Reality check:Mr Romney came across too often like a used Cadillac
salesman, and his wife like Marie Antoinette.I am sure that lds people
would prefer to see a former bishop in the best light, but he came across as
less than generous when he was not in his bishop position, where being loving
and supporting was part of his duty.He bought way too small a house in San
Diego and expected the neighbors to live with the crowding of cars his large
family brings.He and Ann kept referring to their lds tithing as "money
given to charity", but, most people think that giving to one's own
church to keep good standing is different than giving to the Red Cross, etc.And so on --- not bad people, but not people who pulled themselves up from
meager backgrounds, like the Obamas, and not people who came across as loving
the common man.
Romney lost for some good reasons. People saw through his guise to what he
really is and was. They realized that he was sadly lacking in character and
qualifications. They saw he had no care or concern for anyone but the affluent.
They saw he would not be good for the country. They saw he was not deserving
of their votes. Having seen his obvious and plentiful deficiencies, they said
"no thanks" and sent him packing. Thank God they did -- the country is
much better off as a result, bad as Obama is.
He lost because he was an Obamaclone and nothing more.
I thought he lost to votes, till I heard that there was more votes than people.
Mitt Romney lost because of Mitt Romney. There was no fire in him! Remember the
family vote prior to running.
When will the Deseret News get over the fact the Romney lost?
He lost for two reasons.1. Even slightly left-leaning people harbor
the mantra that if a person is good, everything that they do must be good. If
the person is bad, everything they do is bad. Obama made everyone believe he was
a good guy. After that, it did not matter what he actually did. Romney failed to
convince people he was good guy. After that, it did not matter how much good he
would have done.2. People do not care about the fire when they are
being chased by a bear. The fire may be what is causing the bears to attack, but
it doesn't matter when their is a bear on your heals. Obama offered to kill
bears by offering to hand out free stuff. Romney only concentrated on the fire
by offering to fix the out-of-control economy. Everyone wants the economy fixed,
but few believe anyone has the power to do it. If you can't go
on TV shows and make everyone think you are a good guy, and if you can't
offers things to people on a personal level, you might as well not run these
He lost because he's a flip flopping opportunist that ran from his own
record and tried to appease the crazy uncle t-party.
Re: Mounta(i)nman: "Mitt Romney lost because the majority of Americans
have learned they can vote themselves entitlements from the national
treasury." I have contributed to social security and medicare most of my
adult life. I now appropriately expect a return from them. These are pay as
you go programs which reflect our desire to care for the elderly, e.g. me, in
their declining years. These are not "entitlements" as you so
derisively refer to them. Now, as to why Romney lost, his famous
47% remark was the killer. He basically said 47% of Americans are parasites.
This is his actual belief. After that he was DOA.
Shhhh! Guys, come on. I love it when conservatives say it's because of
poor people voting themselves freebies, or building on the 47% stuff. Speaking
as a liberal Democrat, that's exactly the rhetorical stance we WANT
Republicans to cling to. We'll just keep on winning.
Dumb comment of the day is to claim that southern states live off welfare, and
they all voted for Romney. You can take 6 or 7 of the "main" southern
states who did vote for Romney, and they are still exceeded by New York,
Michigan, and Ohio in population and electoral college...and guess what, they
voted for obama. And they have the same percentage of food stamp recipients as
southern states. Throw in your Florida, New Mexico, DC and California, then
offset that with Texas and a couple of Utah type states, and obama's food
stamp brigade still outnumbers the GOP.
Instead of being a leader of everyone, he tried to please Hannity, the tea party
radicals and Fox.
Are we still processing the Mitt Romney thing?? nonceleb says,
"Some just can't get over the loss". Hint to nonceleb... The guy
who wrote the letter is obviously not a Romney fan. I say, "Some just
can't get over their WIN"!If there's anything worse
than a sore loser it's a sore winner.Some Democrats just
can't get over their win... IMO that's more pathetic than the Romney
fans (who are mostly over it).Re Gronberg. The 47% comment is not
the whopper of the day. It's a published government statistic. Look it up
in Fact Check. BTW... He's not saying they pay no income taxes.
It's the NET taxes that is zero. Meaning they get more in their refund
than they payed in income taxes (which is a net zero payed if you get more back
than you payed).The 47% comment was a fatal mistake. But that
doesn't mean it's not true. You just don't SAY it (IF you want
to get elected).But he lost mostly because of Democrat's
heartfelt hatred towards Republicans with high incomes (Rich Democrats seem to
be OK to them).
It was Pres. Obama's election to loose.He fell short on
Universal Healthcare and a Single Payer system.He hasn't got out of
Iraq, and Afghanistan fast enough.He hasn't done more for alternative
energy.He hasn't enough on immigration reform.He hasn't
penalized off-shoring, and brought manufacturing back to the U.S.The
economy is too slow on it's recovery.That's why his
approval ratings are so low.BUT - The Republicans countered with a
Flip-Flopper with no new ideas, other than just "I'm not Obama."
