Quantcast

Comments about ‘Mitt Romney carefully unveils his vision for governing America (+video)’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, May 30 2012 9:16 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Go Utes!
Springville, UT

In contrast we have Barack Obama who, after three years in the White House, is still unable to articulate exactly what his plans for American are.

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

No question our educational system needs a re-haul, in everything from teacher competency to our pathetic record in science gradutation, but how does abandoning a centuries long success model of public education for the privitization of education help? I fail to see how allowing someone to make a profit off of teaching my kids, creationism, builds a stronger and smarter America. I may be fooled by the idea that I can now choose to have my children taught correct christian principles in school..but it's a bad, bad, choice for the nation.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

So far, kitsch conservatism is what Romney's had to offer. On education, another voucher program, the Republican solution to everything. An excuse to destroy what's left of our struggling public education system which has become a soft target for conservatives.

An assault on religion, he calls the HHS mandate on contraception. A war on job creation, he accuses Obama of at a time of high unemployment. Really? Does Romney think voters are are stupid enough to buy that?

Obama wants this election to be a referendum on free enterprise, Romney claims. Tell that to Warren Buffett. He'll be shocked.

I can't take seriously anything Romney is saying. He blurts out the first thing that pops into his head and hopes that it sounds good.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

Privatize, privatize, privatize, oh and give more money to a military that already spends more than the top 20 other countries combined spend on their militaries.

Good grief, how many bomb do we need?

Mad Hatter
Provo, UT

Vision? Political pandering more like it. Typical of a former moderate, son of a Republican liberal, trying to maintain his bona fides with the Tea Party wing of the Party.

Romney's vision is restricted to maintaining the wealth and power of the current rich and powerful patrons of the Republican Party. Since "corporations are people", according to Romney best in need of government attention are the "people" he sees as his people. If anything slips through the net and benefits the people below his select social class, then Republican will point at those droppings as an example of their largesse.

It must be difficult for a Romney speech writer to find ways to come of saying things of political import while actually saying nothing. Politics today has devolved into a pathetic game of money to pursuade people that their interests not really, but rather a diversion from the "interests" of greatest importance (i.e. corporations and the moneyed-people who game the system under the eye of Republican (and, yes, Democratic) legislators.

So, we continue to hear this "vision" nonsense from both sides backed by unbelievaable sums of Super PAC money to maintain the divisions and ignore real issues.

Jared
Average, SE

"give more money to a military that already spends more than the top 20 other countries combined spend on their militaries."

If you look at military spending as a percent of GDP or per capita, the U.S.'s spending isn't obscenely high (this is even including what we're spending in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places in the world); there are a number of countries that spend more relative to their GDPs than the U.S. does.

But what happens if the U.S. stops spending less on its military? Are the other nations going to spend more to pick up the slack? Will other nations do their part and help out more in Afghanistan or other nations? Not likely. Most of the other countries in the world rely on the U.S.'s military spending, like it or not.

For the record, I'm in favor of streamlining our military and reducing military spending (by maybe 15%-20%) but there are many issues that need to be considered before cutting back on military spending.

Privatization works very well for most things. Anyone have an example of where privatization of a government program failed?

Anti Bush-Obama
Washington, DC

His vision, getting past all of his flip flopping campaign rhetoric.

Further erosion of constiutional rights.

Increased police state surveilance.

More pointless foreign wars without a clear obejctive other than to gain control over natural rescources and police the world. Fighting to preserve our freedoms is pure propoganda.

No repeal of obamacare.

Obama basically gets 2nd term regardless if he wins the election or not because their policies are exactly the same.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

Two words for Jared: Halli-burton.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

Mark B,

Great point. The Government would have spent less using U.S. troops for security in Iraq than hiring Blackwater. The contract paid to Blackwater's senior manager in Iraq was more than double the salary paid to General Petraeus at the time. Privatizing doesn't mean that taxpayers aren't still footing the bill or being saved money.

jbp
Yorba Linda, CA

I often cannot believe the number of people that follow Obama rhetoric blindly with no critical thinking or research of the facts on their own. If you want to know why the country is on the path it is on, you can at the results of different ideologies and their effect on a smaller scale in the individual states. If you look at the states with the worst economies, most unionized workfoces, the highest unemployment rates, the highest entitlement spending per person, and highest debts, it is states that are left leaning. California, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, New Jersey and others are consistently at the top of the lists, while other more conservative states are at the other end. What Obama wants is what many of these states have done to themselves for the entire nation and then some. The man is not a leader but a pawn in the ideology of the left, which has never shown positive results when implemented, as these "lefty" states as well as European nations have well proven.

jbp
Yorba Linda, CA

Mark and Craig,

And the government getting involved at a higher level has proven to be so successful! GM, Solyndra, have cost us billions because the government did not let private enterprise determine the market demand. Halliburton have been given a contract that did not go through the process of giving competitors a equal shot, but the money wasn't completely wasted as you see when government is fully involved. Name one thing that the government runs or that is highly involved with that isn't a problem. All the entitlement programs, education, post office, Amtrak, Solyndra(amongst others). Just tell me how is that Chevy Volt doing? Exactly!!!

