Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Mitt Romney running for president
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8169		 Page 3 of 5
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Mitt is going to be in Frankfort (or Louisville), KY for the KY Republican Party's Lincoln Day luncheon. I'd totally go, but it's $75/plate, $1000 Donation for the special reception/meet-and-greet with Romney. I just don't have that kinda money.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Mitt is going to be in Frankfort (or Louisville), KY for the KY Republican Party's Lincoln Day luncheon. I'd totally go, but it's $75/plate, $1000 Donation for the special reception/meet-and-greet with Romney. I just don't have that kinda money.


Lordy, you wouldn't pay that much for a backstage pass to U2 or Madonna. It does show the kind of arms-length distance being created between the ordinary Joe and those who are supposedly our leaders and champions.

----

Here's some old but interesting info: Mitt being slammed for pro-gay comments. Well, it does seem very inconsistant and flipflopperish(*), but could he be harmed for the actions of ten years ago?


(*) lol, it's fun to invent words.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's Her Face wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
Mitt is going to be in Frankfort (or Louisville), KY for the KY Republican Party's Lincoln Day luncheon. I'd totally go, but it's $75/plate, $1000 Donation for the special reception/meet-and-greet with Romney. I just don't have that kinda money.


Lordy, you wouldn't pay that much for a backstage pass to U2 or Madonna. It does show the kind of arms-length distance being created between the ordinary Joe and those who are supposedly our leaders and champions.
I wouldn't pay anything for backstage with U2 or Madonna, but that's a different story. Maybe Aerosmith, but certainly not U2 or Madonna.

Quote:
could he be harmed for the actions of ten years ago?
Of course, that's the way politics works. The flip-flopping can and probably will lead to his downfall. Sometimes, it's actually viewed more favorably to have the wrong opinion and keep it than to keep changing. (There are exceptions, obviously).

I do have to say that I am both optimistic AND pessimistic about Obama possibly running for president. One the optimistic side, he is more likely to get the Dem's nomination than Hillary (Thank God!) but, then again, unlike recent democratic candidates, he's actually electable. Ok, so I'm not upset that a democrat might get the White House. Depending on what he means by stopping "politics as usual", it might actually be a good thing, provided he means "politics as usual" to be constant partisan bickering and not "people consider conservatives when laws are being made".
I'm not like the groups of people (who are still here) who said they'd leave the country or kill themselves if Bush got re-elected.
Author:  ed 'lim' smilde [ Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:06 pm ]
Post subject: 
This isn't the first time Mitt Romney has changed his opinions. About 10 years ago he was pro-choice, but now he's 'firmly pro-life'. I guess I wouldn't mind voting for him, since he does agree with me on many social issues, but it all depends on who the other candidates are (obviously).
Author:  What's Her Face [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good points, all. Mind you, there seems to be more people worried (or wishing) that Romney gets shafted for his flipfloppery than people who are actually trying to shaft him for his flipfloppery. So, yeah, we'll see.

StrongRad wrote:
he is more likely to get the Dem's nomination than Hillary (Thank God!)


Lolz - I'm convinced now that Hillary is the most hated woman in history since Bloody Queen Mary.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:50 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's Her Face wrote:
Lolz - I'm convinced now that Hillary is the most hated woman in history since Bloody Queen Mary.
People hate her because she is that good. America has never seen a woman more capable of wielding so much power. She is a student of Barry Goldwater. Her stance is heavily influenced by him.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Dick Morris looks at the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008 -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani -- and notes "the only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/ ... idate.html
Author:  StrongRad [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Dick Morris looks at the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008 -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani -- and notes "the only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/ ... idate.html

Newt?!?!?
Geez.. Don't tell me the Republicans are going to try what the Democrats did in the last 2 elections and send the most un-electable candidate they have...

I'd like to see McCain, but he seems a little too appealing to the left to get the Republican bid (which is funny, because wide appeal is the key to winning the White House).
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:22 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
lahimatoa wrote:
Dick Morris looks at the four leading GOP presidential contenders in 2008 -- John McCain, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani -- and notes "the only one of these guys who hasn't had multiple wives is the Mormon."

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/ ... idate.html

Newt?!?!?
Geez.. Don't tell me the Republicans are going to try what the Democrats did in the last 2 elections and send the most un-electable candidate they have...

I'd like to see McCain, but he seems a little too appealing to the left to get the Republican bid (which is funny, because wide appeal is the key to winning the White House).


I don't know who I'd like to see anymore. For a while, I was really interested in McCain, what with is tough anti-torture stance and his bipartisan-ship, but he seems to have ditched both of those to warm up to the right (or whoever's company he's in at the moment). Similarly with Romney, I liked a lot of his stances much more prior to his current run at the presidency. To become electable, I suppose, he has moved further right than I am, and on a couple of things, to the right of most of the LDS church. Either of those guys still have a good chance from me, especially since the rest of the competition is weak (imo), but I don't know which one I'm more interested at the time.

