@David: Change simply for the sake of change can be dangerous. Although I
usually vote Democrat, I would cross party lines if I saw a Republican candidate
who had viable, concrete alternatives to what Obama has tried to accomplish. So
far I have not seen anyone like that, Mitt included. I would have voted for
Romney before he started flip-flopping on issues he once stood for in order to
pander to the national voters. I'm not saying a politician can't change their
mind on an issue once in a while, but to me he was just tickling the ears of the
conservative voters. I liked Huntsman o.k. as governor of Utah, but I see him
following in Mitt's footsteps as far as changing views and pandering.
"Bain caused the bankruptcy of some companies it took over." Not
totallly true.The companies that Bain worked with were given recommendations and
Romney's people stayed for months to help implement the changes. He got rid of
inefficient workers (deadwood) and sometimes it hurt at the beginning.deadwood will cry (sometimes in advance) that Mitt is causing their miseries.
He got hired to do a job and he did it well. some of the companies that did not
follow the plans failed. The majority succeeded and revived their companies,
creating more jobs and profitting in the long run. That's what we need in our
The only way to control the power of the presidency is to find someone from your
party who will work with all those conservatives in Congress BUT also appeals to
enough independents and less liberal people in the Democratic Party that he or
she can get elected by a majority of the whole country. America is too evenly
split overall for a Republican to get elected who isn't able to pull support
from the middle of the spectrum.--Or you can make it harder
for liberals to vote. The new GOP idea is to require the poor and college
students to come up with ID that they dont have or need except to vote.
Romney is change I can believe in. But so would just about any
Republican when running against Obama.Hope and change. That sums it
Let me explain further why this is so. Almost every one of the 50 states has a
"winner take all" system for electoral votes. In California, there
are 53 congressional districts. That means it gets 53+2=55 electoral college
votes. There are 19 of those districts that have elected Republicans to
Congress, about one third. Those 19 can help form a large majority in the
House, but in the other 24 districts, most votes will go to the Democratic
candidate, and then ALL 55 electoral votes go to the Democrats. The 19
Republican districts don't count to elect the president at all! It
would be desirable to get rid of "winner-take-all" voting in states,
and allocated electoral votes to match the congressional districts, with the 2
"Senate" electoral votes to the majority winner. Then a conservative
majority in the House would almost guarantee a win by a conservative
president.But until that change is made, presidential candidates
have to get enough votes from the middle of the voter spectrum to get
"swing states" like Ohio on their side, to get elected. That is why
Mitt Romney can win the White House but Ron Paul cannot.
Many of the good folks who have gotten energized by the Tea Party movement think
that electing a member of Congress who represents a single congressional
district should be the same as electing a single national president who is voted
on by all 50 states PLUS the District of Columbia. Electing a
conservative Representative works fine. You can get a sizable majority in your
district, elect a strong conservative, and with enough conservative districts
electing such people, you get a majority in the House, and can pass legislation,
even though many districts across the country are strongly liberal.But electing a president is different. The only way to control the power of
the presidency is to find someone from your party who will work with all those
conservatives in Congress BUT also appeals to enough independents and less
liberal people in the Democratic Party that he or she can get elected by a
majority of the whole country. America is too evenly split overall for a
Republican to get elected who isn't able to pull support from the middle of the
@splitme2:Have you ever seen an independent to win the election? If
you vote for the independent, that means you vote will be wasted. Why not cast
it for the best candidiates on the ballot that will alos have chance to win
(i.e. Romney)Romney for 2012.
one poster above says, "the Mormon stuff" no longer matters. I am
sorry to relay the facts to you, but in the actual story this thread is about it
says the following: "Seventy-one percent of voters say Romney's LDS
religion doesn't matter." 71 from 100 is 29. 29% of respondents say it
does matter to them. PS. That 29% has held steady from prior polling. As for the claim above that Mitt is a good choice based on his business
experience, the part where Bain fired 100's of Americans and shipped their jobs
to China is going to be featured in ads, and so is the part where Bain caused
the bankruptcy of some companies it took over.
The Mormon news will be brought up again and again don't you worry. They just
need to be running on a platfrom that is consistent with his religon's views or
the liberal media will eat him alive. Just stand and not waiver from what your
beliefs are he should be fine.
The way things are looking with all of the current polling - it appears all the
"Mormon stuff" is becoming a distant memory and old news. No longer a
negative factor politically. That will bode well for Romney in '12. Obama's gamble last night will factor in his demise.
"I just can't bring myself to vote for Mitt. Maybe there will be an
independent I like!"splitme2: Your other option is
to vote for Obama. Now what will you do??
It's a good thing the election is over a year away. I just can't bring myself
to vote for Mitt. Maybe there will be an independent I like!
The Mitt/Jimmer 2012 ticket would certainly carry Glen's Falls, NY.Not
sure that Jimmer would want to tarnish his reputation with politics.Mitt is a good man. He has said many things that I wish that he had not
said.We must change the direction of this country while we still have a
country. To that end it is good that the Republicans have somebody that is
breaking out into the lead.Mitt's credentials on the economy are
unassailable. Mitt has the executive experience and savvy to do the
job.I just hope his "open minded" approach does not lead
him to deviate too far from the founding principles of this nations that allow
freedom to exist.If people start making his religion an issue his
people need to take a page from the Democrat play book and call them all
religious bigots just like they call anyone who disagrees with Obama a
racist.It's time to burn the race card!
If your knee hurts, would you schedule an appointment with your hair dresser?If you need to fix the economy and create jobs, would you elect a law
professor who never created a job, balanced a payroll or managed a city, state
or business?Mitt Romney 2012!