Mitt says he can beat Obama in November

Today is crucial for candidates on both sides

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BMAN
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:38 p.m.

    "Indeed, Romney and Obama should run together. Their love affair for socialism compliment each other.

    One is an inner-city liberal, and the other is a New England liberal.

    Either way, neither one has any place in this Republican Primary. Mitt Romney is a socialist like his father."

    What's wrong with a little socialism?

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:12 p.m.

    Mitt loses to McCain in NH tonight.


    OK Mitt fans, tell me what state, other than Utah and Wyoming, Romney will carry. HIs whole strategy was to win big in Iowa and NH. He lost in both. Now what?

  • Oleblu
    Jan. 8, 2008 3:58 p.m.

    Whatever: Whats wrong with marching with King? The ignoring of the color of ones skin and fighting for human rights and equality is what this country is suppose to be all about! But I guess that will never be true for some!!

  • Whatever!
    Jan. 8, 2008 3:22 p.m.

    Oleblu: Mitt makes the faith of my ancestors look sleazy with his casual use of the truth and his acting like a used car salesman trying to off a lemon on you.

    This from the guy whose father marched with King.

  • Oleblu
    Jan. 8, 2008 2:19 p.m.

    It is really to bad that the people in this country base a vote on a persons religion. We are all God's children, and I find it refreshing to see someone who is loyal to his wife, his family, and his God. Someone who is honest and tries to do the right thing for the good of the whole rather then me me me. We should vote for a person based on what they stand for and what they can bring to the table rather than what church they attend.

  • Alex
    Jan. 8, 2008 1:26 p.m.

    Hatuletoh - I concur, the "Ronald Reagan was our greatest President" post was bogus. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are two immediate examples of America's finest President's. I have admiration for Roosevelt, as well. But I hardly think Reagan was America's greatest President.

  • Loves Bush
    Jan. 8, 2008 1:03 p.m.

    So, Mitt is an outsider who will bring change to Washington, except that he loves and approves of everything Bush has done except where Bush didn't go far enough ("I'd double Guantanamo").

    Mitt must think we're dumb as a bag of hammers.

  • Frightened
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:51 p.m.

    Reading this forum, I'm frightened at how little most posters know about the candidates' positions, how frequently they misunderstand them, and how often they consider a label as an answer.

  • Christoph
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:43 p.m.

    One thing that makes Romney great is that he did NOT vote for Reagan in the 1980's; he has confessed to being an independent that decade. Clinton/Gore raised taxes in the 90's and it ended up making people like Romney a lot of money; the rich got richer in that decade and that is a matter of fact. We can't always cut taxes and we can't always raise them (though we have always raised them the last 200 years during war-to pay for it of course which is a big part of war). I like Romney because he independent.

  • CoachK
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:22 p.m.

    It's pretty easy to sit back and comment about someone else's statements and ideas. All of you are like armchair quarterbacks; criticizing but can't play ball yourselves to save your lives. The truth is that anyone of the candidates could do a successful job in that office. Even with the resources and advisors at their disposal, any one of them is going to make mistakes as well as have some success. But you guys will keep on criticizing until the day you die; because it's safe! You're not risking anything. At least these men and women have the courage to put it out there. You may not agree with what they say, but at least you should respect them for trying to make a difference. But you go right ahead. Keep looking for faults. We've all got some.

  • russ
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:21 p.m.

    Mitt will stay in the race, no matter what happens today. He is hoping for a vp nomination. Which is a pretty high achievement for a guy who has yet to show us his soul. Plastic? He should be called "Visa"... Hillary weeps a little and everyone feels it. We know where she is coming from. Obama can get teary-eyed and talk about the past and how we have come so far, and it will sell like hotcakes. McCain talks about war and torture and you just have to listen. Huck mentions being good people and you know he feels it.

    But Mitt? Oh, the Olympics in Utah. Sorry to say but most Americans do not feel empathy there... or even an understanding of why we should care. Mitt needs to break down, cry a little, moan a lot, and get real. Then the public will think they know him, and could vote for him. A plastic autocrat, a business executive does not get elected in a world filled with images, sounds, smells, and people in need. He might have great credentials, but no one has seen his soul. And that is why the people hesitate.

  • Hatuletoh
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:20 p.m.