Eric Greene
Holladay, UT

Too bad what we need at this point in our nation's history is a bit of fiscal responsibility, and replacing entitlements with defense spending is hardly cutting the fat.

Romney, too bad you lack the gall to make plans of serious cuts to our government and get us back on track with fiscal responsibility. I hope you prove me wrong.

mightymite
DRAPER, UT

Thank you for the daily dose of Mitt love. With hard hitting artilces like this there he will win Utah for sure.

AZRods
Maricopa, AZ

minimite, Thanks for reading another Romney article on the DN and your daily dose of Mitt hatred.
Though I doubt you complain to the other online papers who constantly bash Romney.
Guess it's ok if it goes the other way hmmm.
And he will win Utah for sure, along with most of the other states...if you're able to read the recent polls.
Or in the case of Obama, who's counting on winning most of the 57 states.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

jbp,

"....The man [Obama] is not a leader but a pawn in the ideology of the left...."

For such an iconic “pawn of the left,” the President has incurred a lot of ire from his party’s left wing for making too many concessions to Republicans with so little to show for it in return. An old lefty like myself knows that the Dems aren’t perfect but it’s today's GOP that is far and away the more ideological and inflexible.

jbp
Yorba Linda, CA

@craig

Your response is predictable and typical of the left. Always making statements with nothing to back it up or subjective information peddled as fact. What has Obama truly compromised on? The fact that there is such a divide between the parties is due to his inability to lead, he is tied to tightly to his ideology rather than meaningful discussion that will create the best solutions. Obama claims that can go in a meet with our enemies and somehow change their motives, and he campaigns on this strategy preventin or ending wars. Yet, he cannot even do that within the borders of his own country by bringing together the two parties for meaningful discussion that will create results. Instead, he speaks nothing but I'll will toward the other side, this because of his unwillingness to bend his own ideologies and in doing creates a divisive environment. Republicans say no because of all the far left policies and he is pushing for without regard for other or the possibility that a better solution may exist. A real leader would find a way to bring sides together. The fact he can't or won't shows his inability to lead!

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

@jpb

"...A real leader would find a way to bring sides together. The fact he can't or won't shows his inability to lead!...".

Leadership?

Romney said today he only needs 50.1% of the vote.

The other 49.9% can eat..."7-11 cookies"?

Romney is not interested in bringing anyone together.

Romney is only interested in getting elected.

Period.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Mad Hatter,

You're right. We should eliminate or regulate wealth. I live a few miles from the Mexican border and see people begging on the streets, because there are no wealthy people supplying employment. It's those rotten wealthy Americans who give money and bring business to the little shops on the streets.

Shame on Romney for promoting wealth.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

So JPB, what is it that Romney is going to do? More of Bush polices that got us here, yep that's leadership, turn the cannons on the deck and give the orders to fire as he steps into his life raft.

jpb said: Republicans say no because of all the far left policies and he is pushing for without regard for other or the possibility that a better solution may exist.

Nope wrong again, they say No because they were told to by Mitch, remember, the republicans #1 job "make Obama a 1 term President, that sounds like the Right pushing their agenda without regard or the possibility that a better solution may exist. A real leader doesn't set an agenda to remove someone from office just because they are part of the other party.

Mitt only attacks, no solutions, just like his party of NO.
Unless we're talking Military then it's yes, would you like some more!

jbp
Yorba Linda, CA

@there you go again

There you guys go again!! Accusations with no facts to back them up, the go to liberal strategy. Yes it is true that all he needs is 50.1% to win, a statistical fact. How do you extrapolate that he doesn't care about the other 49.9% out of that. When I play basketball, all I need to do is out score the other team by one point. That does not mean I want to hurt the other team or that I dislike them. When the game is over, win or lose I congratulate the other team for a good game and move on. Why don't you lefties defend Obama with facts instead of making unfounded accusations about the other guy. Oh, and by the way. Do you think Romney would have made himself as wealthy as he is without leadership ability. I think not!!

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments