Why not Mitt?

[PBzeer]

Regardless of any other considerations, the one simple, glaring reason not to choose Mitt is that he won't put forward conservative solutions. We don't need a Republican to try to better run liberal policy.

That's all we got with both Bush's, and all we would have got with McCain. And it's all we'll get with Romney. And then, when they fail, it will be, not an indictment of the liberal policies they tried to run, but of the conservative ones they never tried.

But, you say, what about the Bush tax cuts. That was conservative policy. Yes it was. Had he not then exploded spending on "compassionate conservatism", which is simply liberal lite, the tax cuts might have had their intended outcome. Unfortunately, there's no way to know for sure, though that doesn't stop the left from saying they didn't work. While conveniently ignoring they were part of a whole.

We don't need a Republican to be a better Democrat.

[WouldaShoulda]

I'm affraid he'll have to do.

Perhaps Rubio will turn out to be his Dick Cheney!!

Congress should keep him in Cheque.

[xymotic]

the republicans need to actually figure out what conservative is.

Passing laws on abortion, and gay rights, not conservative.

spending a huge amount of money on the military, not conservative.

tax cuts on the wealthy, I guess could be conservative if they did *anything* to stop subsidizing huge corporate interests. And boy it would sure be nice if it wasn't quite so one sided. It's ***AMAZING*** to me that the Republicans are fighting over extending the payroll tax cut.

[Sailormon6]

In an ideal world, Ronald Reagan would rise from the dead, announce his candidacy for President, and be elected by a landslide. But, that's not going to happen, so, we have to choose from among the candidates who have made themselves available for the job. Some people, like Governor Christie, have declined to make themselves available for the job. It does no good to wish otherwise. The only announced candidates who have shown a sufficient attraction for voters are Romney, Gingrich, and perhaps Santorum. The bottom line is that voters generally don't know enough about Santorum to support him in adequate numbers. Moreover, his qualifications and managerial experience aren't much better than Obama's, and we don't need another amateur in the White House. Gingrich is an interesting campaigner, and I like his style, but he has simply made too many enemies in Washington, and his enemies won't allow him to be elected. That leaves us with Governor Romney, who has far stronger managerial experience than either Obama, or any of the Republican contenders.

We aren't electing a high priest of our religion. We don't have to sit next to him in his church, or pray to his God. We don't have to agree with him, point-by-point, on every aspect of his economic or social philosophy.

If you can only bring yourself to vote for someone who thinks exactly like you, then you should have announced your own candidacy for President, because that's the only way you'll find anyone who meets all your standards, but the problem with that is, you couldn't get elected, because you don't have name recognition, you don't have demonstrated qualifications, and not everyone agrees with you or would vote for you. i wouldn't even vote for you for President, despite the fact that I agree with you frequently and know you to be a genuinely fine fellow.

In some years, I might have the luxury of choosing among 3-4 candidates, all of whom are qualified, who have strong managerial and governmental experience, and who believe very much as I do on many social and economic issues. This year, I don't have that many choices, so I have to select the most capable person from among the choices available to me, knowing that all my fondest dreams aren't going to be realized. This year, we need a candidate for President who has the unique qualifications of Governor Romney, and I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting his candidacy with all the same enthusiasm that I had when I supported candidate Reagan.

I will never understand what makes both liberals and conservatives alike to think that they have a right to be served by a purist of their particular political philosophy. The real world is not purely liberal or conservative.

Whether you like it or not, your choices are going to be between Governor Romney and President Obama. That choice isn't going to be very difficult for me when I step into the voting booth. Get over your disappointment, be a good citizen, and vote. I know a lot of libs are going to hold their noses when they cast their votes for either President Obama or for Governor Romney in the next presidential election. It's only fair that some conservatives might have to as well.

[sck5]

Trying to predict what Mitt Romney will think about any issue a year from now is like trying to figure out which direction the wind will be blowing a year from now.

The answer is, of course, Mitt will do whatever he thinks will be the best for his own chances for reelection (assuming he gets in to office in the first place, which is far from certain)

Being a liberal, I know lots of liberals and most of them dislike Mitt less than the other Repubs for two reasons:

- First he has a record as a competent manager. Independent of his political beliefs the man can run a large organization which is a good thing.

- As for his political beliefs it is impossible for most of us to think he actually has any. So he won't be as rigidly ideological as some of the other Repubs which is a good thing.

There you go! A liberal view on Mitt Romney! What WILL he say next?

[PBzeer]

Sailormon - I fully understand the point you're making. Even Reagan wouldn't be the perfect candidate. I don't need perfection. I just want somebody who is going to be more than a better democrat. Unfortunately, none of them chose to run.

There are reasons it would be better to have a Republican in the Office rather than Obama, any Republican. I'm merely trying to show one of the reasons why there is a large enthusiasm gap for Romney among conservatives. When you can't pull decisively ahead of the pack that has been assembled, you're obviously lacking something.

[PBzeer]

Trying to predict what Mitt Romney will think about any issue a year from now is like trying to figure out which direction the wind will be blowing a year from now.

Predicting what a politician will do next is not rocket science. And your take on the liberal view of Romney, is pretty much in line with mine. Not to mention, that he is the perfect foil for Obama's campaign strategy.

[WouldaShoulda]

Originally Posted by xymotic

Passing laws on abortion, and gay rights, not conservative.

Speaking of Planned Paarenthood, why don't they raise their own money??

Are they affraid that if they sponsor a March to Eliminate the Unwanted no one would show up??

[PBzeer]

Let me expand a bit further on my real complaint here.

Since the New Deal, and then strengthened by the Great Society and the 40 year reign of Democrats in the House, American domestic policy has been based upon the liberal/progressive view of government. To put this in sailing terms, the Ship of State is a fractionally rigged sloop, that Republicans keep trying to sail with the main from a ketch. Then everybody points out that the ship ain't sailing right. Because while that main works great on a ketch, it isn't suited for a sloop.

We keep changing sails, when what we need is a different boat. Because no matter who has been President, or which party holds Congress, the boat hasn't changed. We're still sailing that same boat FDR launched.

[danjarch]

The reasons plenty. The first is that he's a bored businessman that doesn't want to retire yet and doesn't have any other interests to pursue. This is less then inspiring. He's more likely to spend more time phoning it in then Obama.

The second is that he has an absolutely dismal record as a politician. Frankly he sucks at politicking. This doesn't bode well in the least. As much as we hate it, politicking is a big part of being a good president. In fact, that's been on of Obama's biggest failings. He's not that great at it either.

Third, for the few reasons giving for voting for someone you don't like, such as judges, their absolutely no evidence that Romney will put in any other then pro-business judges.

Forth, he'll be a hand maiden to wall street. That's all he knows. There is nothing in his back ground that indicates he's ever spent much time on any thing other then finance. Well that and being a Mormon. And I don't say that as a slur, he works and goes to church. He's never had a career outside of finance, and other then a few years as governor of a very liberal state, he's never done anything else either.

Fifth, if he gets elected, we won't get a chance to elect a decent republican for at least eight years. Primaries against sitting presidents usually fail. So four years from now we'll all be subjected to pleas to re-elect a guy nobody likes. We'll probably wind up with president Rahm Emanuel instead.

And last but not least, he'll cost the republicans the house and the senate. He's not going to be liked, and that will reflect on the house and senate. And once those are lost it will take a minimum of four more years to get those back, so your talking about losing control in 2014 and at best regaining control in 2018. Of course that assumes that the dems don't manage to run someone that's good.

The right would be better off with Obama in the white house to focus the republicans then Mitt.