Mitt continues to demonstrate an ability to rise above the challenges of his
campaign. He's leading the way in mature and sensible leadership. I think he's a
great candidate for the top job in the country. I hope he wins the nomination,
because we deserve the best--most thoughtful--candidates at this time to help
our country come together and get out of this financial morasse. I imagine even
Barak Obama will benefit from having a solid and issues focused candidate
against which to debate and run against--ultimately the American people win,
when we elect more than a slogan.
Fishback: Your charge of racism is out of place and ridiculous. Nothing racist
was said in the debates. This is an old ploy of the liberals when they can't
win on the issues, start crying "racism." Of course I oppose any form
of racism. But being from a minority group does not mean that attacks on one's
policies or performance are "racist."GiuseppeG: Excellent
point about the difference between vaccilating back and forth (flip-flopping) as
opposed to changing one's views. Reagan was a Democrat at one time, but he
became one of the best Republican presidents in history (though Lincoln was
clearly the best). Anyone who says they will never change views is arrogantly
assuming that he/she has all of the right answers and can never learn anything
No one takes Ron Paul seriously, because he said he didn't want to be president
after he lost in 2008. After he lost he was laughting because Mitt lost too.
IMO he wanted to split the vote. He's not Republician and doesn't like them
Wake up, Republicans. If you want Obama out of there you have to nominate
someone who doesn't offend the independent voters. As an independent, I would
support Romney over Obama. But Perry is Bush on steroids and I wouldn't support
him. I'd just abstain again as I did in Obama v.s. McCain.
@Hutterite"In a way, I hope he wins. All the way to the top.
That way, a republican and a mormon can, at once, also fail to fix the
economy."Brilliant. Is this the, "If I can't have it then
NOBODY CAN!" mentality? And what will you do when he does get elected and
the economy does rebound? Move to France?
In a way, I hope he wins. All the way to the top. That way, a republican and a
mormon can, at once, also fail to fix the economy.
@KamiI wasn't aware you could tell who was LDS vs non-LDS on these
boards. I am a Romney supporter not because he's a Mormon. (Although you can
count his experience as a Bishop and Stake President as huge pluses for
experience.)Here's the field as I see it:Romney:
Successful businessman, hugely successful Olympic organizer, some experience in
public service (but not too much.) Fairly middle of the road in temper and
judgement.Perry: Articulate George W. Bush.Bachman:
Polarizing figure who would be better to stay put in congress.Obama:
No practical experience before office (and it shows now.) Left wing ideologue
posing as a centerist. Has no earthly clue what to do on the economy.
@ Mormon cowboyIn case you have not noticed, Mitt is slightly more
qualified and has a bit more savvy than you possess. He was way too smart to
make un-winnable issues part of his campaign for Governor of liberal
Massachusetts. Yet according to the web site "Evangelicals for Mitt"
he succeeded in governing from right of center. By avoiding letting un-winnable
issues such as abortion and gay rights dictate the political dialogue in the
race for Governor, he won the state house, thus positioning himself where he
wanted to be and he was capable of working to curtail abortion and gay rights.
Every little bit helps. Extremely wise strategy. Mitt has far more tact,
leadership, and moxie than any other candidate.
"RedShirt | 8:02 a.m. Sept. 14, 2011 USS Enterprise, UTTo
"JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt | 9:51 p.m." lets get some facts
inserted into your post.First of all, Presidents do not set the
budget, that is congress."Well guess who signs that bill for
spending into law....Reagan, Bush, Bush 2, if they were gatekeepers they swung
the gates wide open.
To "Pagen | 3:55 p.m." Obama hasn't held unemployment steady. When he
took office. According to the BLS website, when Obama took office unemployment
was at 8.2%, by October that year it reached 10.1%. In February and March of
this year it dipped below 9%.For everything that you hate about
Bush, you should realize that Obama is no different, except in magnitude. They
both have the same end goal in mind, the only difference is their rate of
travel. Where Bush was walking there, Obama sprints.
"I promise you, outside of the "red states", there are still a
plurality who prefer the president to Goofy and Daffy."@greenman108: You are a good water carrier for your boy Alfred E.
Newman, and here in the "blue state" of CA there are nearly enough
(R)'s to turn things around. Maybe sooner than later the way things are going
Romney is trailing Obama in national polls, although he fares better than Perry
does.Neither Romney nor Perry are worthy of the office.
This isn't American Idol, folks. Who would be crazy enough to hire someone the
way we select a president?Every serious candidate ought to have a library
of white papers on at least a dozen critical topics of the day. Devoid of the
pressure to deliver a sound bite, these documents would explain their approach
to these problems.But we vote for the guy with the best one-liners....and it shows.
