOP candidates in 2012. Drop by and cast a vote.
I'd challenge you, Daniel, to prove Romney is pro-Choice, abortion, gay marriage and Obamacare. As I said earlier, he wrote way back in 2005 of why he vetoed the stem cell bill when it hit his desk in MA because he sided with life. That's called pro-life, and at the very least a conversion to our side of that issue - which is what both Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush were too. Romney's never been pro-gay-marriage. Like most of us, he's antidiscrimination, which means the rights afforded to anyone else ought to be protected, but in the form of civil union, not gay marriage. And he's been agaisnt Obamacare from Day One. The fact that Obama has lifted elements of Commonwealth Care to be a part of his national scheme doesn't mean Romney supports a one-size-fits-all federal ram-job. I suppose you voted for McCain in 2008, well congrats because he was the biggest flip-flopper in the whole race if you want to play that game. Yes, bigger than Obama and probably every bit as big as Kerry, the only true flip-flopper since, you know, a flip-flop is going from A to B and back again to A. A simple change of one's mind isn't a flip-flop, it's called reevaluating your opinion based on examination of the facts, changing conditions or events that affect any given matter or issue. Governing and running anything isn't about having a philosophical template that is static and rigid; it's about fielding the problems as they come. Triage. And that is what Romney's a proven ace at.
You've stated that Romney has opinions or actions that are unacceptable or unendearing to the majority of Americans. Then you state that Palin is doing positive things. The facts disagree. Romney routinely is first or second in pretty much every poll from any place in the nation. Sarah Palin is routinely in the teens -- 3rd to 5th places -- in every poll from every place in the nation. She's below Huckabee, who's but a jokester whose charm overshadows his dreaful record, and down there with Newt, whose negatives are so high that, despite all his efforts to moderate and soften, he couldn't be President even if someone fed-exed the Presidency to him.
This brings me to the point I've been making all along: electability. That's the ultimate Truth, and you need to realize it. Politics is the way we civicly fight for our values and principles. Some sort of doctrinal and philosophical bent against someone like Romney makes no sense to begin with, and actually only hurts your cause since if someone like him--a fantastic general election candidate with immense support from independents, moderates and swing voters--gets denied and instead someone with a radical nature and stratuspheric negatives gets nominated, well enjoy Obama for 4 more years because that person will get humiliated in a landslide. Obama would absolutely LOVVVVVE to run against Palin or Newt. (I argue Huckabee's in that fold too, but his numbers routinely poll far higher than theirs. My conclusion as to why is people are responding to his persona, not analyzing him as a prospective president. My thoughts as to why he'd fail if nominated: he only succeeded in one region in 2008, whereas Romney was competitive everywhere.)
So again, you like to talk about the Truth. So do I and we simply have a difference of opinion. I'm not trying to win any debate on any technicality; I'm giving you why my opinion is such and providing evidence alongside why I think your opinion is incorrect and your evidence is mere rhetoric and your outlook's instead based on emotion and personal preference. All the numbers and national atmosphere dictate that Romney simply MAKES SENSE to be the nominee. That drives my opinion. If something changes and the numbers and national composition change that, I'll be the first to say so...afterall, analysis is my business.
Have a good weekend, Daniel.
You state that the GOP needs a fresh name and face in 2012 and not the retreads from 2008. That is Wrong! In the first place since, Mitt Romney is in no way, a fresh name, I have to assume you are no longer as strong in your support of Mitt Romney as you have been before. What the GOP needs is good name recognition with strong widspread approval behind it. Romney is far from leading the pack on this requirement. Romney has too many issues in the past and currently with the Government health care issue which is a strong and getting a stronger negative with the American voter. If you want to find how many positions he has held. How many positions he has flip flopped on and more than once and yes, he was pro-choice and Romneycare allows Abortion to be paid by the taxpayers to this day. If he wasn't secretly pro-choice he wouldn't have allowed this outrage. Also, how many positions he held in being your typical phony politician trying to straddle the fence...Google, Mitt Romney's history of political positions. If you're a person of any understanding and principle, it will sicken you. Perhaps, it will wake you up and perhaps, you will not be such an, Easy Believer where Romney is concerned. Mitt Romney would be a weak contender compared to others that are in the field...PERIOD!
You have two GOPs. You have the old guard which is politics as usual and the up and coming New Guard which is to reverse all this Crap that has been destroying America for many years and get back to the principles that have made this Nation the greatest Nation the world has known. It's to get back to the basics and the Constitution. The new guard is being pushed by the American people who are the producers and soul of this Nation and are fed up with the same old, same old on both sides of the isle.
