Romney would have made a better president to deal with our current problems.
But, alas, he committed significant campaign errors that could not be remedied
in time to win. If we had to have a dictator, as the Romans temporarily
instituted when Hannibal was at the gates, Romney would be my man, because, I
think is is tough and trustworthy.
Great Obama won. We learn some new vocabulary, and renew some others:* fiscal cliff* sequester* transparent* infrastructure* debt* deficit* golf* vacationRe-electing Obama
is the worse mistake in American history. When he leaves office in
four years, we'll more damage then all wars put together.
May our Obama voters reap what they sow. We are currently transforming into
To Troy, high deductible health care plans are a direct result of Obama is a
ridiculous statment. They have been around as an option forever..years and
years. More companies are pushing them now because they cost you more and them
less. The very same reason decades ago they dropped define benefit retirment
plans and went to defined contribution plans. Now they have dropped all company
connections to retirement plans and most large company employees are on their
own trying to save for retiremnt. Pay has declined over the last two decades as
have all benfit plans. High dedcutible health insurance is just a piece of the
squeeze on the middle class and has nothing to do with Obama.
All these comments only go to prove George Washington was right about the
dangers of political parties. Read his farewell address.Political
parties have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution. They are an
unfortunate leftover from British political practice. Why did we ever let them
surreptitiously sneak into the American System?
@airnautEverett, 00The policy makers are largely The
Bilderberg Group and of course a Heavy dose of Israeli influence, the POTUS is
just a Lackey. This group totally controls the Senate and the Congress and have
for years. Examples - Trade agreements signed - drive thru small town USA and
see the result * Immigration - borders opened for many years - no enforcement *
Bailouts of Wall Street Bankers - 88% of citizens said no * Obama's Health
Care - The People said No * And you do know that the war on Terror is Totally
Bogus - It's about passing Harsh Anti Freedom legislation and taking over
of Foreign Countrie's Banking Systems & Their Natural Resources. Our
Government quit listening to the Citizenry years ago. And as far as
Electronic Voting - most local elections , issues etc are not of course
pre-programmed , but on a National Level it's a different story. Course if
one drinks too much Koolaid they will never understand or believe the real
behind the scenes manipulations.
Clarification:I should have typed: Neither Romney or Obama had
majority support of the people of the nation, the electorate. Paul had
insufficient support to win nationally but did have enough to tip the balance
for Romney.There are, btw, issues that had a general consensus that
crossed party lines. A strong position on illegal immigration was one of
Romney's most appealing stances; that could have been given more prominence
in his campaign. Support of the Social Security system and assurances of honest
cola's would have gained him more support with the nation generally than it
would have lost him the support of a relatively few groupies.
I think that Romney represented a large part of the nation very well: that part
that is arrogantly nationalistic who, like Mitt, genuinely feel that the US
never needs to apologize to "foreigners" whether friend or foe, and see
patriotism not just as love of country but contempt for other nations. Sorry
Mitt. He also represented well the attitude that those who don't pay
income tax are leeches. Sorry again but, as others have pointed out, the
exemptions are supposed to protect working people from penury. These people do
pay other taxes btw. Mitt's aggressive foreign policy and hawkishness also
represented well many people, although I am not one of them.I will
add that which I have not seen yet expressed: had Mitt and his party given the
Ron Paul supporters anything substantial, had adopted any of their concerns
seriously, made any meaningful concessions he might have closed the gap with
Obama. Paul support was not enough to win but could very well have tipped the
balance.Neither Romney nor Paul had majority support in the country;
the electorate was partly disenchanted with both candidates. Some kind of
alliance was needed for a genuinely popular result.
@Tea Repub- That's what I thought, too, re: Mitt's blaming. I
read several nat'l articles and smelled sour grapes... Then I
saw his interview with Chris Wallace. Those omissions in the liberal press
didn't use Romney's quotes when Chris asked him if he blamed Chris
Christie's fawning over Mr. O at the Sandy conferences. "Ha, No Chris!
