News Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[apeiron]

Alternative hypothesis: a lot of people don't care

So how are you going to test your hypothesis? TV news coverage any indication?

There is almost daily coverage of the Republican primaries on New Zealand TV news. Would even the result of a New Zealand (or Bratislavian, etc) general election make it on to US screens?

 

[turbo]

We're drifting away from the central focus of the thread (Romney's candidacy) but this is an important point. The fact is that it is of great importance to foreign affairs who becomes president of the US. As the 600 pound gorilla in the room, the US is scary to others. We have a huge military, and the last Republican president didn't hesitate to use it instead of diplomacy. People (all over the world) deserve to have us vet our nominees and candidates and vote responsibly.

 

[mheslep]

So what is your point exactly?

apeiron I apologize for being so glib. To much politics. Yes, I mean that while one make an argument, with some work, that this or that might be relevant *should be* relevant to others besides ourselves, one can not also speak for others, much less the entire world.

Moving on...

 

[WhoWee]

Oh, please. Until this thread, I didn't even know he had anything to do with the Olympics. Tell me again what medals he won, I've forgotten.

Anyway, whatever he did must have been a failure, considering they are having to rerun the whole games again in London this year ...

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

"SALT LAKE CITY — Mitt Romney walked onto the Olympic stage in 1999 a rich businessman still smarting from losing his first bid for public office. He walked off, three years later, a star-polished candidate who would be elected governor of Massachusetts in a matter of months. This was the place of his emergence and his transition.

In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign."

 

[Hobin]

Hobin, if I may:

Do you think it important to poll the American viewpoint when assessing PM Rutte? Or, say, UK or French or Russian opinion?

Perhaps my point was unclear. I don't think it's a point that matters overly much. However, it can make a difference in matters of diplomacy. Thus, all else being equal, I would prefer a PM who's more popular in other countries to a PM the people in another country hate. Isn't that quite obvious?

Now, as for my original point, *most* of the people I know in my country prefer Obama over, well, any Republican. Like I said, I know relatively little people compared to the population of an entire country, so I'm sure this isn't representative.

 

[Chemicist]

I am not a fan of him. Only reason he would win is his money. Welcome to America.

 

[Evo]

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

"SALT LAKE CITY — Mitt Romney walked onto the Olympic stage in 1999 a rich businessman still smarting from losing his first bid for public office. He walked off, three years later, a star-polished candidate who would be elected governor of Massachusetts in a matter of months. This was the place of his emergence and his transition.

In rescuing the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, which had been tarnished by scandal, Mr. Romney learned the ways of Washington and the hurly-burly of politics, mastered the news media, built a staff of loyalists and made fund-raising connections in Utah that have proven vital to his presidential campaign."

Or an oportunist that found a way to regain favor after losing the Senate race in Mass?

Romney: Olympic savior or opportunist?

In his book, he takes great pains to attribute the success of the Games to the team he and his predecessors at SLOC put together — from supportive federal officials in Washington, D.C., to a volunteer corps of 26,000 in the Beehive State. He acknowledged his responsibility was big — as the face of the Games, the herald of its values and the guarantor of a pledge to deliver the event on budget — but said that his high-exposure role was necessary to distinguish the new-and-improved SLOC from the old corrupt one.

Such high-minded pronouncements do not ring entirely true to two of Romney’s more vocal local critics, who argue he exaggerated SLOC’s problems to make himself look better when Salt Lake City’s Olympics rebounded.

Ken Bullock, who represented the Utah League of Cities and Towns on SLOC’s board, said “Romney was a great face for the Games. He deserves credit, just not all the credit he’s claiming.

“We did not have a crisis in hosting or managing the Olympics. It was a crisis of image, a crisis related to the IOC. That’s not to say he didn’t do a good job and play a vital role,” Bullock said. “But so did [bid leader] Tom Welch. Tom was a great visionary. He displayed the tenacity, convictions and passion to pursue it. He’s forgotten. And Frank Joklik? With his engineering background, he put the scaffolding together. Mitt did a nice job putting meat on the bones.”

