The debates on the Debates

Why did they elect him?

I think they thought they knew him when the elected him too.

Did he govern as a moderate or an extreme right winger? How did he get anything done if he was an extremest? I can not follow your logic, please clarify what your point is.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 2:37 PM ---

He had to compromise with Democrats to get anything done - that is how I gauge it.

I think foreign policy is Romney's weakness - we do not really know who he is in this regard. Similar to Bush II, his foreign policy will be defined by those who picks in his administration. I suspect he will surround himself with people in-line with the Bush doctrine based on how he prepared and what he said in the debates. Again, President Obama also followed the basic outline of the Bush doctrine. I see no material change under either in the next 4 years, do you?
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 2:44 PM ---

It is a complicated issue, but the majority of the blame goes to the Republican Party. In the past they could get away with ignoring minorities. If Romney wins it will amaze me how he did it - basically writing off 47% of the electorate. In the future this won't be possible.

I did not support Romeny in the primaries and until the first debate I was not going to vote for him (I was planning on voting Libertarian). I see romney and President Obama cut out of the same mold - after the first debate I decided that Romney earned my vote.

I think a person who is a moderate and is not intimidated by the right can win in the primaries. Personally I do not need to agree with a candidate on all issues for him/her to earn my vote - and on social issues I am libertarian.

 

He might have had to compromise with Democrats in MA, but what will he do when he doesn't need to compromise, and the far-right members are screaming at him to do what they want...

If Democrats can hold 40 seats in the Senate, nothing will get done anyways for the next two years at least if Romney somehow wins. Payback is a bitch.

 

ace, dear, my point was clear. people in massachusetts overwhelmingly oppose romney. they oppose him because they know him. they know him because he was a one-term governor. there's no weaseling around that.

 

Perhaps there is some irony here, but I think Romeny can be whatever he needs to be to achieve his goals. In business, principles and convictions often have a price. In order to "close a deal" a deal maker doesn't get bogged down in matters of little importance. I think President Obama is much more rigid in this regard - although his narrative was about how Republican would not compromise. I think the odds of Romney getting a grand bargain is high. He will get spending cuts and cover some tax increases in cutting deductions and loopholes. I think the "blue-dog" Democrats will go along. Part of President Obama's problem was getting support from blue-dogs. Blue-dogs needed cover from moderate Republican, which they did not get on most of President Obama's agenda.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 5:17 PM ---

Your point is not clear.

MA voted Romney in as Governor. MA is a moderate to left leaning state. MA was governed by Romney as he worked with Democrats. In 2008 President Obama won MA with a 25.8% point margin. In 2012 President Obama's margin is 16.3% according to polls, link below. Kerry won MA by a 25% point margin in 2004.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - Massachusetts: Romney vs. Obama

Perhaps your conclusion is simply wrong.
--- merged: Oct 25, 2012 at 5:25 PM ---

I am not intimately familiar with MA politics. My view is based on superficial observation. If Romney was not willing to work with Democrats, there would had to of been gridlock during his tenure. Is that true? Is that the counter-claim? I will read the links you provided, are they objective or agenda driven?

My point is that President Obama is following the Bush doctrine, are you saying he is not?

Drone strikes in Pakistan - Pakistan is a sovereign nation, no war declared. Us uses air-force to support Libyan rebels in-order to over through a foriegn political leader, no war declared. At least President Bush got Congressional authority to invade Iraq.

Interesting, according to polls he is going to get about 39% of the MA vote.

 

In light of Romney's behavior throughout this primary and candidate process, I can only imagine that he won the governorship of MA by portraying himself as a left leaning Republican. He's good at the masquerade.

By the way, Democrats don't relish the partisan battle. They are much more willing to compromise, even when it's not in the interest of their party to do so. Your claim that Romney was willing to work with Democrats is mis-worded. Democrats were willing to work with Romney. I'd love to say it's because Democrats lack the backbone of Republicans but in truth, it's because Democrats actually want to find beneficial ways to help their constituency.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but somewhere on this forum you expressed the opinion that a man was defined by his principles. What principle includes "being whatever you need to be" to attain your goal? Is the means justifying the ends a principle to be valued, at the end of the day?

I'm seriously beginning to think your God and Romney's God are the same, Ace. Hail the Almighty dollar.

Blue dog Democrats are not in line with right wing policy, Ace. They vote along a centrist line. Have you forgotten where that line is or don't you know where it is?

 

I actually think at this point there are many in the Dem camp that are so fed up with the GOP's bull shit they'll be happy to vote down everything the GOP sends them if Romney wins

 

Part of me wishes they would but sadly, I don't think they will. Even if they were to end up with a minority in the Senate, I can't see them using their minority status as an ax to decapitate whatever good may come out of compromising. It's the way of those who operate from a place of reason vs. those motivated by petulance and revenge.

