Thanks for the Mitt Romney update.It's good to know he is out
on the road again trying to make a buck for the Republican Political Machine as
well as continue in his role as the endorser-in-chief for the Republican
@there you go again.At least he's not out on the road making a
buck for the Dem Political Machine at the tax payer's expense. Not on the
road making a buck for the Dem Political machine when he should be doing his job
as the world crumbles around us. Not on the road, golfing at the tax
payer's expense, getting his rest, as Benghazi burns and 4 Americans die.
The only thing your guy is good at is making a buck for the Dem machine...
Hmm. I guess there's no limit on exclamation points anymore. As
for Romney, how does he convince a NH audience that Brown is actually a NH guy
when they're BOTH from Mass.?
If I were a Republican politician on the national stage . . . I'm not sure
I would want Romney campaigning on my behalf.The man has a record of
losing.That's bad Mojo.
Mark B -"Hmm. I guess there's no limit on exclamation
points anymore. "Well, "Conservatives" can be quite
Knowing how he operates, there's a very good chance Mitt is trying to line
up opportunities to make money for himself. Business as usual for Mitt.
I wish he would run for president again. I think he would do an exceptional job.
Sure, he's in NH. He left Massuchuetts in such a mess and with a 33%
approval rating he's not going to hang around there. Didn't he lose
both NH and Mass in the last presidentail election. How many ex-Govenors lose
their own home states in a presidental election? That's George McGovern
Sorry Mitt!But this country has lost its ability to elect honorable,
and honest leaders.A seventeen trillion dollar debt is the evidence.
It's funny to see how quickly known liberal democrats line up to comment
negatively on any Republican politician. Their comments are commonly known to be
so biased that anyone looking for objectiveness takes their opinionated comments
with a grain of salt. And so it today concerning Romney. I read a report earlier this morning about a poll taken by Quinnipiac
University here in the USA that quite extensively covered each region in our
country. It was about who is the worst president in the US since WW2. There have
been 12 presidents since then in 69 years.Barrack Obama was the
clear winner of this award, followed by George W Bush, who was 7% behind Obama.
It also reported that most respondents now feel that Romney
would've been a better president than Obama. Apparently, there is some
substantial voter remorse. But then again, Obama makes that quite predictable
and an easy call. The people who know Romney best know he's a
quality, high ethics kind of guy who understands economic principles and how to
run big organizations. It makes being a community organizer quite laughable in
comparison. Has America learned its lesson yet?
@worf 11:06y a.m. July 2, 2014Based on your comment identified
above, Mitt would stand a good chance of being elected.
One thing has become totally obvious from reading the comments so far...GaryO, Furry1993 and FT know almost nothing about who Mitt Romney
actually is. Those particular opinionated comments are nothing more
than skewed politics with nearly no factual basis. You three might very well be
nice guys overall, but your political opinions lack any objectiveness or factual
merit. In fact, I find them quite desultory and noisome. Please do
some reading and research on the subject matter before commenting next time. It
would nice to read comments that actually add to the dialog in meaningful ways
instead of sounding like a little dog yapping at someone's heals.
@Copacetic. I wouldnt too much stock in a poll like that. Of course he is the
worst president ever. simply because he is still in office.
Thank you so much for the weekly update on Mitt Romney!
@ Shaun:It's not just because he's still in office.
Obama's current approval rating is a near record low for presidents in
mid-2nd term. It's much more attributable to his actions and inactions that
account for his dropping approval rating and overall poll results. Reagan was extremely popular at this point in his presidency with an approval
rating nearly twice Obama's current rating.@ GaryO:If you know anything of history, you'd know that Abraham Lincoln had a
record of losing in elections as well. But when he finally got his chance, he
ended up being one of the best presidents in the history of our country. I could
realistically see history repeating itself in this case. Romney
truly does have that level of personal ethics and common sense to be a great
leader. It would be a welcome change to have a national leader more interested
in the welfare of our country than in his own self-self serving interests.