Steve Pace, a studious skeptic whose scandal-inspired “Slalom and Gomorrah” T-shirt quickly caught Romney’s eye, conceded SLOC’s new leader “did an incredible job and built bridges.”

“But Mitt’s efforts here,” Pace said, “were more about Mitt than the greater glory of the Olympics or helping out Utah.”

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53441281-78/games-lake-mitt-olympic.html.csp?page=3

 

[WhoWee]

Or an oportunist that found a way to regain favor after losing the Senate race in Mass?

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53441281-78/games-lake-mitt-olympic.html.csp?page=3

I'm not certain an opportunist would have ended with a favorable outcome - given the challenge of running the post-9/11 Olympics. IMO - strong leaders acknowledge the assistance of their associates.

 

[Astronuc]

I think it will be Mittens vs Obama in Nov.

 

[lisab]

I think it will be Mittens vs Obama in Nov.

I think so too. Had Santorum won Michigan there would be doubt in my mind about it, but now I think it will be Romney.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm not certain if you've posted tongue-in-cheek or not? Mitt Romney didn't compete in the Olympics - he managed them in 2002.

Quick! Name the people who managed the 2000, 98, 96 olympics. No googling!

Of course nobody knows who ran the Olympics most years. Americans only know about 2002 because Romney's in the news, and he's not nearly as visible in other countries

I think so too. Had Santorum won Michigan there would be doubt in my mind about it, but now I think it will be Romney.

People try to read too much into a 3 percent win in a single state. Romney's dad was freaking governor of Michigan for six years, how did he not destroy all comers there? Clearly he's not very popular, especially considering that Michigan isn't a state full of Santorum's brand of religious conservatives

 

[turbo]

I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail. Yes, his father was an auto executive and a very popular governor, but don't Republicans follow the campaign? It's one thing for other GOP candidates to bash Obama for bailing out the auto industry, but Mitt should have known better.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail.

Did Mitt Romney make comments "about letting the US auto-makers fail" - or did he say the bankruptcy laws should be followed? Please support your post with his actual comment(s).

 

[turbo]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

 

[WhoWee]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

Here's the op-ed piece from 2008 that started the discussion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1

"It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check. "

 

[WhoWee]

Suggested reading:

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motora...ng-detroit-automakers-bailouts-154006392.html

Please cite the (Romney) quote that supports your - IMO misleading - statement.

 

[turbo]

Read this.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-underpants-gnome-defense-on-auto-bailout.php

“If they go through that managed bankruptcy and shed the excessive cost that’s been put on them by the UAW and by their own mismanagement, then if they need help coming out of bankruptcy, the government can provided guarantees and get them back on their feet,” he said. “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers. As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months, it is reasonable to expect that the managers of those trusts will re-capitalize by selling off some of that stock.

 

[WhoWee]

Read this.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/romneys-underpants-gnome-defense-on-auto-bailout.php

“If they go through that managed bankruptcy and shed the excessive cost that’s been put on them by the UAW and by their own mismanagement, then if they need help coming out of bankruptcy, the government can provided guarantees and get them back on their feet,” he said. “No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers. As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months, it is reasonable to expect that the managers of those trusts will re-capitalize by selling off some of that stock.

Your specific post was "I'm surprised that Mitt didn't get smashed in Michigan after his comments about letting the US auto-makers fail." my bold

I'm sorry turbo, but the statement "“No way would we allow the auto industry in America to totally implode and disappear. That was my view. Go through bankruptcy. When that happens, then the market can help lift them out.”" does not support your misleading post - IMO.

 

[mheslep]

...

