Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[Hobin]

I can understand that, to a person who values reason, fundamentalism would be considered to be a bad thing. However, to a person who values the ideals of fundamentalism, fundamentalism would not be a bad thing. The values of fundamentalism that I am talking about come from the wikipedia page on fundamentalism.

The thing is that everyone is reasonable when it comes to their daily activities. You don't expect 'X' to suddenly mean 'not X'. Or, for a less alien example: when changing a flat tire, you're using reason to determine the best course of action. The problem is not that fundamentalistic people have a certain set of beliefs, but that one of these beliefs is 'reason does not apply to our set of beliefs'.

I may very well be wrong, of course. Although I have never met anyone who didn't care that their beliefs were unreasonable (in other words, though people may have held fundamentalist beliefs, the people I met always believed they were being reasonable, as opposed to 'reason does not apply'), I cannot be sure that no one has. Maybe I've just been very lucky. Though, to be perfectly honest, I don't see what can be gained by arguing about whether reason should be valued or not. After all, such an argument would require the use of reason. I kind of expect people to value reason. Silly me.

In my opinion, believing in absolutism in this sense leads to conflict with people who have differing opinions on the specifics of the standards of whatever absolute morality they believe in. This is why I do not think that a person like Romney, who apparently opposes fundamentalist Islam, is a good choice for a president, because he would end up conflicting with those people instead of possibly ending up with a good compromise.

I don't see how this should be a problem. That's what diplomacy is for.

Let's assume for the moment that I am the president of the United States. Personally, I'm opposed to fundamentalism of any kind - and thus also to fundamentalism in Islam. Does this mean that I would end up angering a whole bunch of people because of my opposition to their beliefs? Of course not. The fact that I disagree with people does not mean I will oppose them whenever they can - after all, these people still affect the rest of the world with their beliefs. You don't need to be neutral to their beliefs to see that a good compromise is better than making a lot of people very angry. This has much more to do with tact and diplomacy than with my own beliefs.

Thus, as for your question "how can we have peace when there are fundamentalists out there", the obvious answer is that being against fundamentalism does NOT mean I want to 'kill them all', or something equally barbaric. Can't I simply disagree, while still being nice to fundamentalists?

(The question remains whether Romney is capable of such tact, of course. I know too little about the man to argue one way or another.)

 

[Evo]

Let's drop this please and get back on topic. We're waiting for jduster to respond.

 

[ThomasT]

I'm non-religious, and the idea of voting Republican, irks me a little, but Romney is the only candidate I can find myself supporting.

It isn't just Romney's religious affiliation that troubles me. It's his adherence to the corporatist status quo -- the ideals and practices of big corporation, big money politics. Which are certainly good for a tiny minority of Americans, but, imho, not good for the country as a whole.

Romney would, imo, be the sort of president who would seek to maximize the influence of the most wealthy and powerful, thereby minimizing the influence, and freedoms, of lesser players.

 

[lisab]

OK I admit it, my inner adolescent giggled at this...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ann-romney-unzip-him-let-real-mitt-romney-170357495.html

 

[mheslep]

I don't know about the old man, but there does appear to be a tendency towards gag's with his offspring.

Matt Romney Schwarzenegger pranks the old man
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbaBhb7w_1s

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The question of who will go to the convention with the most delegates is no longer an interesting one. It long ago shifted to whether Romney will get 1144 before the convention starts. Santorum's message is not that he can defeat Romney, it's that if you vote for Santorum, you are really voting for brokered convention and a Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio to be drafted. There's something in that. Romney doesn't poll well against Obama.

On the other hand, Romney's message is that if you vote for him, he can stop running negative ads against Santorum, and start running negative ads against Obama. Positive ads being considered a waste of money any more.

 

[ThomasT]

Ok, the Romney nomination thread will be closed soon. Then we'll have the Romney vs Obama thread. Oh, how exciting.

 

[mheslep]

. Romney doesn't poll well against Obama.

Recently.

 

[lisab]

The question of who will go to the convention with the most delegates is no longer an interesting one. It long ago shifted to whether Romney will get 1144 before the convention starts. Santorum's message is not that he can defeat Romney, it's that if you vote for Santorum, you are really voting for brokered convention and a Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or Marco Rubio to be drafted. There's something in that. Romney doesn't poll well against Obama.

On the other hand, Romney's message is that if you vote for him, he can stop running negative ads against Santorum, and start running negative ads against Obama. Positive ads being considered a waste of money any more.

Given that, it'll be interesting to see Romney's choice for running mate.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Recently.

Here's a history showing that Romney has not been polling well against Obama for some time now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Click on "See All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data" to get older results.