Anyone who has spent any serious time studying Romney and his history knows that
to be true. His detractors basically know only that he's a
Republican and therefore to be despised.
@steamroller,Let's not think in small terms.This is
not about Democrat, Republican, hatred, or about what a president did thirty
years ago.It's about right or wrong. It's just that
simple, and we do not elect honest people to office.
Romney may have had his faults, but hard work was not one of them. Obama has
sold votes(and our nations integrity)and with it, all hope of a prosperous
nation built on the rewards of honest daily work. Voting for a republican
conservative would mean that all those who have now been enslaved to dependency,
would have to actually "do something" to better society. When a
government wants dependency (as Obama has)...it will eventually collapse under
its own obligation and lack of a productivity. History is replete with examples
of the welfare state's demise. I would again choose Romney to try and
restore this integrity,if I had the chance. I believe he is a man who would
respect the office of president, unlike its current occupant who has been found
woefully lacking in wisdom...and it has hurt us all.
Copacetic -"GaryO, Furry1993 and FT know almost nothing about
who Mitt Romney actually is . . . Those particular opinionated comments are
nothing more than skewed politics with nearly no factual basis."I said Romney has a record of losing. How am I wrong in saying that?Hey Objectified -"Abraham Lincoln had a record of losing in
elections as well . . ."Abraham Lincoln never lost a
Presidential election.How many times has Romney lost now? I lost
@Mark B--"As for Romney, how does he convince a NH audience that Brown is
actually a NH guy when they're BOTH from Mass.?"The same
was Hilary convinced the astute people of NY State that she was a New Yorker!
It works both sides of the aisle.
In a survey of 1,446 registered voters, 33 percent said Obama was the worst
president since World War Two, while 28 percent pointed to his predecessor,
George W. Bush, as the worst, the poll by Quinnipiac University found. Oh how
America needs Mitt Romney!
2Copacetic July 2, 2014 11:45 a.m.Actually I (a mainstream
Republican) know exactly who and what Mitt is. There is a time when my husband
and I considered supporting him for President, and we did some pretty heavy due
diligence as a result. We found out about his business practices; his personal
traits; the way he interacts with those from whom he wants something; the way he
interacts with those who he feels aren't on his level; the way he treated
those in his stewardship as a Bishop and Stake President; the way he exercised
his stewardship over his family and pets (very indicative of how he would treat
people) and a lot of other things. I found out that he established himself as a
resident of Utah so he could run for office here, and then he dissembled to undo
everthing creating his residency here so he could run for Governor of
Massachusetts.. I found a lot of deficiencies and precious little positive to
recommend him. So, yes, I really know who and what he is (apparently more than
you do). From everything I found out about him, I wouldn't vote for him
for dogcatcher (literally).
Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton is going to win so why even talk about
Romney or anyone else. Just a waste of time.
@Furry 1993 & CopaceticEverything in my previous post was
directionally true. Mitt was not a popular govenor and did lose his home state
in the last presidental election. Additionally, I grew up in Michigan, went to
school with many of the Romneys, met Mitt's father on numerous occasions.
Mitt does has some very serious flaws that were exposed in the election and
America(the greatest country in the world) decided he was a worse choice than
BO. Mitt lost, and more than likely he'd lose again, as the next GOP
candidate is likely to do as well.As far as all those posts today about
polls, they're exactly that. Every President's poll number has gone
up once out of office. BO's will as well. The only presidental poll that
matters is the one that happens every four years. The one the GOP keeps losing.
GaryO--Romney didn't lose. The country did!A blind person can
see how this country has decayed.You can blame every president back
to Washington, but it doesn't change the fact that nothing has been fixed,
or improved over the past six years.We've been lied to, and
it's pathetic how some keep believing.