If the auto-makers had been forced into Chapter 11, Wall Street would have demanded to be made whole, and that would have forced the liquidation of GM and Chrysler, IMO, along with the loss of 1.5M jobs minimum. When the auto-makers were in their worst trouble, Wall Street wasn't loaning them any money. Chapter 11 wasn't an option. I think we all know that. The right-wing keeps harping on the fallacy that Obama gave billions to the UAW. In fact, the auto-makers ceded stock to the trust funds that pay retirement benefits to retired auto-workers.

How is it that any other capital intensive company manages to go through Chapter 11, come out and keep operating? Why not apply those arguments to http://thepage.time.com/2011/11/29/american-airlines-files-for-bankruptcy/ (Wall street demands, liquidation, all jobs wiped out) and see how they hold up? Does American still have 600 some planes in the air every day?

As the auto-makers seem to be roaring back from their low point in recent months,...

Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?

 

[turbo]

Who would not appear to come roaring back if $80Billion was put on their books?

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

If these huge companies were allowed to fail (forced into Chapter 11) it would have impacted millions of people all over the country. Auto-companies have very long supply lines and very long lead-times before they receive materials and the suppliers are paid. Anybody who manufactures foams, fabrics, electronic components, and a zillion other things that Detroit needs would go catatonic if their biggest customer went into Chapter 11, because they would never know if they were going to get paid pennies on the dollar or anything at all. That means that all of their employees would be out on the street until things were resolved. Saving the auto-industry was the prudent thing to do, and I think the bail-out was structured with some semblance of fairness.

 

[turbo]

Disclaimer: My younger (much!) brother runs a small plant that makes extruded parts for many industries, but the auto industry is a big customer/field. Maybe it doesn't look intuitive, but letting the auto industry fail could have cost jobs here in Maine.

 

[WhoWee]

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

If these huge companies were allowed to fail (forced into Chapter 11) it would have impacted millions of people all over the country. Auto-companies have very long supply lines and very long lead-times before they receive materials and the suppliers are paid. Anybody who manufactures foams, fabrics, electronic components, and a zillion other things that Detroit needs would go catatonic if their biggest customer went into Chapter 11, because they would never know if they were going to get paid pennies on the dollar or anything at all. That means that all of their employees would be out on the street until things were resolved. Saving the auto-industry was the prudent thing to do, and I think the bail-out was structured with some semblance of fairness.

This post continues to be misleading as GM filed Chapter 11 in 2009.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...les-for-Chapter-11-bankruptcy-protection.html

Btw - I noticed your list of affiliated companies that might be injured in a bankruptcy didn't include auto dealers or their employees.

 

[turbo]

Jeez! My post was not intended to be an encyclopedia. I focused on the supply-side of the chain because that's where the jobs are. It takes millions of people to produce the parts and materials needed to build cars. It does not take millions of people to sell them, though I figure you already know that.

 

[Evo]

Enough of this nitpicking, please.

 

[Gokul43201]

A reason the lack of support for the auto-bailout didn't hurt Romney much might be that Santorum didn't support it either (nor did Paul; don't know about Gingrich). The difference between them - one that Santorum tried to point out, but I don't think it gained much traction - was that Santorum did not support the Wall Street bailout either. He tried pointing out the seeming inconsistency in Romney's position (approve bailing out Wall Street but not Detroit), but I don't think that's an argument with much political sway among a typical primary electorate.

 

[WhoWee]

I think Romney framed this op-ed in a way that will help independents understand his concern about the auto bailout - in the general election.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120214/OPINION01/202140336

"Romney op-ed: U.S. autos bailout 'was crony capitalism on a grand scale'
"