 

[mheslep]

Here's a history showing that Romney has not been polling well against Obama for some time now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Click on "See All General Election: Romney vs. Obama Polling Data" to get older results.

Yes I know, and Romney was actually pulling ahead of Obama before the primary blood baths started in earnest.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Yes I know, and Romney was actually pulling ahead of Obama before the primary blood baths started in earnest.

You mean that little dip thing in the middle around 9/09/11? I'm not sure I'd call that "pulling ahead".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes I know, and Romney was actually pulling ahead of Obama before the primary blood baths started in earnest.

Not according to the data I linked to. And that goes all the way back to April of last year. Which month do you find Romney pulling ahead in?

 

[mheslep]

Not according to the data I linked to. And that goes all the way back to April of last year. Which month do you find Romney pulling ahead in?

September, October 2011. Then came the primary fights in earnest.

 

[mheslep]

Great Romney response on the stump. No attempt to pander.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/romney_to_contraception_heckler_if_you_want_free_stuff_vote_for_obama.html

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Great Romney response on the stump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/romney_to_contraception_heckler_if_you_want_free_stuff_vote_for_obama.html

She's not for "free stuff" though, she's for "free birth control"

Saying "free stuff" implies that the person wants all sorts of stuff. She's just asking for one thing that would be very helpful to her.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

September, October 2011. Then came the primary fights in earnest.

The first poll in Sept 2011 had Romney ahead by +4. The last poll in October had Obama ahead by +5. That is to say, Romney was pulling away, but in the wrong direction. The first primary fight took place two months later in January.

Edit: That +4 result at the beginning of September was the highest he would achieve throughout the months of September and October.

 

[mheslep]

Yep Jan 3rd, and the first "my opponent is a fraud-moron-jerk" attack ad was run when? The first debate?

 

[Gokul43201]

Great Romney response on the stump. No attempt to pander.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/20/romney_to_contraception_heckler_if_you_want_free_stuff_vote_for_obama.html

Ooh, bazinga! I'd like to see the look on the lady's face after that.

 

[Gokul43201]

She's not for "free stuff" though, she's for "free birth control"

Saying "free stuff" implies that the person wants all sorts of stuff. She's just asking for one thing that would be very helpful to her.

If 300 million Americans each want "one thing that would be very helpful" to each of them to be free, you end up with "free stuff". So perhaps it isa little unfair to describe Obama as supporting all "free stuff", but by typical election politics standards, this is quite tame.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If Romney wins the nomination, then I will positively vote for him to be President. But if he picks Christie for VP, then I will absolutely positively vote for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/christie-listen-romney-asks-him-running-mate-173656944--abc-news-politics.html

 

[mheslep]

If Romney wins the nomination, then I will positively vote for him to be President. But if he picks Christie for VP, then I will absolutely positively vote for him.

http://news.yahoo.com/christie-listen-romney-asks-him-running-mate-173656944--abc-news-politics.html

Any acceptable Veep alternatives on your list? Rubio? Ryan? Rand Paul? Santorum?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Any acceptable Veep alternatives on your list? Rubio? Ryan? Rand Paul? Santorum?

If Romney wins the nomination, then I will positively vote for him to be President.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Given my past history in this thread, some may find it odd that I too will be voting for Romney. I have my personal reasons for my pick of him, and while most find the Ryan budget plan revolting, I personally don't, I actually believe it to be one of the better sides of Romney's run at the presidency, but that isn't the only reason, I believe his ideals are more inline with the fiscal conservative mindset that I like the most. But that is just me, if he doesn't win, I won't be sadden over it.

As for how he wins it? How about no attack ads, and focusing primarily on policies he plans to enact? I believe ignoring the probable attack ads from Obama's camp and restructuring the campaign around prosperity in the form of non-vague terminology like "hope", "change", etc..., and just "this is what I will do 'insert policy', and this is the effect it will have..." show more positives about your plans and speak more frequently about them. In my opinion that will usurp any attack ads Obama's superpac puts out as they will be focusing on the negatives of Romney's past.

In the debates Obama will go after Romney's lack of plan and that will be his major downfall in my opinion, if he doesn't start pushing his agenda more often. That is why I believe negative attack ads are backwards in that they speak little of the candidate and more of the other camp. It does nothing but prolongs an inevitable soap opera that I, or anyone else, should begin to care less for if at all.