Nothing anyone else did made me lose. My campaign mistakes were my own
fault." That made me respect his honesty and despise our deceitful Liberal
Propaganda Machine even more.That said, Mitt garnered no respect
from ex-Mormon evangelicals on the way he avoided full disclosure of his true
religious beliefs. When we got through sending everyone full LDS theology, our
local conservatives stopped supporting Romney-Ryan. That wasn't our goal,
but it was the consequence of modern Mormon evangelism. When you disown, deny
and obfuscate, there is fall-out.Just one aspect of voter's
reasoning out here in Evie-Land. I still voted for Romney-Ryan; my husband
refused to elect a man who could not defend his full religious portfolio. My
spouse is the more ethical by far.
Lotsa flip floppers on both sides; lotsa different reasons why people vote as
they do.I would have voted straight black- had the candidates been
Herman Cain and J.Z. Watts.I would not have voted female had the
candidates been Palin, Pelosi, Waters or Madame Hillary.I would have voted
for Rand, but not Ron- liked both fiscal plans, could not suffer Ron's
stupid Israel positions.I would have written-in my husband's name had
whiners Santorum, Gingrich or Perry been nominated.There is no Democratic
female I would have voted for, under any circumstances.And I forced
myself to vote for Mitt, knowing my Calif vote meant nothing. I knew he was
honest, but honestly from another generation that wasn't relating to youth,
minorities or my evangelical base.Yeah, I agree God spoke to
America: This is Consequence Time for bad parenting/politics/ and policy!
The fact is that Romney was and is a more honest and capable leader than Obama
could ever hope to be. Obama is nothing more than Bush+.On a
separate note, it absolutely kills me when I see people like Impartial7 calling
Romney a flip-flopper and an elitist. Haven't these people paid attention
to Obama's flip-flopping, bald-faced lies on the sequester alone? How
about Benghazi? As for elitists, it is the Democrat party that is far more
interested in taking your money, guns, healthcare options, and other individual
rights away than are most Republicans. How much more of an elitist can you
possibly be than to think you know what's best for everybody in the country
at a personal level?Finally, it is interesting to note the absolute
greed and juvenile jealousy with which so many people view Romney simply because
the guy is successful. To me, that speaks volumes about your own lack of
integrity rather than any sort of commentary on his.
When Mitt Romney emerged from his hole, he didn’t even look for his
shadow. Mitt just started blaming everyone else for his losing of the election
and his having to hide in a hole since then! That guy Romney never got the
support of TeaPublicans. That’s the main reason for his defeat.
To "George" Romney knew that the press was not for him, he
underestimated how much they were and are Obama's propaganda arm. Think of
it like a drug cartel. We may know that some are large and quite organized, but
quite often are larger and more organized than what we imagine.To
"Emajor" that is the simple answer. Yes he could have done things
better, but when the news outlets constantly paint you as evil it is a hard
thing to overcome.Name something that he could have done better that
ultimately did't depend on the press giving him favorable news stories.
The "unidentified fan" in the picture is John Miller, one of
Romney's finance guys.
Waaah, waaaah, waaaah! Now go away, Ann and Mitt. Please. You lost. Get over it.
"*You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.*You cannot
strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.*You cannot help little men by
tearing down big men.*You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the
wage payer.*You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.*You
cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.*You cannot further the
brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.*You cannot keep out of
trouble by spending more than you earn.*You cannot build character and
courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.*And you
cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for
themselves." -- Rev. William John Henry Boetcker Too bad Obama
doesn't believe any of this. It kills me too that Romney is not our
For all of you Obama lovers let me tell you why I don't like him. I earn
less than $60K annually. My wife stays home with our kids. And my insurance now
costs me a fortune because of the "affordable healthcare act". High
deductible health plans are a direct result of Obama. This means I'm only
truly covered by my insurance after I pay the first $3K. The result is we only
hit the docs office if we're dying! Why did you vote for this
@redshirt let me ask you if romney was not smart enough to figure out how
to not be a victim of the "liberal press" why would we want him for
Redshirt,"Mitt lost because he underestimated the liberal
press"That's the only reason? You sure about that? Plenty
of post-election analysis articles written on this campaign, you may want to
read them and revise that statement.