"A labor union that had contributed millions to Democrats and his election campaign was granted an ownership share of Chrysler and a major stake in GM, two flagships of the industry.The U.S. Department of Treasury — American taxpayers — was asked to become a majority stockholder of GM. And a politically connected and ethically challenged Obama-campaign contributor, the financier Steven Rattner, was asked to preside over all this as auto czar.
This was crony capitalism on a grand scale. The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.
My view at the time — and I set it out plainly in an op-ed in the New York Times — was that "the American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing." Instead of a bailout, I favored "managed bankruptcy" as the way forward.
Managed bankruptcy may sound like a death knell. But in fact, it is a way for a troubled company to restructure itself rapidly, entering and leaving the courtroom sometimes in weeks or months instead of years, and then returning to profitable operation.
In the case of Chrysler and GM, that was precisely what the companies needed. Both were saddled with an accumulation of labor, pension, and real estate costs that made them unsustainable. Health and retirement benefits alone amounted to an extra $2,000 baked into the price of every car they produced.
Shorn of those excess costs, and shorn of the bungling management that had driven them into a deep rut, they could re-emerge as vibrant and competitive companies. Ultimately, that is what happened. The course I recommended was eventually followed. GM entered managed bankruptcy in June 2009 and exited it a month later in July.
The Chrysler timeline was similarly swift. But something else happened along the way that was truly egregious. Before the companies were allowed to enter and exit bankruptcy, the U.S. government swept in with an $85 billion sweetheart deal disguised as a rescue plan.
By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.
Thus, the outcome of the managed bankruptcy proceedings was dictated by the terms of the bailout. Chrysler's "secured creditors," who in the normal course of affairs should have been first in line for compensation, were given short shrift, while at the same time, the UAWs' union-boss-controlled trust fund received a 55 percent stake in the firm.
The pensions of union workers and retirees at Delphi, GM's parts supplier, were left untouched, while some 21,000 non-union salaried employees saw their pensions slashed and lost their life and health insurance. And so on and so forth across the industry.
While a lot of workers and investors got the short end of the stick, Obama's union allies — and his major campaign contributors — reaped reward upon reward, all on the taxpayer's dime."

 

[mheslep]

When they have to put on extra shifts to meet the demand for vehicles, I believe that is convincing proof that they are in resurgence.

Ever heard the "we'll make it up on volume" joke? Moving a lot of cars is not the same as making money on a lot of cars, which GM can do now thanks to my tax dollars buying off their debt load and taxes.

 

[BobG]

People try to read too much into a 3 percent win in a single state. Romney's dad was freaking governor of Michigan for six years, how did he not destroy all comers there? Clearly he's not very popular, especially considering that Michigan isn't a state full of Santorum's brand of religious conservatives

Romney's dad was governor in the 60's. That probably helped him with the over-50 crowd, but most voters probably wouldn't know who George Romney was, except for Mitt Romney running for President.

But, Mitt Romney seems to have a problem capitalizing on his big wins. Romney barely edges out Santorum, but the delegate battle is a draw.

No, wait, Romney wins the delegate battle by 2 delegates! Because Romney's dad used to be governor and so Michigan changes the rules after the fact so Romney can get a win?

No, not really. Michigan had already spelled out how they would handle the special case of losing half their delegates and it's the rules for the special condition that give Romney a 2 delegate victory. In other words, the new rules they passed for delegates were overcome by events (losing half their delegates) before they could even be implemented unless the RNC restores Michigan's full delegate count, in which case the original new rules will apply with Romney still eking out a narrow victory in delegate count. Huh?

They didn't mess this up as bad as Democrats did in the 2008 primary, but Michigan seems to have a hard time finding a good way to make themselves an early primary.

At least everyone understands who won Arizona.

 

[WhoWee]

The Republican base doesn't have lukewarm support for Romney because he's too far Right - do they? IMO - they think he's too moderate - flipped back and forth on issues - much like the Independents.

IMO - this will help Mitt win the Independent and moderate Democrat vote in the fall - the Republicans will hold their nose and vote against President Obama regardless of the candidate.

 

[Number Nine]

The Republican base doesn't have lukewarm support for Romney because he's too far Right - do they? IMO - they think he's too moderate - flipped back and forth on issues - much like the Independents.

