New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Question for Cons

Judy1

Judy1

Mayor
seems to be a lot of criticism aimed at Romney this week. Most seem to think he needs to tack even further to the right, while a few think he needs to move to the center.

Do you think he should move more to the right, or not, and why?

My personal view is that it won't matter, because he's lost credibility with both the right in the party, and the more central independents, simply because he's done nothing but flip flop on everything.
 
I just want him to stand there and say what he means and mean what he says. I don't expect to agree with everything he thinks, but I am convinced that Obama is a failed leader who will put us into deeper trouble than we're in now if he is allowed to continue. I'm not attacking Obama's motives. I am just looking at his record and it is a record of complete failure.
 
I wasn't asking about Obama, Jen, I was asking about Romney. I'm bring up the fact that many on the right are being critical of Romney, and some say he should go more right. You say you want him to say what he means and means what he says, but do you have any idea what he really means? On MTP he said that he agreed with some elements of Obama care and would keep some of it; but afterwards his henchman (er, I mean spokesman, heh heh) said he didn't mean what he said and reiterated that he will eliminate Obamacare. (which btw was modeled in some part by Romneycare in Mass)

So, if he really does believe in elements of Obama care, should he stand up for it and say so, or should he continue to say that he's out to repeal it? If by some fluke of election (election fixing by the GOP, I'm thinking) Romney doesn't repeal Obama care, will you feel like he let you down?
 
And I answered about Romney telling you WHY he should be elected and WHAT he should do to get votes.

(sorry that was rude so I deleted)
 
But you're being as vague as Romney himself. You say you want him to say what he means and mean what he says, can you be more specific? Pick an issue that he holds, and tell me what he says, and if you can find evidence that he's saying it because he means it, and not just because he's trying to appeal to the right wing nuts.
 
Mostly it's the pro-Obama media 'interpreting' Romney as a flip-flopper for the benefit of Obama, just as they spent the last two days pretending that Obama waking up his base really meant that Obama had surged ahead of Romney by six points. Today media sources across the county were forced to admit the truth that among likely voters, who are going to be the once to decide the identity of the next president, Obama and Romney are in a dead heat.

All Romney has to do is keep talking about the economy and reminding citizens that Obama has screwed that up for the last four years. Most people really are not better off today than they were in 2008, and that is going to hurt Obama. All Romney has to do is keep hammering away at the constant lies Obama has been telling regarding the economy and pretty much the voters that matter will continue to see through every mainstream media attempt to again campaign Obama into office.

Obama is in trouble here. Not Romney.
 
Ahem, yesterday the Pro-Obama vehicle e-zine, Slate, admitted that Obama was as vague in his acceptance speech regarding specific details as Romney. No presidential contender since Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did it has been specific about plans during an election cycle and the only reason those two presidents did it and got away with it is because they both had excess charisma to sell and were legitimately both Great Communicators. But nobody ever called Romney a great communicator nor accused him of having any charisma at all.

Obama, now Obama is interesting. He often looks like he has charisma, but upon closer examination it turns into stylized posturings that become utterly predictable over time. Anyone who's watched half a dozen of his speeches knows precisely what gestures and expressions he's going to use and when he's going to use them. Ditto for the myth that he's a Great Communicator since it turns out that at least fifty percent of the time he lays an egg. The other night Clinton had teed him up with a fantastic speech and then Obama flubbed his part, ending up talking only to his base when he should have been talking to the entire country, trying to win over the likely voters who are evenly split between him and Romney. Obama blew it.

All Obama ever was turned out to be a mainstream media over-hyped paper tiger. We saw Bill Clinton in action the other night and then saw in comparison . . . that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton. The Big Dawg was many things as a president but he was never a screw-up and Obama long ago proved to be nothing but a chronic screw-up.
 
yes, but not because I think Romney is actually going to win on his own accord, my worry is that cons will find some way to rig the election, either covertly, or thru their disenfranchisement efforts.
 
A win in politics is still a win. As long as Obama retires to Hawaii, I don't care how Romney does it . . . but then I'm a fairly basic soul.
 
I'm not talking about policy specifics here Cicero. I was referring to policy in general. Jen had expressed that Romney needed to say what he means, and means what he says. If we look at the stands he's taken on policy he's all over the board. On Healthcare reform, he was for it and engineered it Massachusetts when he was governor. Then when he started running this year, he said he is going to repeal Obamacare. On MTP Sunday, he said he likes some components of Obamacare and wouldn't get rid of things like letting 26 year olds stay on their parents policies, and the elimination of pre existing conditions, and immediately after that interview his spokesman came out and said that Mitt would repeal it all. Romney reiterated it on the radio today. So, he was for it, then against it, then he was for it, but then was against it. My question to Jen was how this could possibly be indicative of Romney saying what he means and meaning what he says.
 
I don't want him to pander to groups. I don't want him to "move to the right" to get votes there then "move to the left" to get the others. I am sick of politicians doing that. Whatever it is..........just say it and let us decide if it's a deal breaker.

Judy1 said:
But you're being as vague as Romney himself. You say you want him to say what he means and mean what he says, can you be more specific? Pick an issue that he holds, and tell me what he says, and if you can find evidence that he's saying it because he means it, and not just because he's trying to appeal to the right wing nuts.
Click to expand...
 
that's fair. I would agree, unfortunately all he's done is pander, if he weren't running for such a serious office, it would almost be funny, but its not.
 
Actually you are very close to the truth here NightSwimmer. ABO is the name of the game in 2012 -- Anybody But Obama. All Romney has to do in order to get every Republican voter to turn out in November is just keep hammering away at Obama as a failed president.
 
Cicero said:
Actually you are very close to the truth here NightSwimmer. ABO is the name of the game in 2012 -- Anybody But Obama. All Romney has to do in order to get every Republican voter to turn out in November is just keep hammering away at Obama as a failed president.
Click to expand...


If Mitt Romney convinces 100% of the Republicans to vote, then President Obama will have to turn out 87.1% of the Democrats to exceed that total.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top