 

I think there's a few that will vote against anything a GOP control body send them if Romney wins. A few will have to think they'll never get the WH back if they let the GOP play that card and they don't in turn do the same.

 

I would like to think they'd filibuster whoever Romney would get to replace Ginsberg but I don't think it would prevent an eventual Republican appointment. I also think they'll forcefully oppose a tax break for the wealthy but again, I don't have confidence in their stamina. When it comes to playing to win at any cost, Dems just don't have the bloodlust of the Repubs. I love and admire Dems for preferring to take the the high road but can't help wishing they (me) were a bit more bloodthirsty when they needed to be.

 

I really feel like during his first term Obama has just buckled way too often. If it were a marriage I'd swear conversations would go something like "We'll I want to watch the football game and you want to go to the opera so we'll compromise and go to the opera."

I hope he gets a second term and I hope he's leaned the GOP could give a damn about the country or the middle class. They just want power and profit and are more then willing to throw US workers under the bus to get either.

 

The problem with that is that the Tea Party took out all of the Blue Dogs. It was in those states that aren't real liberal, but the GOP/Fox News/Tea Party brainwashed the people in those states and got them more motivated to go to the polls in the midterm elections that did them in.

 

I often wonder how much further ahead the country would be if it weren't for the fact that Democrats became complacent and allowed the Tea Party to rule the midterms. We might actually be out of this mess if the Congress hadn't been overrun.

 

In the spirit of Romney, "Ace, I'll tell you what -- $10,000 bucks, $10,000 bet..."

Romney so-called momentum has flattened out in the last week, particularly in battle ground states, Ohio most notably, even with the Republicans limiting early voting hours and sending out false polling locations. Ohio early voting is overwhelmingly going Obama at nearly the same rate as 08 and most new registrations in OH this year who will be voting for the first time are blacks and young women, both Obama demographics.

W/O Ohio, Romney needs to sweep nearly every other battle ground state (FL, NC, VA where he is leading) and (CO, WI, IA, NH, NV) where he is trailing in most polls.

Obama's path is much wider and growing in many of these states.

 

whatever, ace. you're basing yourself entirely on polls. which suit you better than does reality.

this from john sununu to explain colin powell's endorsement of obama.

Romney Campaign Chair: Colin Powell Endorsed Obama Because He Is Black | ThinkProgress

 

The quote below from your first link sums it up for me.

I am not concerned about budgetary line item type veto's. I look to a President to get big things done when needed. I understand the opposing point of view. But I did find one line interesting, that Romney's tenure as Governor was more a reflection of Democrats working with a Republican to get things done than the opposite. A convenient perspective if you need to make a case against Romney.

Yes. Would Canada tolerate US drone strikes from the US? No. Drone strikes that kill innocent Canadians? No. I am surprised by your question and point of view on this issue.

Some have different opinions. Perhaps we should revisit the thread on this topic - the issue came up many times.

If you believe foreign policy under President Obama is materially different than under President Bush, we disagree.

Gitmo
Afghanistan War surge
Desire to keep troops in Iraq
Drone strikes
Use of air-force on sovereign territory without declaration of war
Threats to use military against Iran.
Sanctions against Iran/N. Korea
Continued issues with Cuba

What do you counter with? I will give you gays in the military, but that is not really foreign policy.
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 12:42 PM ---

You are correct.

I don't think Romney sees it as compromising his principles. I think when he was at Bain Captial for example, his principles primarily involved making money. If I encounter a person who lives by those kinds of principles, I know what to expect. On the other-hand take a company like Chic- fill-A, they are governed by both conservative Christian principles and some basic business principles - hence they are not open on Sunday, they hold Conservative Christian values in terms of marriage between a man and a woman - again I know what to expect. An atheist going to a lunch meeting to close a business deal would either bite his/her tongue as they say a prayer before breaking bread or seek business elsewhere. Romney would bite his tongue and do the deal. What would you do?
--- merged: Oct 26, 2012 12:47 PM ---

Tell that to Clair McCaskill, Missouri. She is fighting for her Senate seat and is paying a price for her unquestioning support of President Obama and Harry Reid. The only thing that may save her is the Candidate with Tea Party backing. On the otherhand if she had a more moderate or balanced approach in the Senate, consistent with her constituents, she would have easily won regardless of her opponent.

 

all we know for sure is that ace maintains a single principle of not liking the obama administration in the way that other people do not like tuna sandwiches. it doesn't matter what the opponents of the administration do or say----anything and everything can be justified according to the single principle of not liking the obama administration in the way that other people do not like tuna sandwiches. the "principles" of the matter are a consumer preference. anything goes.

"principle"<-->"clarity"<-->"integrity"<-->bullshit.