Romney lost because he called half of Americans deadbeats who would not take
responsibility for themselves. People like my mother who worked hard all her
life only to get cheated out of her profit sharing (the geniuses invested it in
an "S&L") and have to live on Social Security. People like my
father-in-law nearing retirement whose company was destroyed by Wall Street
pirates and also lives on SS. Romney is like the rich man in the story of
Lazarus, so superior to the rest of us doggies in the dust.
We're still talking about Romney over 9 months after the election?The sting from the last election must have really hurt!The right
is still steaming over losing to Obama for the second time.You know
what I say? GET OVER IT.It's over. Time to move on!
Huh? So those living off government entitlements voted for Obama?
That's funny. The people living the most off Food Stamps,
Medicare, and Welfare live in southern red states. I don't recall many
southern red states going to Obama.
I can't stop thinking about self reliance. You see I'm a great
believer in it but... not only politicians, live off others,but the unnecessary
portion of the bureaucracies. Many receive money they did not
subscribe to personally - but who are the ones being attacked? Social Security
recipients, who paid for their benefits - but knaves and politicians wish to
deprive them, taking away the right of the poor of the people. Mitt
seemed to be unsympathetic to their plight, including myriad Utah retirees who
voted enthusiastically for him.The unsubscribed portion of Medicare
and Medicaid is a different matter, as is the national burden of illegitimate
mothers. Recipients of large inheritances are hardly self reliant,
and successful employers rely on their employees for much of their wealth, just
as employees rely on others to employ them. Some employers do not seem very
grateful for good employees; some employees lack gratitude for good
employers.The government owes you nothing? I think I see what that
means but surely they owe us the defence of the Constitution, the return on
enforced retirement contributions, the roads we all pay for etc.
The genuine gem statement of the day:"The real question
isn't whether Republicans will ever win the White House but how the effects
of our deficit spending and national debt will be and how long we can last as a
nation, economically and culturally, now that's the question."Now the gentleman is making some genuine sense here. You have many good and
sensible things to say. Please leave the "47 percent" junk on the
@mountmanand all of those same people pay a many other taxes and
fees to our government and the other 53% (myself included) benefit from those
taxes and fees everyday, big business and the financial sectors in terms of real
dollars benefit more then anyone. we all benefit from our form of government.
A great many of those who pay no federal income tax are single-income
traditional families with more children and a bigger mortgage than they can
afford. Many of them are extremely proud of the fact that they have never paid
any income taxes. I am quite certain the majority of them voted for Mr. Romney.
There are not many politicians who can talk convincingly and without hypocrisy
about self reliance. Almost to a man/woman they receive salaries
and benefits at the expense of those taxpayers they do nothing to serve. When I
say serve I mean stand for what the taxpayer stands for, things with wide appeal
such as No Amnesty for illegal immigrants, capital punishment for murderers, the
constitutional rights of every individual, staying out of wars, rescinding the
national health mandates etc etc etc etc etc............
Whopper of the day."...and 47% of Americans pay no federal
income taxes. Do you really think any of these would vote for Romney?"We pay no income tax. Social security and a military pension puts most
of the food in our mouths (no food stamps). My wife and daughter proudly voted
for Mr. Romney. Most of the "Tea Party" folks voted for Mr. Romney and
a very significant portion of them are on Social Security and therefore probably
do NOT pay any income tax.The air is thin on top of the mountains.
Come on down to the bottom of the Great Basin. More oxygen down here.
2 bits: Too many Republicans may stick to the "self reliance" band wagon
too long, and they will lose their election to the person who promises the most
free stuff in the election.I guess you mean the slogan, cause they
don't practice what you preach they do. Mitt was promising the world
or I guess you hear what you want to hear, right?If you really
believe the "free stuff" nonsense, the radio brain washing is
complete.As the baby boomers continue to reach retirement,
entitlements will continue to increase, no matter who is in the white house,
it's simple math, not yet another, conservative conspiracy caper. Yep, the greatest generation wants theirs, but after the tea party is over,
everyone else must "build it on their own."
Some just can't get over the loss. They speculate on various reasons, most
of which do not point the finger at Romney himself. Did anyone get a sense of
what Romney really believed? From a moderate in Massachusetts, to trying to be
ultra-conservative for the Tea Party, he was all over the map politically. He
changed his positions on bailouts, health care mandates, immigration, abortion,
the coal industry, global warming etc. He would say what the constituency he was
trying to appeal to at any given time wanted to hear. I could not vote for
someone whose real positions are a mystery.
It's a sad fact that Republicans will probably not win another election
UNTIL they promise more entitlements and free stuff to the masses than the
Democrats do.Too many Republicans may stick to the "self
reliance" band wagon too long, and they will lose their election to the
person who promises the most free stuff in the election.
From my experience in life, there's never "just ONE reason" for any
outcome (especially in politics and especially a Presidential election). Most
everything in life is more complex than that.When you think
it's "Just one reason"... usually it's because you have
"Just ONE thing" on your mind.If you really think about
it... everything's more complex that "Just one thing".It's single-issue-minded people who think small who are able to convince
themselves that complex things can be boiled down to "just one thing"
(the one thing they are obsessed about).
