Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

  • News
  • Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date
In summary: Iowa, for example. In summary, the GOP has a lot of options, but Romney seems to be the most likely candidate. Romney has some issues, but he is competent and intelligent. He is also from Massachusetts, which could make the difference in a close election.
  • #1
ThomasT
529
0
We've had threads on Gingrich and Paul -- so I thought I'd start one on Romney, since he seems, arguably, the most likely GOP candidate.

Do you like, or not like, Romney? Would you vote for him? What do you think about his positions on various issues? Basically, anything pertaining to Romney's candidacy.

Currently, I don't like Romney and wouldn't vote for him. But I'm hoping to learn more about him via this thread.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, but Romney sometimes reminds me of a used car salesman who's trying to sell me my own car.
 
  • #3
Should we start a Santorum thread, he won the Evangelical toss and that's scary to me. It appears this will be a fight between Romney and Santorum, IMO.
 
  • #4
daveb said:
I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, but Romney sometimes reminds me of a used car salesman who's trying to sell me my own car.

and doing it badly
 
  • #5
But look at what there is to choose from. :eek:
 
  • #6
Evo said:
But look at what there is to choose from. :eek:
That's the scary part. Where are the GOP heavyweights? Smart people without a lot of baggage that would kill them in the general election?

Probably the most competent, intelligent person in the GOP race is Huntsman, but he doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination. That is so sad.
 
  • #7
Perhaps too many smart people are staying away due to the exposure they will get from the internet and how much easier it is to get dirt on someone.
 
  • #8
IMO Romney will probably get the nomination, but how can he contrast himself vs Obama and win the general election? He already signed MA universal health coverage into law and has been back-pedaling to distance himself from that to appease the right wing of the GOP. Is he going to be able to attack "Obamacare" as the FOXies like to call it without looking like a total hypocrite?

As the head of Bain, he oversaw the "downsizing" of thousands of jobs while raking in millions in consulting fees. That might not sit well with out-of-work voters.
 
  • #9
I should add that his father was at least (on the surface) a well-informed, principled politician. Mitt doesn't give me any confidence in his consistency or character.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
I am dissappointed by our options I wish somebody competent would step forward with the minimal backing needed to sweep in and take a strong hold.

We can not afford more of what we have, but no one currently running has the potential to over come the zealots who remain and the whipping the media will give them.

Romney gives me an icky feeling and being from PA I know Santorim is a joke(I have voted for him but again options not so much)

We need a true fiscal conservative who is socialy moderate to come out of the weeds and show some leadership. With out honest policy changes we will not recover in the next decade and in 30 years we will be destroyed by the spending commitments we have already made.

Even the "hard line" Dems here have to see we need a course correction.

I mean be honest the current administration has not even approved a single budget while it has been in office. Our government needs to run on budget in fact under budget that is impossible if you do not even have a budget to start with.

Can anyone think of a politician at the state or federal level that could be an option?
 
  • #12
turbo said:
I should add that his father was at least (on the surface) a well-informed, principled politician. Mitt doesn't give me any confidence in his consistency or character.
LOL, I added my post as an edit to yours and made you look crazy turbo. SORRY!

My post below.

If it's a choice between Romney or Santorum (Santorum got the Evangelical thumbs up and is, don't laugh, endorsed by the christian reality tv couple The Duggars, 19 kids and counting), who would you choose, I'd have to go with Mitt.
 
  • #13
That's OK Evo. I figured it out after a bit. If I was a mentor, I might use that power for humor, or to ill effect. :devil:
 
  • #14
turbo said:
That's OK Evo. I figured it out after a bit. If I was a mentor, I might use that power for humor, or to ill effect. :devil:
For mentors, the edit button is right next to the quote button, too easy to hit the wrong one without realizing.
 
  • #15
And yes, Santorum has been endorsed by the Duggars, who had their tour-bus wrapped in Santorum graphics. That might play well in SC a bit later, but it's not going to do a lot for him in NH or in the general election. He can stay in as long as he has money and keeps hammering Romney, but this one is Romney all the way, IMO.
 
  • #16
Just to refresh everyone on the Romney plan. Ohh and to mention that he actually has a fairly detailed plan something that we still have never seen from the current administration unless we "pass it so we can read it".