Article quote: "Reflecting on the 2012 campaign, Romney said he and his team
did not effectively reach minority voters, which he called "a real
mistake." He did not apologize for his assertion to donors last fall that
Obama had won the election by giving "gifts" to key groups, including
African Americans, Latinos and young people."Romney calls it as
it is. Obama "bought" the elections with promises of more "free
stuff" and he had a treasonous mainstream media help him do it.Period.America, on November 6th we lost our LAST chance to reverse
the economic catastrophe that is waiting for us. An individual can not
consistently spend more than they earn and avoid problems. Families can't
do it. Businesses can't do it. Cities and counties can't do it,
either. Nor can states. But, hey, our federal government can do it, right?Get as financially secure as you can, folks, because disaster can't
be more than 3-4 years away.....
To "Open Minded Mormon" thanks for proving my point.What
loopholes did Obama want to close?Here is one. Romney was going to
cut the loopholes in investment income. If you earned less than $200,000/yr you
got breaks, more than that you got taxed.Apparently you were not
HaDagOrem, UTHere is the difference between Head and Heart.
Hearts can lead us in favor of preferences, as personal as those may be. But the
GOP has a hard time with the Head. They refuse to look at some data because it
doesn't feel right. well said. this could also be applied to
another local organization
@Linus - I would bet that the Iraq vet who lost both his legs to a
roadside mine and now lives off a meager disability payment would disagree that
he is "hopelessly lost in his lust for free stuff"....The
47% are human beings who need help. Sure there is abuse in our welfare system;
but not everyone who needs help is an abuser. Mitt lost in part because he
forgot that the 47% are people.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTMitt lost because he underestimated the
liberal press. They find no problems with anything Obama says or does.For instanct, Romney was crucified for saying that he wanted to close tax
loopholes and reduce rates. Obama campaigned against that.=========What the...?What on earth are you talking
about?Mitt Romeny was asked to name just ONE loophole he close or tax rate
he'd reduce, He couldn't or He wouldn't.He
deserved the crucifixion.
Mitt lost because he underestimated the liberal press. They find no problems
with anything Obama says or does.For instanct, Romney was crucified
for saying that he wanted to close tax loopholes and reduce rates. Obama
campaigned against that.Now, within the last month Obama has said
that congress needs to close tax loopholes.Does the press care that
Obama has done a 180 on his position?Republicans or Libertarians
need to realize that they have 1 news outlet that is favorable to them, and
there are at least 8 news outlets that will vilify them for anything that they
to Rossjc: Mitt lost, not because of the millions of dollars spent on the
election from both parties, but because he's an idiot. Who did he think he
was or wasn't or was again with such changing ideas, 3-personalities
abruptly changing momentarily into whichever one was chosen for him at that
moment, etc. Obama is the man. Unfortunately, the GOP is STILL trying to make a
mess the things by cutting out the most important programs. What is wrong with
the GOP. Racists! That's what they are. Just plain and simple.
Right On!@ NormalGuy
To: Hutterite..........When and where???
Harley RiderSmall Town, CTMitt Romney was the chosen one - at least
up to the end of the first debate where he completely dominated Obama. But The
real rulers of Washington, huddled together and made a switch, when Romney
wouldn't cave on Obama Care , Immigration , Drone policy , higher
surveillance of citizens and confiscation of guns.Probably the
biggest farce in America is the Electronic computerized voting- All voting is
now pre- programmed. ============= Blue Ribbon winner
for Tin-Foiled Hat award of the month.Thanks for the laugh.
It's a crying shame that he's not in the White House today. He is the
only one of the two that truly had the best interest of the country at heart.
Didn't we have this same scenario 4 years ago when they talked to McCain
and he said he would still choose Palin. There is a bullet the country
dodged.Romney is a nice guy but his policies did not begin to meet
the needs of the country. Colin Powell said Romney was using the same group
that encouraged George Bush to go to war in Iraq and Romney would have taken the
country to war again. The ex GOP fed reserve chairman said Romneys
policies would incurr more national debt than Mr.Obama so those who voted with
their minds rather than along party lines could not justify Mr. Romney in the
white house.It saddens me to see the GOP trot him out as the voice
of the party now. It seems we are still waffling as to what direction to go,
who to go with and how to best proceed.
Romney's problem was that he over-estimated the intelligence of the average
Why not knock a few heads that are Republicans? Still shows too much a partisan
Mitt Romney was the chosen one - at least up to the end of the first debate
where he completely dominated Obama. But The real rulers of Washington, huddled
together and made a switch, when Romney wouldn't cave on Obama Care ,
Immigration , Drone policy , higher surveillance of citizens and confiscation of
guns.Probably the biggest farce in America is the Electronic
computerized voting- All voting is now pre- programmed. It's been proven
that even school kids can easily pre-program election results and you are naive
as a lamb if you don't believe this happens. The elitists only want their
people in Congress & the Senate . (Thanks to the hanging Chad in Fla) -
Just like the totally bogus -Underwear Bomber - We now have the TSA A fix - Some things are better done the old fashioned way - Paper Ballots
counted by you and me at the end of the day and they Never Leave The ROOM!
A couple of small reminders "conservatives"..I use quotes because
that's your opinion not mine. The 47% who "want free stuff", are
simply people who get up every morning go to work, work as hard if not harder
than you conservatives. Come home take care of their families and on April 14th
fill out their tax forms and because they have 4 children, a mortgage, and pay
tithing to their church, get a refund on their federal taxes that net zeros them
out. Keep insulting them as fee loaders and see how that works out for you.
Thomas Jefferson..if you are providing health care to your employees
that meets minimum standards there is no reason you have to change your
insurance. So..either your coverage is sub par for 80 people or your employees
are very misinformed and about to be massively hodd winked. Health care
costs..birth of a baby in mid 70's $400..today $10,000. Dramatic rise in
health care costs due to ACA..pure somke screen.
He went into shock because he was never aware of reality and that is why he only
speaks to Fox news. He is so out of touch he will have a shorter shelf life than
Palin (remember her Utah?)
Both Ann and Mitt sounded very bitter and unrealistic about how the election
unfolded. It's my hope that they can recover and learn to be of help to
their fellow man. Just think what the Romney's could accomplish if they
started caring more about giving that accumulating--if the 47% percent started
to appear to them more as "those who aren't as fortunate as me"
rather than, "those who aren't as good as me."
Terry,I prefer to think of superstorm Sandy and Chris (not Doug)
Christie's response as acts of God designed to nudge America in the right
direction on election day. Considering how many "uneducated voters"
think Obama has a "Marxist" background, I'd say the man upstairs
made the right decision.
@GoodGuyGary 7:41 p.m. March 3, 2013What a joke if you think you pay
more tax than Mitt.-------------------------Most
everyone here, if not everyone, pays a higher percentage of their income as tax
than Romney does. I know I do.
I love the comment from O-town.
Ernest T is rightLook at the Solar/so called Green companies that
received all of that $$$$$. Oh yeah that was from Obama. I guess that those
companies needed all of that money. Well they are truly Green now with all of
that tax payer money that they have taken.
SoUtBoy25,"...too much experience, too much education, and too much
success. Those are not political attributes that are highly sought after to the
average American."Tell me about it. We could have had John Kerry
in 2004 and look what happened. Can you imagine G.W.Bush as Secretary of State?
Sounds like a bad comedy...