IMO - this will help Mitt win the Independent and moderate Democrat vote in the fall - the Republicans will hold their nose and vote against President Obama regardless of the candidate.

I don't think very many Democrats and independents consider Romney to be a "moderate"; certainly not as far right as the more fashionable Republican candidates, but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't think very many Democrats and independents consider Romney to be a "moderate"; certainly not as far right as the more fashionable Republican candidates, but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans.

Why are you describing the independents/Dems in a religious framework - Mitt isn't running a religion-oriented campaign. Mitt is running primarily on his executive level experience.

 

[Number Nine]

Why are you describing the independents/Dems in a religious framework - Mitt isn't running a religion-oriented campaign. Mitt is running primarily on his executive level experience.

I'm not describing him in a religious framework. That's not what I said.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not describing him in a religious framework. That's not what I said.

You didn't describe Mitt that way - you described the voters that way - "but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Some mother, Mrs. Churo, told Romney that her daughter, serving in Afghanistan, wants to know why we are still there after having killed Bin Laden. The mother says the daughter is confused about why she is still there. I take it that the daughter thought the mission in Afganistan had been to take out Bin Laden which was not the case, and that when we did take him out and didn't leave, it dawned on her that the mission was a different one, but in the ensuing year she hadn't been able to ferret out what that mission was. Apparently, now she has given up trying. Quoting the mother quoting the daughter "There is no mission here. We have no definition of a mission."

Romney took a dim view of this. "If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security."

The way I see it, the President must have called Romney and told him what the mission was adding "but don't tell Churo." Then tried to get some sleep. Most likely it didn't sit well with Romney that he was keeping this information under his hat and couldn't sleep himself. That's why he figured the President couldn't sleep either. So it was a bleary-eyed Romney that slipped up and told the mother what the mission is. Hopefully, the mother will now tell her daughter and everybody can get some sleep.

 

[WhoWee]

Some mother, Mrs. Churo, told Romney that her daughter, serving in Afghanistan, wants to know why we are still there after having killed Bin Laden. The mother says the daughter is confused about why she is still there. I take it that the daughter thought the mission in Afganistan had been to take out Bin Laden which was not the case, and that when we did take him out and didn't leave, it dawned on her that the mission was a different one, but in the ensuing year she hadn't been able to ferret out what that mission was. Apparently, now she has given up trying. Quoting the mother quoting the daughter "There is no mission here. We have no definition of a mission."

Romney took a dim view of this. "If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security."

The way I see it, the President must have called Romney and told him what the mission was adding "but don't tell Churo." Then tried to get some sleep. Most likely it didn't sit well with Romney that he was keeping this information under his hat and couldn't sleep himself. That's why he figured the President couldn't sleep either. So it was a bleary-eyed Romney that slipped up and told the mother what the mission is. Hopefully, the mother will now tell her daughter and everybody can get some sleep.

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

Perhaps all he wanted was a reason to say something bad about Obama. Again, Romney knows why we are there. Why doesn't the soldier? Did Obama do something to prevent her from knowing what Romney knows?

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps all he wanted was a reason to say something bad about Obama. Again, Romney knows why we are there. Why doesn't the soldier? Did Obama do something to prevent her from knowing what Romney knows?

I'm reading the quote you posted

""If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". "

and I don't see any indication that Mitt meant Obama did anything to prevent her from knowing anything - it also doesn't specify that Romney knows anything special - it infers (IMO) that President Obama has not communicated adequately with/to the troops. The comment (IMO) implies that President Obama doesn't have a strategic plan.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The comment (IMO) implies that President Obama doesn't have a strategic plan.

It doesn't mention strategic plan anywhere, just mission. And I still can't find out how Romney was able to find out what the mission is and the soldier wasn't. What could Obama have possibly done so that Romney knew and the soldier didn't know. After years of wondering too.