I have just re read the PDF detailing each of these points and must honestly say I can not out right shoot down any of them which I was suprised by. Can someone like Evo or another more "liberal" person please actually read the 59 points and maybe even the entire PDF and give a real "dem" review ?

I still am not sure what I think of Romney, but these seem like sane and reasonable points. The simple existence of a coherent plan makes me feel better about him and his team.

http://mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

59 Policy Proposals That Will Get America Back To Work
1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
3. Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
4. Eliminate the death tax
5. Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
7. Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation
8. Repeal Obamacare
9. Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with streamlined, modern regulatory framework
10. Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
11. Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
12 Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with
onerous new environmental regulations
13. Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy
14. Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
15. Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
16. Reform legal liability system to prevent spurious litigation
17. Implement agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea
18. Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
19. Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
20. Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
21. Create the Reagan Economic Zone
22. Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market
23. Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices
24. Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices
25. Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties
26. Discontinue U.S. government procurement from China until China commits to GPA
27. Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
28. Create one-stop shop to streamline permitting process for approval of common activities
29. Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct
pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
30. Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
31. Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
32. Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to
approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years
33. Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
34. Open America’s energy reserves for development
35. Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
36 Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
37. Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction
38 Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
39. Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechanisms like ARPA-E for basic research
40. Appoint to the NLRB experienced individuals with respect for the rule of law
41. Amend NLRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
42. Amend NLRA to guarantee the secret ballot in every union certification election
43. Amend NLRA to guarantee that all pre-election campaigns last at least one month
44. Support states in pursuing Right-to-Work laws
45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks
46. Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor
47. Eliminate redundancy in federal retraining programs by consolidating programs and funding streams,
centering as much activity as possible in a single agency
48. Give states authority to manage retraining programs by block granting federal funds
49. Facilitate the creation of Personal Reemployment Accounts
50. Encourage greater private sector involvement in retraining programs
51. Raise visa caps for highly skilled workers
52. Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science,
and engineering
53. Immediately cut non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent
54. Reform and restructure Medicaid as block grant to states
55. Align wages and benefits of government workers with market rates
56. Reduce federal workforce by 10 percent via attrition
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
58. Undertake fundamental restructuring of government programs and services
59. Pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment
 
  • #17
Oltz said:
I have just re read the PDF detailing each of these points and must honestly say I can not out right shoot down any of them which I was suprised by. Can someone like Evo or another more "liberal" person please actually read the 59 points and maybe even the entire PDF and give a real "dem" review ?
I'm not liberal and I'm not a Democrat. I've been called conservative and a Republican, and I guess I often do lean a bit conservative if it makes sense. I'm really middle of the road and will vote for the candidate I think is less of a danger. I have no party affiliation. Sorry.
 
  • #18
Thanks for the comments so far, the link from turbo, and the link and Romney's 59-point plan from Oltz. Maybe some more knowledgeable members can begin to comment on some of the points in Romney's plan. My overall impression is that he's the candidate of the status quo, ie., corporate America (~ business as usual, and no expected marked improvements for the US in general wrt his presidency). I expect to have something to say wrt at least a few of his points as I find time to do some required research and a bit of thinking on it.

Now I'm going to follow Evo's suggestion and start a thread on Santorum.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
ThomasT said:
Maybe some more knowledgeable members can begin to comment on some of the points in Romney's plan.

That's not me - except the 59 point plan reminded me of one of our senior project leaders (a rather dour Scot) whose response given that sort of "shopping list" was usually the same:

If that's the solution, tell me what you think the problem is, in 20 words or less.

Once that question gets a straight answer, a lot of the 59 points are probably headed strainght for the trash.
 
  • #20
Some of them are good, some of them just sound stupid.

Romney said:
1. Maintain current tax rates on personal income
2. Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
3. Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
4. Eliminate the death tax
5. Pursue a conservative overhaul of the tax system over the long term that includes lower,
flatter rates on a broader base
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
7. Pursue transition from “worldwide” to “territorial” system for corporate taxation

Obligatory 'lower taxes for the rich' conservative stuff.

Romney said:
13. Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Right...have fun with that. It's pretty sad when a politician campaigns to basically undo everything from the guy before him.