Romney dominated the primaries only after he went on the attack. He had a
slight lead after his first dominating debate and then decided to play it safe
and appear as the nice guy who would run on his record and vision as opposed to
Obama's dishonest mass media character assassinations. This should have
been enough with Obama's horrible record with jobs and record deficits, but
there are too many uneducated voters who don't spend any time researching
the truth & just vote based on the dishonest diatribe they see on TV, so
hopefully this is a lesson learned for the Republicans that need to go on the
Hard Attack Next Election! Had Romney decided to go on the offensive and bash
Obama's true socialist/marxist background and horrible record, he would
have easily won. Of course Hurricane Sandy showing Obama as presidential with
Doug Christie praising him on national TV also helped push Obama back on top
from a slight Romney lead prior to the Hurricane. Because of this, Christie has
Zero hope of a future presidential run (as a Republican) in my book!
Let's face it, Mitt was overqualified for President of the United States.
He had too much experience, too much education, and too much success. Those are
not political attributes that are highly sought after to the average American.
@jack thanks but I am well aware of reality and your comment just
reinforces ,u point that people like thomas live on the backs of others, but
thanks for the "reality" check. Maybe if thomas wants to blame
someone for his rise in premiums he should look at the insurance companies
posting ever larger profits but then he may have to face the reality he is
really no different. I guess thats why it is easier for thomas blame politicians
then place the blame where it belongs right?
What a joke if you think you pay more tax than Mitt.
George,Obviously you live in another world than reality. If you think for
one second that a business does't pass along its costs you are more than
gullible. That's how business works. Costs are recouped by raising the
price of goods and services offered. When the price of oil goes up, so does
everything processed with,transported by or made with petroleum. When you have
to pay more for your raw materials to manufacture goods, those costs are passed
along to the consumer. Businesses don't run on good wishes, they must make
a profit to survive. To expect a business to absorb increased costs for health
care is quite illogical.
Funny how so many people from the "party of personal responsibility" are
the ones who are whining, casting about for excuses, and calling Obama
supporters names on here. What's sadder is that the Romneys themselves
seem to be agreeing with you (And anybody who thinks that Mitt Romney's
"character assassination" in any way compares to what President Obama
has had to endure over the past five years must be determined to remain obtuse.)
@farthest thing from the truth"...Mitt Romney lost because
turned his back on conservatives.Mitt Romney pandered to the
left,Mitt became too agreeable with Obama and failed to
differentiate himself, define himself, and fight for the presidency...".Romney did not turn his back on cons, they turned their backs to him.Romney pandered to the right to become the nominee.Romney
did not become too agreeable with President Obama. Mitt and those who voted for
him have a visceral dislike of people with President
Obama's...policies...yeah that's it... his policies.Romney
differentiated and defined himself perfectly. Everyone who voted against him
understood him perfectly.Romney fought very hard for the office of
POTUS...he simply listened to the wrong people.
Well one thing that might've been better about Romney as president: He
would've received better treatment from the Democrats in Congress than the
treatment Republicans have given Obama. Additionally, there would've no
hostage-taking over the debt ceiling-- the Republicans would've raised it
without blinking. Republicans simply reveal themselves to be sore
@JoeBlowYou got it 180 degrees wrong.Mitt Romney lost
because turned his back on conservatives.Mitt Romney pandered to the
left,Mitt became too agreeable with Obama and failed to
differentiate himself, define himself, and fight for the presidency.And most importantly because of all that they failed to rouse their base.He lost because their base did get out and vote. Obama lost million of
votes from the previous election and was ripe to be beaten.It is
very very difficult to beat an incumbent, and you must define yourself and not
let the opposition do it for you.Mitt did not do that, and also
failed to articulate conservatism,but he was never a true
conservative, he is liberal republican, and that does not rouse the base.
@normal guyThe right way? Maximizing profits by throwing hard working
people out of work?
ThomasJefferson,Private health insurance premiums have been going up and
up for DECADES. I suppose it's the Federal government's fault that
every pain pill, every procedure, every hospital stay is ridiculously expensive?
That's why premiums are high. The cost of health care is astronomical, and
this is nothing new. When the Affordable Care Act was being proposed, there was
a huge jump in California health insurance premiums that had nothing to do with
Obamacare. Since the only thing Republicans know how to do about the
health care problem in this country is complain about what the Democrats are
trying to do about it, how about you come up with a plan for reducing the
stratospheric costs of health care and field it to the American people? At least
then you will look like you care about this serious issue more than partisan
politics. "The whole bill was designed to put private insurance
out of business "The Affordable Care Act requires people to buy
coverage from private insurance companies.