Edit. It might help to ask Romney how he found out what the mission is. If he could recall where he heard it, it might help us understand.

 

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

If Mitt Romney were shown transcripts of speeches (yes, naturally they must be secret transcripts that only I - and Google - know of) given by the President to the troops (including a couple after Bin Laden's killing), where the Commander describes the mission to the troops, how would he reconcile that with his opinion on the President's amazing knack for slumber?

PS: This reminds me of a bit of trivia that I'll pose as a question: In 2006, Zogby polled about a 1000 members of the military that were stationed in Iraq at the time. What fraction of the respondents said that the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks? Choices: (1) less that 5% (2) 5% to 20% (3) 20% to 50% (4) more than 50%

 

[mheslep]

Point taken about misconceptions, confirmation bias among the public. To insure the point was general, and not a narrower political point, let me add my own: A Zogby 2007 poll of the US public found what fraction of Democrats believed Pres. Bush either let 911 happen or made it happen: 1)<5, 2)5-20, 3)20-41, 4)more than 42%?

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't mention strategic plan anywhere, just mission. And I still can't find out how Romney was able to find out what the mission is and the soldier wasn't. What could Obama have possibly done so that Romney knew and the soldier didn't know. After years of wondering too.

Edit. It might help to ask Romney how he found out what the mission is. If he could recall where he heard it, it might help us understand.

Where does it say that Mitt claims to know the President's plan?

 

[Gokul43201]

Where does it say that Mitt claims to know the President's plan?

It says so about halfway down Jimmy's post. Also, here, for instance: The former Massachusetts governor said he found the president's failure to make the mission clear one of the "most disturbing and hard to explain" elements of Obama's tenure. Though American troops may have a hard time finding clarity in their mission, Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57390114-503544/romney-to-mother-of-army-daughter-how-can-obama-sleep-at-night/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This morning my wife asked me how I could sleep at night knowing that WhoWee didn't get the point. And here's the kicker. Then she said that she did get the point.

 

[WhoWee]

This morning my wife asked me how I could sleep at night knowing that WhoWee didn't get the point. And here's the kicker. Then she said that she did get the point.

Ok - to be fair though, you only had one quotation mark - didn't think it was a direct quote.

( Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security." )

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Sorry to be so rough. The funny thing is, I support Romney and expect to vote for him in the general election. But this is the silly season and if he acts silly, I'll say so.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see why this issue is so difficult. All that happened is that a soldier's mom said something stupid (under emotional strain, but still) and like any good politician should, Romney used it to take a cheap shot at Obama. So can we turn the page now from this silly tangent, please?

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me the longer silly stuff like this is the only negative against Mitt Romney - and it's discussed as being silly - Mitt wins.

On another note - label IMO - a friend in Ohio told me Santorum isn't on the ballot in his Congressional District - not sure which one? He indicated Romney, Gingrich and Paul are on the ballot.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't see why this issue is so difficult. All that happened is that a soldier's mom said something stupid (under emotional strain, but still) and like any good politician should, Romney used it to take a cheap shot at Obama. So can we turn the page now from this silly tangent, please?

Yes sir!

 

[MarcoD]

PS: This reminds me of a bit of trivia that I'll pose as a question: In 2006, Zogby polled about a 1000 members of the military that were stationed in Iraq at the time. What fraction of the respondents said that the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks? Choices: (1) less that 5% (2) 5% to 20% (3) 20% to 50% (4) more than 50%

I don't think it's really constructive to post polls without the end result. I suggest you use the spoiler feature.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think it's really constructive to post polls without the end result. I suggest you use the spoiler feature.

The number is easily googled (I think).

In any case, the correct answer is:

Spoiler

85% of the respondents

To mheslep: I was actually trying to make a more specific (sociological, not political) point, but I'll accept your point as worthy of consideration as well, and agree with Russ to stop beating a dead horse (which perhaps wouldn't have needed so much beating if everyone agreed that it was indeed dead).