As for the VP pick? Christie is an obvious no for me, and Rubio? Also a no for me. I believe Tim Pawlenty is a pretty safe pick for Romney, he was able to balance Minnesota's budget, able to decrease spending, etc..., all of which were needed at the time he took office. He also did not raise taxes. We've become increasingly democratic over the years though. (I also really like Jon Huntsman!). Paul Ryan? I won't particularly be too dismayed if he is chosen either, but my two main picks are Pawlenty or Huntsman.

 

[Alfi]

If money talks, Romney will have to speak up.



Obama posts 10-1 financial edge over Romney, putting $104M into campaign war chest

Published April 21, 2012 | Associated Press

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's re-election effort enjoyed a 10-to-1 financial edge over Republican rival Mitt Romney last month, out-raising the former Massachusetts governor by millions as Obama stuffed more than $104 million into his campaign war chest.

A nasty primary battle between Romney and his GOP rivals took a financial toll on his presidential campaign, which raised $12.6 million in March and left Romney with about $10 million in the bank by month's end. All told, Obama and the Democratic Party raised a combined $53 million in donations during that period, while Romney with his party pulled in about half of that.
. . . .

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-over-romney-putting-104m-into-campaign-war/

 

[jduster]

I think it is way too early to speculate about VP picks, especially since none of the candidates who ran could help Romney. When is it ever who the media speculates it to be?

 

[mheslep]

most find the Ryan budget plan revolting, ...

Do you really mean "most", or "some"?

 

[phoenix:\\]

I mean a majority of Americans (medicare). While split on the overall budget.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/01/cnn-poll-majority-gives-thumbs-down-to-ryan-plan/

 

[mheslep]

The 58% with the "don't like" opinion 58% is a bit short of 'revolting'.

 

[phoenix:\\]

A bit short of not being on the list. The outrage from the Catholic church and democrats is why I labeled it "revolting" as I was concerning their position.

 

[skippy1729]

As for how he wins it? How about no attack ads, and focusing primarily on policies he plans to enact? I believe ignoring the probable attack ads from Obama's camp and restructuring the campaign around prosperity in the form of non-vague terminology like "hope", "change", etc..., and just "this is what I will do 'insert policy', and this is the effect it will have..." show more positives about your plans and speak more frequently about them. In my opinion that will usurp any attack ads Obama's superpac puts out as they will be focusing on the negatives of Romney's past.

In the debates Obama will go after Romney's lack of plan and that will be his major downfall in my opinion, if he doesn't start pushing his agenda more often. That is why I believe negative attack ads are backwards in that they speak little of the candidate and more of the other camp. It does nothing but prolongs an inevitable soap opera that I, or anyone else, should begin to care less for if at all.

You miss three points:

1. There will be an equal number of super-pacs focusing on the presidents record and negatives from his past. Most voters will not distinguish between ads by the candidates and super-pac ads.

2. Nobody likes negative ads but they work. Without negative ads Newt would be the GOP nominee.

3. Character doesn't count in presidential elections. If it did, McCain would be running for re-election. If not for the 22nd amendment, Bill Clinton might be running for his 5th term!

Skippy

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Nobody likes negative ads but they work.

I should run for office. Between my positive ads for myself and my opponent's negative ads against me, no one will even know my opponent's name.

 

[Evo]

I should run for office. Between my positive ads for myself and my opponent's negative ads against me, no one will even know my opponent's name.

I'd vote for you. You might destroy the country, but you'd have everyone laughing about it.

 

[lisab]

I'd vote for you. You might destroy the country, but you'd have everyone laughing about it.

"Vote For Me; Jimmy's A Nice Name!"

 

[BobG]

Wouldn't selecting Rubio help Romney narrow the gap between him and Obama with Latino voters? (Obama leads Romney among Latinos 69% to 22%)

Or would selecting a VP of Cuban ancestry just point out the fact that undocumented Cuban immigrants receive different treatment than other undocumented immigrants? Measures to curb illegal immigration are aimed primarily towards Mexican immigrants, while there's little to no effort made to curb illegal immigration among other groups.

At least Rubio would help Romney among Cuban-Americans in Florida. On the other hand, Cuban-Americans in Florida have voted heavily Republican ever since Kennedy's Bay of Pigs.

How Arizona reacts to a win in the US Supreme Court could be more important than Romney's VP choice. If the criteria for having to prove one's legal status depends solely on whether a person looks Mexican or has a Mexican name, and results in the harrassment of too many American citizens of Mexican descent, being associated with that bill will doom Romney's chances among Latinos, especially in Arizona, but Colorado is also a toss-up state with a large population of American citizens with Mexican ancestry.

Disclaimer: My son-in-law is of Mexican descent on his father's side, and I would not be very fond of any policy that resulted in my grandkids being harrassed by police simply because of the name on their drivers license.