With the new poll showing Obama as the worst president ever, anyone with a
little experience will be better
So, two Republican politicians who lost, both from Massachusetts, believe they
can manipulate voters in a much smaller state to send one of them to Congress
anyway. One suspects they are, again, underestimating the intelligence of
American voters.As for President Obama and approval, the oft-cited
survey doesn't mean what the uninformed think it does. Democrats cited
several Presidents as most admired - ranging from Kennedy to Clinton. Some,
including Obama, got double digit results. Nearly 70% of Republicans, on the
other hand, cited Ronald Reagan. So, the survey is really an examination of how
differently Democrats and Republicans answered the question.
As one noted before: Not electing Romney the first time, America shot itself in
the foot - not electing him the second time - America shot itself in the head.
To FT, Gary O and the whole gang.Read it and weep. The latest poll
which shows Obama as the worst President also showed that the country now, by a
big margin, believes we would have been better off with Romney in the White
House. To quote Lincoln, P.T. Barnum, ect. "You can fool all of the people
some of the time, some of the people all of the time (that would be you guys),
but not all of the people all of the time." America is waking up to what it
is like to be living with one of the worst Presidents of all time. And they may
also be realizing that having Democrats help the worst President succeed in
being bad at his job is also not good.
@copa and furry.absolutely ludicrous...did your due diligence on Mitt???
Careful not to ask Dodge about Buick..Seriously question your sources. My
(credible) sources have nothing but amazing stats on Governor Romney. Try
asking folks who really have worked with Mitt. Not closet haters. How about this
for a novel, refreshing idea: Mitt actually knows how to build unity across the
aisle. Mitt knows how to relate to common,everyday folks. You keep listening to
sources who outright lie about Mitt.
If Romney is not running, and yet again says so, and he is merely making a
campaign appearance in a small state in the NE U.S., why such attention? I know
this paper loves the guy, but come on. And I compare this to the announcement
of a new Secretary of the VA on Monday, a guy with a Utah connection, and you
didn't run the story until late Wednesday afternoon. The hero worship of
Romney is getting a little old, don't you think?
Romney's "47%" include my 92-year-old mother who worked her heart
out for 50 years for a corporation and is now on Social Security and Medicare.
Her meager pension was blown by a bunch of corporate crooks, so yes, she depends
on the gov't and on me. Romney thinks my mom is a leech.
That's why I can never support him. Never.
Someone on here responded earlier to Objectified:Hey Objectified
-"Abraham Lincoln had a record of losing in elections as well .
. ."Abraham Lincoln never lost a Presidential election.How
many times has Romney lost now? I lost count.Presidential elections?
That would be ONE for Romney. Not too high of number to loose count of.
In response to what someone else said:"Romney's
"47%" include my 92-year-old mother who worked her heart out for 50
years..."Actually, no. If your mother was working, she is NOT
whom Romney was talking about. Misinformation is part of the whole issue
@ Irony guy.He never said that the 47% were leaches.. Take a chill
pill.. Said that they didn't pay taxes and were dependent on the
government so they would be all over BO's government is the solution to all
our problems policy. My parents are 47$ 's themselves and they love the
Mitt.All of you readers that don't like the Romney articles. Stop
reading them!!!!!!!!! How do you like those exclamation points? Better than an
article about more Presidential incompetence from our current guy. Mitt Romney
has lost exactly 1 Presidential election. I for 1 think it was "stolen."
IRS, voter fraud, etc...
America is going through "buyers remorse".
Has the DN ever received a message, email, phone call, or written letter from
Mitt Romney and his family asking, " Please stop with all of the continuing
articles about me. I am no longer running for any political office?"
GaryO:Two loses by Romney in presidential elections and you lost
count??Nothing personal, but it certainly doesn't say much for
anyone's intellect when counting all the way up to 2 confuses them.BTW: Lincoln lost in 4 political elections before winning his election
to become president. That's more political losses than Romney.