You and I both agree on John McCain. I and most Conservatives can't stand McCain. If it weren't for the boost that Palin gave McCain, McCain would have lost his presidential bid by a far greater amount.
Bottom Line: Sarah Palin IS one of the up and coming political stars and is being backed by more and more people everyday. Who Sarah Palin will team with?...I don't know. But, don't make the mistake of hanging to strongly on to the so-called polls. Polls have been known to be wrong/lie and polls have been known to change rather, quickly. Plus, Obama is loosing ground quite rapidly. In fact, more rapidly of any president in the history of the U.S. At this time, I don't think that it would take a whole lot for the GOP to defeat him. The Wave that has generated success this last election should continue to sweep the GOP to victory in 2012. I just want the best people up in front of the wave and it's not Mitt Romney...PERIOD!
I have to respectfully disagree with those who support Sarah Palin. As Obama has demonstrated in the past two years, it takes more than a couple of years in office to have the knowledge and leadership ability to guide America through the swamp we are now in both on the domestic and foreign fronts.
Maybe if Sarah Palin had finished out her first term as Governor of Alaska, been re-elected, and then run for president as a sitting Governor, I may have considered her. Unfortunately she lost my support for president when she abandoned the state of Alaska eight months before her term was up.
I respect Sarah Palin for what she has done for the Tea Party movement, but that does not make her qualified to be president. America needs an experienced executive from the private sector or an experienced Governor who has completed a term in office, and who has a proven record of cutting the size and scope of government.
If Romney becomes the Nominee then the whole Ground Hogs day thing is complete. Obama will be dancing the Macarena election day.
And I won't vote for Romney knowing that would be the end of the tea party.
I believe America needs the tea party more than it needs Mitt Romney.
Asylum, I agree entirely. Palin got a taste of fame and she couldn't wait to quit the one job voters had given her so she could capitalize on her newfound prominence. Her rationale that she anticipated being tangled up in investigations was but an excuse; she quit.
And for Daniel, you won't get your dreamshot here because I doubt Palin will even run. I think she's more content to operate on the sidelines, from the fringe. That's where the easy money is in politics, afterall. I think this is a good thing for her since it's actually where she's most effective -- in advocating for candidates, policy and culture and rallying the troops.
I also think you confused me with someone else given your first paragraph of number 54. (I didn't state it's my view there should be no retreads from 2008.)
But about that paragraph, it's evident you don't know that most of the things supposed-conservatives (now) like to complain about within Commonwealth Care (since before they had no qualms whatsoever about mandates; hilarious) were items tacked onto by the 85% Democrat Legislature in MA. Romney vetoed most all of them, but with a one-sided legislature like that, in that state, the governor's veto is easily overridden. This went back and forth and eventually he signed it, of course. You can take the philisophical stand you'll likely try to argue and state on principle he ought not signed the thing, then. That can be said about every single piece of legislation because no one gets 100% of their agenda in any bill. The founders made it hard to pass things for this reason.
My mistake Dan...It was Mike @ 52 who had begun posting of late on this forum. My Apologies! However, you can be dead sure that Palin is interested in running for the presidency. There is more things in this world than just, easy money. There is the need to serve and do justice for your Country. That may be too noble for you to swallow but, we will soon see as we move toward 2012. As for Romney, you can make all the excuses you want but, a principle man would have stood his ground and Romney being your typical phony politician was and is all over the map on where he stands. He's a joke and certainly not to be trusted to be any where near the leader we need in the WH.
Mike...The screaming about Sarah not having enough experience is another Red Herring. Sarah is not only experience, she has the principles to turn this Country around. She stands firm and doesn't flip flop like the rest of the common phony politicians do. It has been proved many times that you can have all the experience in the world and still be severely lacking when, it comes to making the right decisions. It can be much better to have someone who is more fresh and hasn't been corrupted and doesn't owe a bunch of special interest favors to further weigh this Country down. To be clean and do the job of turning this Country around and it is certainly not Mitt Romney...PERIOD!
First off there was no screaming on my part. Secondly it is not a red herring to express concern about Palin's lack of experience, which I think I did in a very respectful way. If I wanted to be disrespectful I would have said, if Sarah Palin could not handle the stress of even four years as Governor of Alaska, then she cannot handle the stress of being the leader of the free world. I would also have said that an honorable person would have finished their term and fulfilled the commitment that she made to the voters of Alaska.
Don't get me wrong. I am in no way arguing for Romney here. No disrespect to Dan, but I honestly can't stand Romney. Something has bugged me about him for years and I have never been able to nail it down. It is just a gut feeling. I guess it is that he does have a reputation for flip flopping on some major issues. Whether that is true or not, we can't take that chance. I want a president with unquestionable character and one who I don't have to vote for with a lingering doubt that they may change once in office.
I do think that Palin has strong principles, and I respect her for that. I just think that we can find someone with both experience and principles.
60. Would rather have someone like Paul Ryan. Energetic, quick thinker, action oriented, doesn't have some of the dirt that Romney has. E.G. Failed policies like Romneycare under his belt.
You're wrong in thinking that Sarah Palin quit the Governorship because, of undo stress. To begin with, she was the successful major of Wasilla AK for ten years and did some house cleaning. The job she did was so good that she was elected Governor of AK. She continued to do the same house cleaning as Governor of AK during her first term. Upon entering office as Governor, the first thing Palin did was fire the chef. She said she is able to make meals for her children and the chef is no longer necessary. She got rid of the Governor's jet plane. She saw to it that some very important energy related bills were supported and passed such as House Bill 3001 for awarding a contract to TransCanada Alaska for developing and building a pipeline stretching for 1,715 miles from the Prudhoe Bay treatment plant to Alberta Canada.
She also had House Bill 4001 and Senate bill 4002 signed into law by Governor Palin on August 25, 2008. SB 4002 pays $1,200 to each resident who qualifies. The money for these payments comes from the state's natural resource revenue. This bill also suspends the state's tax on gasoline. Plus, she dismissed some of the inside fat and corruption, a number of the members of the Good ol Boys Club sucking off the teat of the Taxpayers got their walking papers. Yeah, she did some house cleaning alright. Sarah Palin has proved she is strong and not sissy which is much more than, any other candidate that's currently out there. No Sarah Palin has the proved principles and experience of doing a job that needed to be done. No other candidate can hold a candle to what she has accomplished in such a short time. Nuff said.
I'll again agree with Mike but state it a bit firmer by defining Palin's quitting as a flaw. It's one thing to not seek reelection, it's another to, as Mike said, choose not to fulfill her commitment to Alaskans.
Mike also says that something unidentifiable has always bugged him about Mitt. Obviously as a dedicated Romney supporter, you know what my bias is; but do try to read behind my enthusiasm and loyalty and see what it is I'm saying, why it is I am so. Mike guesses it's Romney's reputation of flip-flopping. He's not sure if it's an earned reputation, but as it's one that worked in 2008, then he thinks Romney's too risky to support.
I've likely already said all this earlier, but since I'm not going to presume Mike's gone back to read what I've written, I'll reiterate it briefly now. Romney got slapped by the Flip Flop labelmaker for a few reasons.
First of all, a flip flop is not a simple changing of one's mind; it is going from position A to position B and back again once more to position A for political expedience. Romney converted to pro-Life, just as George HW Bush and Ronald Reagan each did themselves--so you can give him a flip on that issue, but no flip-flop.
Secondly, Romney was never pro-gay-marriage--no flip, no flop; just a single, position. Other than that, there are no issues that Romney flip-flopped or flipped or changed on prior to the 2008 cycle. However, like John Kerry, he's from Massachusetts and since Bush had immense success torching Kerry with it, so the 2008 Republican field ran the same play, resulting in practically a choral agreement about Romney The Flip Flopper.
McCain and Rudy are lifelong friends, and lifelong employees of the government. Fred Thompson was/is and actor, but he's been in and out and around the federal government for two generations as an elected offical, lawyer and lobbyist. If you saw any GOP debate you saw them all: gang-up against Mitt Romney. He was the one outsider in the whole group. Sure Huckabee wasn't inside the beltway as the other 3 top tier candidates, but his record was, and his eagerness to play hatchetman to McCain late in the election was his smoking gun -- his swan song on SNL to boot. Now, McCain was kept in the race by Rudy's deference to his dear friend. By Rudy, in essence, not running all the voters he'd split from McCain went to McCain while Romney enjoyed the lion's share of economic voters, yet split social and defence voters with the rest of the field. So, in the debates they all succeeded in establishing that Romney was a flipflopper despite having no evidence, despite not even defining in truth what a flip flop is. In the race, McCain had Rudy giving him a piggyback early and Mike Huckabee syphoning from Romney long after Mike was eliminated since he refused to get out. Plus, there was Charlie Crist playing Tonya Harding against Romney in Florida--a move that, to many of us Florida Republicans, proved unforgiveable for Charlie, as we voted him out in case you didn't notice. I've gotten longwinded and have strayed off on a tangent on the dynamices of the 2008 race, but it remains relevant since it was the field that all agreed to just treat Romney as a flip-flopper despite there being a record of flip-flopping.