@thomas Jefferson So rather then pay the actual cost of doing business you
are going to pass those cost onto the American tax payers and somehow evrerryone
else is a free loader?
i voted for mitt and wished he would hsve got it but the Americans wanted obama.
I wish things were different.
Regardless of the campaign mistakes, Romney would have been a better President.
We simply still cannot afford the "Affordable Care Act"
I think Mitt would have been an awesome president. The man gets things done.
Getting things done the right way isn't always popular though and that
hurts in elections.
Blame Romney, but the real blame goes to the Republican Party. The Republican
Party is a minority party that keeps throwing people out of the party, how can
that win nationally? Nationally the Republcians are doomed unless they begin to
broaden their political coalition. With the attitude of the Tea Party,
broadening the coalition just isn't going to happen, more fracturing seems
to be the future.
@Thomas JeffersonCongress imposed laws on the Postal Service to
pre-fund retirement accounts several years out--something no business on the
outside has to do. Why did Congress do this? Because the private industry
wants to make the Postal Service fail so they can take over the whole mail
delivery system. Good to see you have latched on to that talking point as well.
By the way, I have had more troubles with UPS than the Postal Service, so even
with the imposed laws, I think the Postal Service is doing well.@Uncle RicoIf you can't see the unfairness in giant
corporations and aristocrats that have the lawyers, accountants, and means not
to not pay taxes while working people like myself are further crunched with cuts
to programs they have paid in all their life (social security, medicare,
unemployment insurance) while paying a higher tax rate than these institutions
and aristocrats, you are beyond education.Read in the New Testament
about the Savior's views on the rich who have their heart set on riches--I
guess He hated "successful" people to.
I want free government handouts so I'll become a corporation (since
they're people too). Repubs are in favor of more handouts than dems,
it's just that their handouts are to enormous companies who don't need
Romney is a good guy, whether you agree with every aspect of his politics or
not.Bottom line.Romney lost because he had to pander to
the far right of the party. He said things that he probably did not believe
and he took positions that he probably did not support.You cant
force a candidate to go far right to win the primary and then wonder why the
moderates don't fully support them in the general.The country
is NOT far right. There are reasonable people on both sides of the middle that
are needed to win the election. If the GOP thinks that Romney lost
because he was not conservative enough, they are in for a long losing streak.You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
One place where Romney went wrong was his estimate of the percentage of
America's voters hopelessly lost to their lust for "stuff." He
told a room full of his "friends" that forty-seven percent were addicted
to Nanny Government's dole, but he underestimated the number. His
statement was very insightful, but America was deeper in the ditch than he
thought.Need a free cell-phone anyone?
For those who have such harsh words for Mitt, I just you would have contacted
him during the campaign so you could have straightened him out. He would have
done so much better with your vast knowledge and awareness of all the issues.
TJ, you are absolutely right. Obama should have never instituted the Postal
Service. A failed idea from the beginning. We need to leave business to the
true business men. That way everything will be profitable, and all of the
products and services will be good. Maybe we just need a few more bankers in
this country. They seem to know how to stay out of trouble... (as long as the
Federal Government can be fooled into bailing them out).For those of
you who don't know what I'm talking about: both government and private
sectors make good AND bad decisions. I wouldn't want to restrict either
group with a blanket statement. The federal highways are examples of success -
based on the goal at least (and not the only example). The banking industry,
and the various financial bubbles are examples of failure. Hard right or hard
left is just being silly.
Here is the difference between Head and Heart. Hearts can lead us in favor of
preferences, as personal as those may be. But the GOP has a hard time with the
Head. They refuse to look at some data because it doesn't feel right.
Capitalism can be great. Abortion is wrong. How we are trying to promote or
dissuade these kinds actions could be more effective, but we have to be willing
to analyze the data. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms for example
has been severely limited in even analyzing data on gun violence. Go ahead.