Romney said:
33. Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
34. Open America’s energy reserves for development

I like these.

Romney said:
45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

I'm surprised by this, in a good way.

Romney said:
52. Grant permanent residency to eligible graduates with advanced degrees in math, science, and engineering

I like this.

Romney said:
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP

This doesn't really mean anything. These just words on a page, nothing more.Basically, this is what I gather:
Cut big corporations slack, who needs to worry about the environment, we need to encourage smart people to stay, we should use more locally available energy, never cut military spending. Oh yeah, and Obama's bad.
 
  • #21
I give Romney credit for even having a plan. I still can't take any budget balancing discussion seriously that doesn't involve cutting military spending. (Democrat or Republican).
 
  • #22
Evo said:
I'm not liberal and I'm not a Democrat. I've been called conservative and a Republican, and I guess I often do lean a bit conservative if it makes sense. I'm really middle of the road and will vote for the candidate I think is less of a danger. I have no party affiliation. Sorry.


Evo, you should know by now, that under our Ayn Rand/Tea Party-inspired political framework, you must either be labeled "liberal" or "Real American." There's no "grey," there's only "us" and "wrong."

Oltz already noted that we need a fiscal conservative and social moderate; in the last election, which congressmen were the first to go?
 
  • #23
To add to:

45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

I see this as a roundabout way of attempting to weaken unions, which, in the wake of Citizens United, makes corporations even more powerful. The unions would have to solicit money from members, who sometimes may not have the financial ability to contribute much or even anything to lobbying efforts, but the corporations could still contribute hundreds of millions to lobbying and still make it financially worthwhile.
 
  • #24
Evo said:
I'm not liberal and I'm not a Democrat. I've been called conservative and a Republican, and I guess I often do lean a bit conservative if it makes sense. I'm really middle of the road and will vote for the candidate I think is less of a danger. I have no party affiliation. Sorry.
I have been called on this forum a 'Marxist" a "Commie" and worse. I am one of the most fiscally conservative people that I know and I vote split-party tickets in almost every election (unless the stars align to offer decent candidates in one party or the other).

I know many people who need some support from public services (including those that they have paid into for years, including SS and Medicare), and I am dead-set against gutting those programs to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. That does not make me a "Marxist commie", despite the claims of the nuts that want to equate taxation with theft.

Rational political discourse has been derailed by FOX, hate-radio, etc, and the people that main-line that crap, IMO. When I was a kid, Margaret Chase Smith was my hero in Congress. Much to my father's chagrin, BTW, since he was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who came up through the Depression (in abject poverty) and idolized FDR. My father left home in his teens and was taken in by a local store-owner who gave him room and board in return for stocking shelves, pricing products, and janitorial work as long as he studied and kept his grades up. Dad quit HS early to join the Airborne to fight in WWII. He still gets kind of teary-eyed when he talks about the owner of that store - giving a kid break in hard times.
 
  • #25
turbo said:
I have been called on this forum a 'Marxist" a "Commie" and worse.
Really? That's fantastic. Nobody ever calls me anything.

turbo said:
I know many people who need some support from public services (including those that they have paid into for years, including SS and Medicare), and I am dead-set against gutting those programs to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations.
Totally agree. And I think a lot of legislators agree also.

turbo said:
That does not make me a "Marxist commie", despite the claims of the nuts that want to equate taxation with theft.
Agree. Taxation certainly isn't theft. It's the necessary contribution of all people in the US republic to provide the resources for programs that benefit all of us. I understand why the wealthy don't want a progressive tax. They have enough money to not need governmental help. But most people don't. And, insofar as the wealthy got wealthy from the sweat and labor of common folks working for low wages, I don't think that their objection to paying higher taxes is morally defensible.

turbo said:
Rational political discourse has been derailed by FOX, hate-radio, etc, and the people that main-line that crap, IMO.
Obviously. It's not just your opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • #26
daveb said:
To add to:

45. Prohibit the use for political purposes of funds automatically deducted from worker paychecks

I see this as a roundabout way of attempting to weaken unions, which, in the wake of Citizens United, makes corporations even more powerful. The unions would have to solicit money from members, who sometimes may not have the financial ability to contribute much or even anything to lobbying efforts, but the corporations could still contribute hundreds of millions to lobbying and still make it financially worthwhile.