Despite the united front against Romney, he finished in secondplace. If not for McCain's friends, Romney would've been the nominee. That's not bad for an outsider. AS much as Daniel tries to tie Romney to the Old Guard, he was nothing of the sort. He was a businessman his whole life. He was successful in turning around failing companies and starting new ones. He did it for the Olympics as well. From there he was elected Governor of Mass., which had a $3B deficit when he got into office and a $300M surplus when he left, after just one term, without raising taxes, and while establishing Commonwealth Care which has 98% of state citizens covered, halved premiums in many cases, and is at a cost of just 1.5% the entire state annual budget. No one had a problem with CC at the time. Republicans, conservatives, grassroots types, leaders of other states, economists, business leaders all had no problem with it, or the mandate it included (Republicans have never had a problem with mandates until Obamacare, and so no ones who have ground to gain against Romney are retroactively trying to act like they have; a flip-flop by everyone else's defintion - expediency no matter how pedantic you want to get with definitions.)
This all comes down to numbers, again. Romney is electable. He has an infinite lead among swing voters, independents and moderates. I know those of us who are not any of them like to shun reality, but it is true you can't win an election without winning the middle ground. That's how Clinton won, Bush won and Obama won. Romney's challenge is winning the nomination. I predict the general will be easier than that for him given that he polls so high among that sector and Obama has massive losses in that sector moreso than any other. What's also notable from 2008: of all the top tier guys in that class, only Romney remains relevant today. All those who ganged up against him have no future potential in political office. What's that tell you?
Of the other younger talent, I can't say that Jindal, Palin, Pawlenty have what it takes. I can't say that Thune and Daniels will have the potential to beat Romney. Joe Bean is right to champion Paul Ryan; he's the real deal and a star in the making. I don't know if he'll be able to spring up far enough for 2012, since, hey, that race is underway now, silently, and all out in the next 6 months. If there's going to be an upstart guy like Ryan, it'd be Chris Christie from NJ. He's great and if someone lesser known is going to race to the top, he's where I'd put my money (risk capital only).
In my analytical brain, though, we're Republicans here: we elect like hierarchy. Maybe that trend breaks this time, but it's always best to go with the trend until it does break. And we'll find out Romney'll make a brilliant and very much needed 45th President.
Yes, Palin's quitting the Governorship can be a concern that can go against her with some. However, during her two year term, she did a tremendous amount of positive structural changes and positive good that cannot be denied. You would be hard put, to find anybody in politics that can come even close to her accomplishment for house cleaning in such a, short time. Generally, your average politician just, adds to the corruption and burden to the taxpayer and never gives the taxpayer the great relief and service that Palin has done for the Alaskans. Since, she did quickly, her high praise worthy house cleaning which has been applauded throughout the land perhaps, her deeds will more than, make up for the early departure. After all, she did what she felt that needed to be done before her departure and the rest of her term would have been simply to sit in the saddle which any idiot could have done. It is what she has done while in office that truly counts is where it is at with the American public.
You claim to have an analytical mind and perhaps, you do. However, you seem to leave out some major considerations in your analysis. For one thing, you have left out the Silent Majority. The Silent Majority who do not take kindly to political surveys and will not participate. The Silent Majority who have a do not call block on their phone numbers as well as unlisted phone numbers. Your seemly strong belief that the poll numbers are always reported accurately and not eschewed by political corruption and favoritism. Your lack of understanding that there is a new wave of political thought and activision and it's not limited to the Tea Party. Furthermore, you should take another look at the positive impact she had on John McCain's run for the presidency and her continued rise in popularity. No, people are very tired of the common political Crap that's out there especially, Romney wrapped in his Socialist Romneycare/Obamacare. So, try and get Real...To where it is at!
Romney as GOP president: A choice between Romney and Obama would not be any different, for me, than a choice between McCain and Obama. I've got a lot of the same problems with Romney.
My favorite in the last election was Fred Thompson. In the next -- we'll see. I am NOT excited about Romney. Not because of his religion, but because of his inability to make up his mind what he believes. IF we are going to get socialist ideas, I'd rather get them through a Democrat than a Republican (at least until we get a third party to champion the conservative cause)