Own a gun, but look at the data and be smarter than keeping it loaded where
unsupervised kids can find it. I like Mitt. I think he could have
been a good leader, if left to his own values. He tried to turn himself into a
GOP candidate because his heart wanted him as the next President. His head
forgot to analyze that he might have left some of his character behind in order
to win the nomination. His head definitely forgot to ask if his heart needed to
do more analysis of the polls. He truly could not imagine losing.
Ironic that the man who openly admitted that he would cut spending to help get
us back on track, is the one not in office. But, the man who has continually not
done what he has promised to do, is the one in office. Why can't Americans
see his deceit? Barry spoke out against Mitt and his policies, yet he is now
following them. Sure blame congress if you want, but the point is, Barry
isn't near what he said or believes he is. Too bad too, America needs a
real leader now, someone who understands money, fiscal responsibility, and how
to make tough decisions to make a business (government) profitable. But hey,
Community Organizers learned that stuff in college didn't they? Too
funny...Barry and his ilk remind me of some guys I used to golf
with. When they played well, it was because "they" hit the ball great.
But when they shanked a ball or missed a putt, it was the "clubs" fault.
They would curse, yell, and occasionally break a club over their knee. When libs
get it right, it's they who did it, when they can't, it's the
@ o-towno-town, do yourself a favor and go and review Obama's
tactics to swing the boat. While your at it, please educate yourself on taxation
of initial earnings, then paying taxes on the yearly dividends. Good grief.
The president didn't promise to provide anything for free, nor has he done
so. He's a lot more intuitive and thoughtful than that.
So basically he was out of touch with reality right up until the end.
It amazes me that Mitt, Karl Rove, and all the talking heads at Fox thought he
was going to win. It's the same type of "group think" that Bush
surrounded himself with when he was in office. That "group think" drove
us into a quamire in Iraq that could have easily been avoided with some
prudence, hubris and contrary input. Nate Silver had the election nailed down
the whole way and any objective pollster saw the same results. For Mitt to be
suprised was another example of how out of touch the man is with reality.
The Free Stuff idea is also very pertinent to why Romney lost. I work in the
Health Care field and can tell you from experience that people think Obama has
made everything free. Sadly, many of these people dont understand that the money
for their free stuff is taken from others that have worked hard for what
they've got. One more thing, I am soo sick and tired of our nations people
berating and disparaging people that are successful!!!! I'v heard stories
of a time in this country when people took pride in the fact that some of the
most wealthy and most knowledgable people came from the good old USA but now
they look at them as evil money grubbers and not hardworking Americans!
Obama won the election not on principle, policy, or anything pertinent to the
American people. Obama won because he spent millions upon millions of dollars to
paint his opponent as a money mongering evil capitalist. Obviously, this
strategy worked because there are so many idiots around this country (not to
mention the comments above) that believe everything they see on the TV and
Internet. We needed Romney bad because of his financial expertise and not
necessarily because he was the greatest politician ever ( in fact I would much
rather have a non-politician be President than a guy that has done everything in
his life to become president).
The "47 percent" comments by candidate Mr. Romney at Mr. Marc
Leder's Florida mansion were an excellent example of “... mistakes
in the campaign and flaws in his candidacy.”
Paul Ryan was the big mistake. He should have gone with the thirsty Rubio.
Free Stuff? HA, I pay more taxes than Mitt Romney and GE combined! It is the
GOP who wants the free stuff--oil subsidies, tax loopholes, offshore accounts,
no taxes for the "job creators" while pilfering social security and
medicare from working people, etc. When old Willard Mitt Romney pays a higher
percentage than me (he himself is one of the 47% who are takers according to his
own words), then we'll talk...free stuff, wow, they got you voting against
your own interests.
Glad Mitt ran for president. Wish he won, but people want free stuf instead of
the opportunity to do great things.I'm not giving the republican party
Romney can make all the excuses he wants. Face it, America saw him for the
flip-flopping, out of touch, elitist that he is. Ann Romney was not an asset