I can not more ardently disagree. My wife is a teacher and can not teach in PA without being a member of the local, state and Federal Union. Period no questions asked you either pay them or do not work. They then take that money you have no say in giving them and use ~70 for political activites without any form of input from the "members" that is wrong. What point 45 means is that if your union forces membership (non right to work state) it can not use those "dues" for political purposes. If you have voluntary membership your union can do as it pleases. This applies to teaches mailmen whatever if you do not support the political cause of the union leaders they should not be able to force you to pay for the campaign.

By the same not my wife would happily not be in the union given the option amd she would negotiate to have the same contract as the union but instead of paying dues that she has no control over to an entity we do no agree with most of the causes they support the school could keep that $248 a month.

Union contract - Dues = non union employee
 
  • #27
Oltz said:
By the same not my wife would happily not be in the union given the option amd she would negotiate to have the same contract as the union.
If you negotiate on your own, you don't have the clout that the union has. You would certainly get a worse contract than the union gets.
 
  • #28
KingNothing said:
Basically, this is what I gather:
Cut big corporations slack, ...
Most corporatations in the US are not big. I suspect #6
6. Reduce corporate income tax rate to 25 percent
will be quietly opposed by the biggest, most connected corporations (like GE) at the expense of the small. The large corps enjoy deductions and credits reducing their effective tax rates, while the current rate keeps down the new competition.
 
  • #29
KingNothing said:
57. Cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP
This doesn't really mean anything. These just words on a page, nothing more.
I think there is some consequence to having this in the plan. A theoretical President Romney will quickly be required to publish his budget. His 2013 spending proposal will immediately be placed against 2013 GDP, and if it exceeds 20% he'll have to answer for it.
 
  • #30
turbo said:
I have been called on this forum a 'Marxist" a "Commie" and worse. I am one of the most fiscally conservative people that I know and I vote split-party tickets in almost every election (unless the stars align to offer decent candidates in one party or the other).

I know many people who need some support from public services (including those that they have paid into for years, including SS and Medicare), and I am dead-set against gutting those programs to avoid increasing taxes on the wealthy and corporations. That does not make me a "Marxist commie", despite the claims of the nuts that want to equate taxation with theft.

Rational political discourse has been derailed by FOX, hate-radio, etc, and the people that main-line that crap, IMO. When I was a kid, Margaret Chase Smith was my hero in Congress. Much to my father's chagrin, BTW, since he was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who came up through the Depression (in abject poverty) and idolized FDR. My father left home in his teens and was taken in by a local store-owner who gave him room and board in return for stocking shelves, pricing products, and janitorial work as long as he studied and kept his grades up. Dad quit HS early to join the Airborne to fight in WWII. He still gets kind of teary-eyed when he talks about the owner of that store - giving a kid break in hard times.


For the record no rational person says we should not have a progressive tax structure. That being said any rational person should be able to tell you what percent of the population should bear what burden of taxes. The US has the largest ratio of tax burden to % wealth controlled out of all developed nations. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile")

I.e in 2009 the top 10% of earners had Adjusted Gross incomes above $112,124.00 all people with incomes above that controlled a total of 43.2% of national AGI but that same group paid 70.5% of the income taxes received by the government.

By the way the 1% control 16.9% of AGI and pay 36.7% of taxes this is AGI so it includes cap gains and dividends as well as all deductions. In 2009 the top 1% was incomes above $343,927.00 AGI


The average tax rate for the 1% bracket was 24.01 % versus 18.05 % for the top 10% and 1.85 % for the bottom 50%

In other words the bottom 90% control 56.8% of the wealth and pay 29.5% of the income tax. Some would say that "fair" tax brackets are based on your share of income.
 
  • #31
Oltz said:
For the record no rational person says we should not have a progressive tax structure. That being said any rational person should be able to tell you what percent of the population should bear what burden of taxes. The US has the largest ratio of tax burden to % wealth controlled out of all developed nations. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html("Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile")

I.e in 2009 the top 10% of earners had Adjusted Gross incomes above $112,124.00 all people with incomes above that controlled a total of 43.2% of national AGI but that same group paid 70.5% of the income taxes received by the government.