    Not a single person has rebuffed or rebuked the poster "Robert" from 2:33 A.M. for his statement that Ronald Reagan was "our greatest president in History" [sic].

    I'm the only one who caught that hilarious statement?

    It's OK if one can look past Iran-Contra and Voodoo Economics; the horribly misguided "Just Say No" drug program and TRILLIONS of dollars of debt; etc. etc. to claim that the Reagan presidency was a "good" one and not a "bad" one. But greatest president in history? Really? Best ever? He was senile for the last two years in office, for goodness' sake.

  • Vietnam Vet
    Jan. 8, 2008 12:08 p.m.

    Romney, like Bill Clinton, dodged service during Vietnam. None of his five sons have served during the current conflict. John McCain would be a much stronger Commander in Chief.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 8, 2008 11:52 a.m.

    If we strip away race, religion, and the "what I want to do," and focus on 1. what each candidate has actually accomplished in the political arena, and 2. what values each has demonstrated in their personal lives, the best presidential candidate is much easier to identify.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 8, 2008 11:46 a.m.

    Thanks for that Bill Keshlear.
    Romney is a typical CEO looking after himself, his major stockholders and pals, getting filthy rich by using an aggressive downsizing policy.

  • CH-Iowa
    Jan. 8, 2008 11:30 a.m.

    Mitt is the only Repub that could beat Obama. If Huckabee wins then the Reagan coalition will falter because the Mormon contingency (there are Mormons outside of Utah, you know) will remove themselves from the Repub fold. I for one would vote Democrat, any Democrat, if Huckabee got the nod. I would stronlgy consider voting Repub if Mitt is nominated. I would say that if it is anyone but Mitt then we all need to practice saying President Obama (which would not be a bad thing).

    As far as the comment about Obama and Romney being running mates and socialists... sign me up.

    As for Obama/Edwards running mates and a dream team... I told that to every Democratic pollster that called during the run up to the Iowa caucus.

  • Discontent
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:59 a.m.

    Any candidate running on a platform of "stay the course," or "let market forces solve it" is going to lose, and lose badly. The depth and breadth of voter discontent is enormous.

    Foreign policy?
    Health care?
    Public infrastructure?
    Economic policy?
    Environmental policy?

    In each of these areas, poll after poll shows that American voters don't like where they see their government is taking them.

  • red state update
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:59 a.m.

    Romney is trying to buy the presidency with his free-spending ways.
    This tactic would impress Utahns - but normal America is much wiser than that.

  • Scott E
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:55 a.m.

    Blakey....not true. Once you resort to personal attacks you lose credibility. By calling Romney an idiot, you lose any intellectual credibility you may have had otherwise. Everyone has a political outlook, some are more credible than others. To see if yours is a credible outlook, read this post over again.

  • Tired of Personal Attacks
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:41 a.m.

    I wish Mitt could stop stooping down with all the other mud slingers, and tell us what he really wants for the country, and not a pre prepared politics as usual speech to appease to the masses. He should be an example of integrity and take the moral high ground. So if he does lose, he will be remembered for his ideals and values, not for his whining and demeaning comments to the other competitors. Commercials should only be allowed on TV or Radio if they are stating their position, never should ads that attack other candidates be allowed. This year should be the year that candidates break the politics as usual and really do something good for our country.

  • Bill Keshlear
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:29 a.m.

    Change is becoming a Romney theme.

    I BROUGHT CHANGE TO COMPANY AFTER COMPANY," Romney said during Saturdays debate. But here are examples of change, Romney-style, that you wont find in the Deseret Morning News.

    According to The Boston Globe:

    In 1992, Romney's firm reaped $100 million while Romney-run Bain laid off workers and plunged Ampad into bankruptcy.

    Romney is tied to Damon Corporation's $119 million fraud fine.

    Romney reaped $473,000 from investment in Damon Corp.

    Drexel Burnham Lambert scandal haunted Romney's run for office.

  • jim h
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:27 a.m.

    I'm surprised that no one seems to realize the national implications that Governor Leavitt's "early morning seminary" will have on a Romney candidacy if he gets the republican nomination.
    It's chilling for people to imagine even the possiblity of something like that occuring during a mormon presidency.

  • setting the record straight
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:26 a.m.

    "Lionheart" is typical of some LDS who think they know everything about Catholicism.
    The orginal Christian group is Catholic (meaning universal) Catholics believe everybody who professes a belief in Christ whether they sprinkle or dunk in baptism (or whatever), have rules and by-laws they have manufactured, are part of one, holy, apostolic church and are welcome anytime and are all are brothers and sisters in Christ.
    That is why the doors of the churches are never locked to anyone. Their is no exclusive nature to uphold - that is not Christ's teachings.

  • Just wondering
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    Can anyone really picture McCain as the President. Obviosly, McCain has some great qualities, but McCain is a fighter. Sometimes that's good, but his attitude of "my way or the highway" just won't work as the President.

  • Biblionerd
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    Romney's no idiot but he's a lousy politician, for sure. And with his awkward pitch to the right to woo the evangelicals in Iowa, he has lost any support he might have had with the independents he would need in the general election. He can never beat Obama....or Hillary, for that matter without support from the middle which he'll never get.

    The social conservatives have destroyed the Republican Party's chances by shredding the Reagan "Big Tent." Mitt bought into their litmus test and is toast because of it.

  • Better Choice
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:16 a.m.

    The ABC party (Anyone But Clinton) would rather see Mr. Romney as Veep to President Ron Paul.
    The best of both worlds.

  • utah voter
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:09 a.m.

    Why is Mitt talking about Obama? He can't win the two states he poured millions of dollars into. His candidacy is failed. If he would be himself instead of flip flopping and trying to out christian the religious right... he'd at least be seen as authentic which isn't something anyone is classify him as. Mitt's problem is of his own making. When you try to prop up the worst president in the past 50 years and you have no understanding of torture and you want to create a committee of lawyers to advise you.... well you get the point.

  • Catherine
    Jan. 8, 2008 10:08 a.m.

    None of the Republican candidates hold a chance against Obama or any other Democrat candidate, for that matter. Watching the debates on Saturday made that clear as a bell. The Republicans were a bunch of whiny children with their personal attacks and barbs. As if we care to watch that. We could turn on any of the trash on TV to see that- we shouldn't have to put up with it in a debate of our future leader. It will be a whole new ballgame in November and if Mitt is still around, his childish tactics won't work against someone who won't sink to his level.

  • hey blake
    Jan. 8, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    give me three reasons why he is an idiot!!! and three more resons why clinton isn't!!!!

  • To Scott E / From Blake
    Jan. 8, 2008 9:26 a.m.

    Well Scott, I for sure think he is an idiot, regardless of if I voiced my opinion. I promise, you can think Mitt Romney is an idiot and still have a valid political outlook.

    To everyone else, I want to make sure that you all know I don't think Mitt Romney is an idiot because of his LDS faith. :)

  • Lionheart
    Jan. 8, 2008 9:21 a.m.

    oldman: Go to a Catholic mass and they have their profession of the Catholic Church being the one and only true Church, Muslims the same. It is a construct of the past, which is wheezing it's last breath, that position belongs to the religious past. Gordon Hinckley has been moving the LDS away from this position. All churches calling for the uplifting of the human spirit and attempting to live a moral and clean life and purify their adherent to receive the Christ Consciousness of God are rivers leading to the same ocean. These old ossified professions of faith, will be dropped in time. Don't get hung up on them. The bloody Muslim insistence of ideological superiority has been a world lesson and will moderate religious dogmas.

  • Scott E
    Jan. 8, 2008 9:09 a.m.

    Blake, by calling Mitt an idiot you just discredited any thought you have on the matter.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 8, 2008 9:07 a.m.

    I think putting Obama as a shoe in is a bit premature. Once he has to start answering the tough questions I think that Hillary will over take him. As much as I think Mitt would make the best President, I don't think America will vote for a LDS President....too much bigotry here. McCain may have the best chance at beating the Democrat nominee.

  • oldman
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:57 a.m.

    Then it's off to war we go. Got to stop those evil people whose god is different from ours. And, since Mitt belongs to the only true church, he will have a heck of a time working with any American heathens who don't think like him. But hey, like Bush, he can always pray and get the necessary revelation to cause havoc.

  • Blake
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:53 a.m.

    Mitt Romney isn't just a joke, he is an idiot. I thought his debate performance was weak, he acted better than the others, and he finally got the public mocking that he deserves. Although I am voting for Hillary, it looks like Obama will win. I am excited for the Obama White House. Regardless of who wins, as long as it is NOT Mitt Romney, I will be happy.

  • Warren
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:53 a.m.

    I have been waiting to see some merchant in Utah run a contest for the day and the time that Mitt dropped out of the race.
    Mitt isn't what we need for this country.

  • Question
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:42 a.m.

    What exactly does Obama want to change? Has he said? And has he said exactly how he will change anything without a big time tax increase? You can change right into an economic depression. This reminds me of Bob Bennett's first campaign where the buzzword "change" was the theme, but he never said how he would change anything other than by being "scrappy." Well, Bob not only hasn't changeed anything, he hasn't been scrappy. Barak=Bob. QED.

  • Alex
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:32 a.m.

    I certainly hope Obama keeps doing well. Iowa was huge, and another win in New Hampshire would hopefully give him a better standing for upcoming primaries. I think an Obama-Edwards ticket would secure the White House for the Democrats.

  • Ernest T. Bass
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:32 a.m.

    Mitt would have had a chance had he not run as a republican following Bush, the worst president in history. It will be a long time before I could possibly support a repub, especially one who wants to continue torture and expand Guantanimo.

  • No...anyone but, Mitt!
    Jan. 8, 2008 8:02 a.m.

    What a scary thought!

  • John
    Jan. 8, 2008 7:49 a.m.

    LL may be on to something. Although I think his slogan is a bit racist. Obama would be a great President. Maybe Mitt would be a good fit for V.P. However, I think he would be a better as a cabinet member or maybe just a tag-along adviser. Mitt for President? A disaster. His flips and flops would lose his Republican supporters and his arrogance would put off Democrats. It's time for Thompson to wake up and run a campaign.

  • Lost the luster
    Jan. 8, 2008 7:47 a.m.

    Mitt, and his campaign tactics have turned me off. He should worry about McCain today and not Obama. I am not so sure he would be a better President the Obama or anyone else in the field.

  • Hm
    Jan. 8, 2008 7:29 a.m.

    Well, LL, I had that thought myself (but perhaps for different reasons?) The problem with that is... both of them want to be pres. Who's gonna be the VP?
    And I'm not sure I like the slogan, 2 brothers in the White House??

  • Tai H.
    Jan. 8, 2008 7:23 a.m.

    Indeed, Romney and Obama should run together. Their love affair for socialism compliment each other.

    One is an inner-city liberal, and the other is a New England liberal.

    Either way, neither one has any place in this Republican Primary. Mitt Romney is a socialist like his father.

    Go Huckabee!

  • liberal larry
    Jan. 8, 2008 7:01 a.m.

    I it is time for Obama and Romney to run together, as president and vice president. Their slogan could be

    "Two 'brothers' in the white house."

  • jgirl18
    Jan. 8, 2008 5:03 a.m.

    "There is no way that our party would be successful in the fall if we put forward a long-serving senator to stand up against Barack Obama's message of change," Romney said

    These words can come back to haunt him if McCain is the Republican nominee, and this clip is replayed in September/October.

    Why would the republican party want to play defense against the Democrats rather than play to win on their own platform? This weakens the republican party. Doesn't make it sound that they believe in their own message.

  • Robert
    Jan. 8, 2008 2:33 a.m.

    In 1976 the Republican Party made a big mistake by choosing Gerald Ford as its candidate because of misplaced loyalty. That year Republicans rejected Ronald Reagan who was to become our greatest president in History four years later. If we choose a war hero and a wonderful man to run as our candidate this year we will make a simular mistake. Of the Republican candidates, only Mitt Romney has the ability to beat the Democrat Candidate be it Hillary or Obama. The results of choosing the old "safe" Republican, John McCain or the newer "preacher" candidate Mike Huckabee will be as big a disaster as when Gerald Ford was the candidate and Jimmy Carter won the presidency. Carter, like Obama and Clinton will do, raised taxes and went on a spending spree. WE REALLY DON'T NEED THAT AGAIN! A vote for Mitt will be a vote for a brighter, safer, saner future for all Americans.

  • WAM
    Jan. 8, 2008 1:58 a.m.

    Go Mitt!!