I've got no interest in Giuliani. Prior to 9/11, he was considered a pretty crappy mayor. Now he's running on name recognition and sympathy.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 am ]
Post subject: 
I'm looking at Huckabee, Richardson, & Vilsack myself.
Author:  Mike D [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:12 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Newt?!?!?
Geez.. Don't tell me the Republicans are going to try what the Democrats did in the last 2 elections and send the most un-electable candidate they have...


Newt was forced to step down as Speaker by his own party, and I doubt they've forgotten why. I'd say he's still a longshot for the nomination. He's a canny politician and you can never count him out entirely, but the odds appear to be heavily against him. I don't think the general public trusts him as it is.

As for Romney, it looks increasingly like the flip-flop thing is going to sink him. In fact, it will probably dog him for the rest of his political career (if he has one after the election).

Mike
Author:  lahimatoa [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 5:53 am ]
Post subject: 
Wait, that's it? That's what's going to sink Romney?

Really?

Changing stances on a few issues over the course of 10 years?

Do you believe the same things you did 10 years ago?
Author:  racerx_is_alive [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:33 am ]
Post subject: 
It could sink it for me, if only because I liked his earlier views better than his later ones. Of course, McCain is just as flip-floppy, so I wonder if it won't balance out.

Quote:
As for Romney, it looks increasingly like the flip-flop thing is going to sink him. In fact, it will probably dog him for the rest of his political career (if he has one after the election).


You really think changing a 10 year old opinion is going to sink his political career forever? It's not like he's been out chasing bribes and male prostitutes. Just his success in Massachusetts shows that he's smart and talented enough to keep himself employed. And it's not like his background wasn't examined when he ran against Ted Kennedy for senator, or for governor. Everything people could "dig up" against him then didn't keep him from getting a lot of support then.
Author:  Mike D [ Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:21 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Wait, that's it? That's what's going to sink Romney?

Changing stances on a few issues over the course of 10 years?


I'm not talking about my personal feelings about Romney's stances. I'm saying that politically speaking, it gives his opponents a big stick. It doesn't matter if the changes in Romney's stances are reasonable or not; what matters is public perception. Branding an opponent as a flip-flopper is a proven damaging technique and I think we can expect Romney's political opponents to do their utmost to use it against him.

Let's take Romney's stance on abortion. He claims, seemingly very reasonably, that's he's always been essentially pro-life, but was tolerant enough of the pro-choice standpoint not to challenge the status quo when elected. Now his position on the issue has polarized. In the hands of a political opponent, however, he can easily be portrayed in attack ads as an opportunist who alters his agenda from election to election. Clips from his own speeches can be used in the ads for full effect. Fair or not, that's how the process works. This is just one issue they can seize on.

racerx_is_alive wrote:
You really think changing a 10 year old opinion is going to sink his political career forever?


Not necessarily, but if he is successfully labeled a flip-flopper in this election then you can expect it to crop up in the future if he runs for office again. Future opponents will only be too happy to use it against him.

The good news for Romney, of course, is his opposition. As you mention, McCain's record is also wavering. Giuliani is more formidable at the moment, but he's practically a social liberal; that will definitely hurt him going into the primaries. It's going to be interesting, in any event.

Mike
Author:  What's Her Face [ Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Another issue would be whether he actually genuinely changed his mind, or whether he was simply pandering to certain sects according to the mood of the time.

Either way, it's very likely to plant some doubt in voters' minds - maybe, indeed, for the rest of his political career.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
The more I think about it, the less sense it makes to hold "flip-floppers" in a negative light.

People change their minds about things. It's human nature.

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton changed their minds about the Iraq war. Romney changed his mind about gay marriage. People do that every now and then.

There are only 2 problems that I have with "flips." The first is when the change is made to pander to, as What's Her Face said, "certain sects according to the mood of the time." The second is when the original position is totally denied ("I never felt that way!").
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 
I also think there's a big difference between flipping and flip-flopping.

The latter means you go back and forth on an issue depending on who you're addressing or what group you're trying to appeal to.

Romney may have done some flipping, but I have yet to see any flopping.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Lahi - a question that I've meant to ask ya for a while now...... I'm getting that you're supporting Romney's nomination, and that you'd then vote to make him president, yeah? I'm just curious as to why.

Particularly, is the fact that he's Mormon a big part of it? (Because you've mentioned Romney's religion a good few times in this thread.)

Just curious.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
I do think it's hypocritical of Romney to support alternative energy yet want to drill in ANWR.