By the way the 1% control 16.9% of AGI and pay 36.7% of taxes this is AGI so it includes cap gains and dividends as well as all deductions. In 2009 the top 1% was incomes above $343,927.00 AGI


The average tax rate for the 1% bracket was 24.01 % versus 18.05 % for the top 10% and 1.85 % for the bottom 50%

In other words the bottom 90% control 56.8% of the wealth and pay 29.5% of the income tax. Some would say that "fair" tax brackets are based on your share of income.

The reason the top 1% and the top 10% pay such a large percentage of the taxes in the country is because they are so fantastically wealthy. Forget making a million dollars a year. There are people making HUNDREDS of millions of dollars a year. They make in one year what most of us can only hope to make in a dozen lifetimes.

This is why "percent of the total national tax" is an irrelevant figure. Even if you had an actual regressive tax, with lower incomes paying a higher percentage, you could still end up with a situation where the top 1% pays FAR MORE than 1% of the taxes.

I haven't verified this number, but I'll take your number at face value, that the top 1% pays on average 24.01% of their income. If the top 1% paid, say, 26% of their income instead, it would have a far smaller effect on them than if you bumped up the bottom 50% to say 3%.

If you support a balanced budget, in my opinion, you must also support higher taxes, particularly on the only group of people who can afford higher taxes. You cannot cut enough spending without causing economic catastrophe to balance the budget. It must come from a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. Proposing tax cuts, particularly tax cuts only on the wealthy, while cutting government benefits on the poor, and still not balancing the budget... that's just silly. And that's Romney.
 
  • #32
Jimmy Snyder said:
If you negotiate on your own, you don't have the clout that the union has. You would certainly get a worse contract than the union gets.
Not necessarily true. The company my father worked for had union and non-union workers. The non-union workers in the same job titles received more merit raises and benefits since they were not locked into a contract. I was at a company dinner and had this conversation with the company's attorney.

Also, where I worked, there was a very large union, when I started I was an occupational (non-management) worker. I elected not to join the union, but I got the same pay and benefits as the union workers, the company did not discriminate. I did not like the union and refused to limit the amount of work I did. As one union job steward threatened me to stop being so productive, she said that the union had worked very hard to convince management that workers could not do that amount of work and I was hurting them. I hate unions and union mentality.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
As far as SS and medicare the " pay in" systems I am mostly ok with them forcing people to "save" for retierment and medical expenses who would not normally have enough control to do it themselves. Anyone who says they are somehting different is selling you something. The problem is the pay out to in ratio has become so skewed and the funds have been redirected to the point they are unsustainable. I think any temporary cut in SS payments is rediculous and simply accelerating its collapse.

Most do not complain "much" about these 2 programs except to say they will someday fail and will someday be an enourmous debt. Reform is needed period.

Unemployment, welfare, foodstamps and all of the "entitlement" programs need reform to better target the correct recpients and be made sustainable with propper controls that will keep them from ballooning beyond our capacity to support them. We do not have this.
People do not need to be starving in the street by the millions but we do not all need to be equally poor either.

Its not about protecting the rich or corporations its about protecting the right to succeed or fail. A "glass cieling" in my opinion is as bad as a " mattress floor" in other words preventing success is as bas as make failure comfortable. I am fine with a saftey net/trampoline I am not ok with the safety hammock.
 
  • #34
Oltz said:
As far as SS and medicare the " pay in" systems I am mostly ok with them forcing people to "save" for retierment and medical expenses who would not normally have enough control to do it themselves. Anyone who says they are somehting different is selling you something. The problem is the pay out to in ratio has become so skewed and the funds have been redirected to the point they are unsustainable. I think any temporary cut in SS payments is rediculous and simply accelerating its collapse.

Most do not complain "much" about these 2 programs except to say they will someday fail and will someday be an enourmous debt. Reform is needed period.

Unemployment, welfare, foodstamps and all of the "entitlement" programs need reform to better target the correct recpients and be made sustainable with propper controls that will keep them from ballooning beyond our capacity to support them. We do not have this.
People do not need to be starving in the street by the millions but we do not all need to be equally poor either.