@ Furry1993:I've read many of your comments to various
political articles, and there is no question whatsoever that you are NOT a
mainstream Republican. To claim otherwise is akin to a wolf in sheep's
clothing and bringing one's integrity into question. You are often about as
liberal as they come regarding your comments and fooling very few people. From your latest comment, I stand by my assertion that you still
don't actually know Romney, regardless of what you claim or may think.
It's obvious you didn't even take time to watch the Mitt Netflix video
from last winter that was quite popular, giving an open, backstage look at who
Romney really is. A reporter assigned to cover Romney's
presidential campaign said he initially didn't want to because he disliked
Romney so much. But later, after spending so much time with him, he said he
became convinced Romney would've been one of the best presidents in the
history of our country. That's the real difference between not knowing him
and actually getting to know him. It's regrettable when people
watching only Democrat political ads think they know all about him.
@ Irony Guy:When did Romney say your mom was a leech? Never!
He has never once called anyone a leech. It's just you putting 2 and 2
together and coming up with 5. It's sad how so many liberals like to keep
putting words into Republican's mouths. Doing so is total dishonesty and
much like the current administration. BTW: His comment about the
47% is basically true. But sometimes the truth is hard for some people to hear.
@ ThornBirds:In case you hadn't noticed, this is a
nationally distributed Associated Press article... not a local Deseret News
article.No one is forcing anyone to read articles about Romney, but
obviously many people still do, whether they love him or hate him. Perhaps
that's why they keep making and printing them. The fact that
you and so many other anti-Romney readers keep reading and commenting about
anything concerning Romney speaks volumes. It's been almost 2 years since
the last presidential election and people from both major parties still have a
huge interest in anything going on in Mitt Romney's life. He obviously
still carries a lot of political weight and influence.
Mitt Romney would be US President IF he chooses following policies:1) Free
all illegal movers from south of US (may include multiple nations), give them
right to work and path to citizenship;2) Claim everyone would vote at the
poll station without any ID (YES, no ID required for US Presidential election
even D Party National Conference attendance required one)3) Claim everyone
has the right to live with Free Cellar Phone, Free House, Free Health Care and
Free to use any drugs (pot just one of them)4) Claim there is no National
Debt existing really because those so-called "National Debt" is our
National Investment according to D-Party;5) Claim US will be "Tax
Free" to everyone because everyone deserves to be provided by the Great US
Government, and in reality we will collect Revenue - a portion of money deducted
from your monetary gains which including your salary, wage, investment etc.US has already lost its ability to elect Honorable and Honest leaders
Right or left, I do not trust ANY politicians. They are ALL bought and paid for,
so far as I can see, with maybe one or two exceptions. The honest ones have no
hope in Washington, as it is the dishonest ones who hold the reins of power, and
they determine what positions - if any - the honest politicians will or can
hold. I voted for Obama - twice - would I vote for him again? No... Would I vote
for Romney? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! We need a third
party... One not tainted by the almighty buck... And we need reforms that keep
big money out of politics. Past that, we keep voting for those we think are the
lesser of evils, when we should simply vote for the rank outsiders every time.
Maybe then Washington might just sit up and know that all of us - left and right
- have had enough.
Based on what all the other candidates offer, both Republican and Democrat I
would vote for Romney in a heartbeat in 2016, assuming we still have the USA
with its Constitution.
Romney hasn't the aptitude to manage, or run an honest business much less
lead a nation.
re: Copacetic"It's funny to see how quickly known liberal
democrats line up to comment negatively on any Republican politician."Because tea party conservatives are timid as church mice and/or actually
are compassionate and forgiving like the 1 guy in the bible?
to Mountanman (7/2)... but, in the future, would 47 or 53 percent
say Willard is the worst?
to worf"A blind person can see how this country has
decayed."More decay has taken place since RR left office; Mitt has what every POTUS since then has had. An Ivy League degree.
Coincedence? Probably not.