And I won't vote for anyone who wants us to stay in Iraq. We've done our job, so let's leave ASAP. I know Mike Huckabee wants us to finish the job, but how do we do that? Vilsack at least wants our troops to "get out of harm's way"; what exactly does that mean?

I'll keep my eye on Romney as the election looms.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
WHF, I suppose I was initially interested in Romney because he's Mormon, yes. But what makes me support him is his stance on the issues and his abilities as a leader.

I'd never vote for Harry Reid in a million years. He's LDS, but I disagree with him on a lot of things and think he's a scumball. :)

Quote:
I do think it's hypocritical of Romney to support alternative energy yet want to drill in ANWR.


Thing is, it'll take years to develop alternative energies. In the meantime, I'm fine with using our own oil and getting rid of our dependence on the Middle East.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good point. I'm just concerned about the environmental impact.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
WHF, I suppose I was initially interested in Romney because he's Mormon, yes. But what makes me support him is his stance on the issues and his abilities as a leader.


Okay. I think I get what you mean by his stance on the issues, but I'd just be interested to know what abilities as a leader you think he has. Compared to his competitors, anyway.

Quote:
Quote:
I do think it's hypocritical of Romney to support alternative energy yet want to drill in ANWR.


Thing is, it'll take years to develop alternative energies. In the meantime, I'm fine with using our own oil and getting rid of our dependence on the Middle East.


According to Gibson Consulting, it's fantasy to hope that the US can ween itself off foreign oil - or petroleum, at least. They say too that the Middle East (ie. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait) only makes up less than 20% of US imports - yeah it's sizable, but there's no massive dependancy there.

But if they've done their sums right, it doesn't seem to be worth the risk to an ecosystem that's already reeling from the effects of global warming.
Author:  firemarc924 [ Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
BTG, Hilary may be the most powerful women in America, but she isnt president yet, and I dont know she is going to be after the primaries. The most powerful women in the world is Angela Merkel, just saying.
Author:  ramrod [ Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:16 am ]
Post subject: 
firemarc924 wrote:
BTG, Hilary may be the most powerful women in America, but she isnt president yet, and I dont know she is going to be after the primaries. The most powerful women in the world is Angela Merkel, just saying.
Actually, I'd make the claim that Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in America. she is the Speaker of the House, after all.
Author:  Simon Zeno [ Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:29 am ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
firemarc924 wrote:
BTG, Hilary may be the most powerful women in America, but she isnt president yet, and I dont know she is going to be after the primaries. The most powerful women in the world is Angela Merkel, just saying.
Actually, I'd make the claim that Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful woman in America. she is the Speaker of the House, after all.


You're all wrong, it's Oprah. If Oprah told everyone to kill themselves, we would lose 90% of our female population.
Author:  firemarc924 [ Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Oh, and to people who dont know who Angela Merkel is, she is chancellor of Germany.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:18 am ]
Post subject: 
WHF wrote:
Okay. I think I get what you mean by his stance on the issues, but I'd just be interested to know what abilities as a leader you think he has. Compared to his competitors, anyway.


Mitt Romney took the 2002 Winter Olympics, which were a disaster and on the brink of failure, and turned it into one of the most successful Olympics ever. (link)

His success in the business world is well-documented. He's good at managing people and money. link

He managed to get elected as governor of one of the most, if not the most liberal state in America, as a conservative. This shows he can work with people from all ideologies and find common ground.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sat Feb 24, 2007 12:28 am ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, Romney does sound pretty good, except I want to know his plan for us getting out of Iraq. OnTheIssues only mentions that "Withdrawal from Iraq would be a mistake", and that "Bush gave inadequate rationale for Iraq war." But that tells me nothing.
Author:  IantheGecko [ Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:49 am ]
Post subject: 
So AP's reporting that some of Romney's ancestors were polygamists. Seeing as how they're his ANCESTORS, Romney has one wife, and polygamy today is outlawed in the Mormon church and in America...who cares? That doesn't make him a hypocrite for speaking out against it.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:22 am ]
Post subject: 
IantheGecko wrote:
So AP's reporting that some of Romney's ancestors were polygamists. Seeing as how they're his ANCESTORS, Romney has one wife, and polygamy today is outlawed in the Mormon church and in America...who cares? That doesn't make him a hypocrite for speaking out against it.


That would be a ridiculous reason to vote against someone. Sins of the Father should never be a factor, because it's not the fault of the individual. If you look at anyone's family history, you're bound to eventually come across some sort of bigotry or general immorality. "Frank's great-great-grandfather's second cousin twice removed was a member of the KKK! KILL FRANK! ARRGGBGBBL!!!"
Page 3 of 5 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/