Its not about protecting the rich or corporations its about protecting the right to succeed or fail. A "glass cieling" in my opinion is as bad as a " mattress floor" in other words preventing success is as bas as make failure comfortable. I am fine with a saftey net/trampoline I am not ok with the safety hammock.

I just read a bunch of conservative talking points, but no actual substance. You didn't actually point out any specific problems, nor propose any specific solutions. Would you like to try and think for yourself, rather than regurgitating what you've heard on talk radio?
 
  • #35
Evo said:
Also, where I worked, there was a very large union, when I started I was an occupational (non-management) worker. I elected not to join the union, but I got the same pay and benefits as the union workers, the company did not discriminate.
That's not negotiating, that's taking a free ride. Oltz said his wife would negotiate the same contract as the union did.
 
<h2>1. What are Mitt Romney's political beliefs and stances?</h2><p>Mitt Romney is a Republican politician who has held various positions in the government, including serving as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He is known for his conservative beliefs and has taken stances on issues such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy.</p><h2>2. How has Mitt Romney's candidacy evolved over the years?</h2><p>Mitt Romney has been involved in politics for several decades and his candidacy has evolved over time. He first ran for president in 2008 and then again in 2012, ultimately becoming the Republican nominee. Since then, he has continued to be involved in politics, endorsing and campaigning for other candidates and speaking out on current issues.</p><h2>3. What are some criticisms of Mitt Romney's candidacy?</h2><p>Some criticisms of Mitt Romney's candidacy include his changing stance on certain issues, such as healthcare, and his perceived lack of authenticity. He has also faced criticism for his wealth and business background, with some questioning his ability to relate to and understand the struggles of everyday Americans.</p><h2>4. How has Mitt Romney's candidacy impacted the Republican party?</h2><p>Mitt Romney's candidacy has had a significant impact on the Republican party. He has helped to shape the party's platform and has been a prominent figure in the party's efforts to win elections. His candidacy has also sparked debates and discussions within the party about its direction and values.</p><h2>5. What are some potential outcomes of Mitt Romney's candidacy?</h2><p>There are several potential outcomes of Mitt Romney's candidacy. If he were to win the election, he would become the President of the United States and would have the opportunity to implement his policies and agenda. If he were to lose, he could continue to be involved in politics in other ways or may choose to retire from public life. Additionally, his candidacy could have lasting effects on the Republican party and the political landscape as a whole.</p>

1. What are Mitt Romney's political beliefs and stances?

Mitt Romney is a Republican politician who has held various positions in the government, including serving as the Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007. He is known for his conservative beliefs and has taken stances on issues such as healthcare, immigration, and the economy.

2. How has Mitt Romney's candidacy evolved over the years?

Mitt Romney has been involved in politics for several decades and his candidacy has evolved over time. He first ran for president in 2008 and then again in 2012, ultimately becoming the Republican nominee. Since then, he has continued to be involved in politics, endorsing and campaigning for other candidates and speaking out on current issues.

3. What are some criticisms of Mitt Romney's candidacy?

Some criticisms of Mitt Romney's candidacy include his changing stance on certain issues, such as healthcare, and his perceived lack of authenticity. He has also faced criticism for his wealth and business background, with some questioning his ability to relate to and understand the struggles of everyday Americans.

4. How has Mitt Romney's candidacy impacted the Republican party?

Mitt Romney's candidacy has had a significant impact on the Republican party. He has helped to shape the party's platform and has been a prominent figure in the party's efforts to win elections. His candidacy has also sparked debates and discussions within the party about its direction and values.

5. What are some potential outcomes of Mitt Romney's candidacy?

There are several potential outcomes of Mitt Romney's candidacy. If he were to win the election, he would become the President of the United States and would have the opportunity to implement his policies and agenda. If he were to lose, he could continue to be involved in politics in other ways or may choose to retire from public life. Additionally, his candidacy could have lasting effects on the Republican party and the political landscape as a whole.

Similar threads

Replies
126
Views
19K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
4
Replies
123
Views
19K
  • Poll
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
15
Replies
492
Views
44K
Replies
3
Views
232
Replies
3
Views
740
  • General Discussion
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
825
Back
Top