"Do you really think any of these would vote for Romney?"Absolutely.Have you seen how many solidly red states are in the
top concerning Government assistance programs?
@mountainman. If republicans believed in personal responsibility and self
reliance they would not be complaining every second of the day about Obama. If republicans believed in personal responsibility they would have not
bailed out the banks and would have been first in line to prosecute the
criminals at wall street and the federal reserve.
I think one of the big reasons Romney lost is because of the corrupt things that
Obama and his supporters did behind the scenes. The IRS scandal is just one
example, and it should seriously scare all of us.
@ Charlie. 9%? You are way behind your times. Half (50%) of Americans will
receive taxpayer subsidized healthcare insurance and about 25% (and growing) get
food stamps and 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. Do you really
think any of these would vote for Romney? Really?
Romney lost because the better man for the job won. It really is that simple.
No bribes, no voter fraud, no low information voters, no missing birth
certificates, (although I don't recall anyone asking for mitts, over and
over and I want the original copy for me to personally authenticate here in
Pleasant Grove)Obama may not be the end all, but we really dodged a bullet
in not privatizing the country for profit instead of people.
Mitt Romney lost my vote when he said he wanted to double the size of Guantanmo,
and it went downhill from there. I couldn't vote for either major candidate
because they both want to enlarge the size of government: Romney wanted more
military spending, and Obama wanted more social welfare spending. You call that
@mountainman yes, Mitt is just a victim of that 9% that rely on
Romney lost only because Republicans didn't turn out to vote.
@ RanchHand. Believe what you want but Mitt Romney saved many companies when he
worked for Bain Capital, some were not competitive and could not be saved.
Romney was America's last exit of the Obama highway to Greece, speaking of
@Mountanman;You're clueless about those who voted for Obama;
we're not what you seem to think we are. Mitt Romney would have been a
disaster for America; just as he was a disaster for those companies purchased by
@cjb "...who is quote unquote pro choice..."I find this
usage absolutely cool! My first reaction was, hey, there's a key next to
the pinky finger on the second row that you might want to know about. But now I
want to leave it alone. I really like it.And so that this is not
completely off-topic...Mitt Romney lost because the Obama campaign
was able to create negative impressions about him which caused a segment of
Republicans to stay at home. Not a large segment, but large enough.Also, Obama got an assist from the moderator in the second debate, which
knocked Romney off his game and stopped his momentum at a key juncture. Winning
both the first AND the second debates would have made a real difference going
into the final period. But the fact is, Romney wasn't all that prepared or
willing to discuss Benghazi, or to point out how Obama's "smart
power" isn't all that smart.Coulda, shoulda, woulda. As
things stand now, we can't repeal Obamacare, and we really need to.
@Shaun. Are you saying food stamp recipients have not doubled since Obama won?
Are you saying half of Americans will not get free or taxpayer subsidized health
care insurance with Obamacare? Are you saying the UAW didn't get the vast
majority of the "bailout"? I have no doubt Republicans will not win the
White House again because they believe in self reliance and personal
responsibility which has become very unpopular in America, unlike Democrats. The
real question isn't whether Republicans will ever win the White House but
how the effects of our deficit spending and national debt will be and how long
we can last as a nation, economically and culturally, now that's the
@Mountainman. If republicans continue to believe that Obama voters voted for him
because of entitlements then they will continue to lose elections.
I had heard that Mitt Romney changed his stance on abortion and shortly after
that announced he was running for the Republican nomination for president.Being a pro-life person I thought to myself we don't need another
Ronald Reagan, meaning people who claim to be on your side in the pro-life fight
but when it comes right down to it they won't do what they claim.I would rather have in office who is quote unquote pro choice then someone who
claims to be on your side but when it comes right down to it will fold.
Mitt Romney lost because the majority of Americans have learned they can vote
themselves entitlements from the national treasury. Why not? It beats working
for a living and think of the "greed and selfishness" of anyone who
thinks otherwise! Obama voters are getting their rewards: food stamp recipients
have more than doubled, free or subsidized healthcare for half of America
(Obamacare), UAW and teacher's union bailouts. Everyone in America is doing
much better except taxpayers.
It is much more complicated than that.Romney is a good person and a
smart businessman.But, he was NOT a right wing conservative. And in
a field where everyone was trying to "out right" the next guy, he was
out of place.How refreshing would it have been had Romney NOT raised
his hand when asked if he would reject $10 in spending cuts to $1 in revenue
increase?He could have stood up and explained how common sense
should win out over partisan hyperbole.Instead, he played along. He
got sucked into a game which he could not compete.He was the
analytical, fact based, numbers guy who tried to downplay his intellectual
approach in favor of pandering to the far right.And in doing so, he
lost enough votes from the moderates and independents to keep him from
winning.That said, had Romney been true to himself from the start,
he would have never won the primary.This is much more of a GOP
problem than a Romney problem. And we will see it again in 2016.
Like many said last week -- WHICH Mitt Romney?