After reading many comments on these boards about Romney for President, it seems
that a regular theme is mormons v anti-mormons. I think that members of the
church REALLY need to take a step back and try to see the forest thru the trees
here. If you are serious about your conservative views, take your rose-colored
religious affiliation glasses off and support a candidate who could actually win
the office of the President. Are republicans ever going to learn that the more
they remain divided, the less chance in heck they have to put a candidate in
To "JohnJacobJingleHeimerSchmidt | 9:51 p.m." lets get some facts
inserted into your post.First of all, Presidents do not set the
budget, that is congress. If you look at Congress's record over the past 30
years, the greatest deficit spending has occured when Democrats controlled
Congress. Don't go blaming republicans for the mess that Democrats have
caused.Next, it wasn't deregulation that got us into this mess. It
was OVERREGULATION that got us here. Prior to the 1930's, there were few
sub-prime loans. Then, under FDR we had regulations to loosen standards for
loans, then again under Carter and Clinton those standards were loosened more.
It was a direct result of government regulations that we had so many bad loans
going out. If you look at the loans that banks have made since 2008, they are
now more careful who gets loans. They are more careful because of deregulation.
The right wing doesn't want a level headed and educated person like Romney, they
want someone who will spit fire and rile them up. Perry will beat Romney in the
south by playing the true christian card, watch for it
Anyone else find it curious that Romney is four for four in the debates yet
trails Perry in the polls by over 10 points? Clearly it seems that these
debates don't really matter and we Americans elect people based on likeability
alone. Very scary thought.
As a business owner (small) I can tell you I was much better off in 2008 than i
am now in 2011. My sales have dropped nearly 25% as a result of this recession.
Unless people can follow and trust a strong president (unlike obama) I fear this
recession will continue for another 2-3 year. Whether you like or dislike Romney
he at least can look at this country like it should, as a business. You can't
spend more than you make, you'll go broke. Bigger government means more
spending, and that means more taxes you and I have to pay, or the country goes
further in debt. You can only borrow so much before the bank says, "sorry
thats it". I understand that in 2008 people felt a kind of
"kennedy" type trust with obama, and due to him being black it might
have felt like a new direction for voters. In nearly three years though, the
only direction I've seen the country go, is down. I hope people can see that
Obama isn't the answer in 2012.
The way I see it, the nation has two serious and pressing needs. First, we need
someone to lead on the economic issues. Obama flat out doesn't have the
background for this. This is evidenced by his latest 'jobs' proposal. It's
aimed at making work for a specific group of people in the construction
industry. It doesn't do anything to solve the problem long term. To date, Mitt
Romney is the only candidate I've seen who has actually articulated a plan.
Huntsman sort of did, but not too specific.The second issue is that
for the past 3 administrations, we have had VERY polarizing figures in office
who have pushed people into camps. "You are either with us or against
us" or "punish your enemies." Clinton repulsed people's sense of
morals. Bush blundered through 8 years. Obama promised to fundamentally remake
America...a country that has been great for a very long time. People don't want
it fundamentally remade. Romney is not a firebrand. He's not a wacko. He can
appeal to most people. He's the right guy.
Fish inquires: How can a room full of overweight 40+ yr old citizens be against
health care when we are the ones who are going to pay for their cocktail of
medication required to treat their diabetes and coronary disease?the
operative premise is that adolescents will not accept anyone telling them they
have to do anything/something.since many people are stuck in the
adolescent phase of emotional development, its easy to manipulate them with
propaganda about MANDATES. Nevermind that we pay 10 times as much when we all
have to use our hard earned tax money for some poor person to get their HC at
the ER. They are not actually against HC per se. They are against
being made to have insurance and they are against the state providing free
health care to persons in need, and especially when those persons in need are
It doesn't matter if the experts say Romney won, People of the Republican party
will once again fall for a folksy fire talking phony who will claim to be for
smaller government and then go on a spending spree again.National
debtReagan 2.4 TrillionGH Bush 4 TrillionGW Busg 6 TrillionRomney is the only Republican I believe will not balloon spending but he
will have to spend to get us out of recession and stabilize the economy. As a
financial guy, he knows this.I do not like how all the Republicans
are once again calling for deregulations of the baks so they can mess up our
Rick Perry looks bizarre on stage. It appears he is auditioning for Saturday
Night Live with all his shrugs, hand motions, smirks, and such.
Chris got 23 recommendations for sayingDaffyMickeyAs long as it's not barack"1. I find it bizarre that
citizens would foist a poor candidate and poor leader on the union, just out of
pique about another leader. That how we got Bush43, who yearned so much to be a
'war-time' president, like the people in history books, that he led us into a
war over false intelligence. War-time president. His war lasted the longest
of all US history. Know why? They never intended to leave. 2. do
you 24 posters really think Daffy/Perry can win a national election?I promise you, outside of the "red states", there are still a
plurality who prefer the president to Goofy and Daffy.
Mrs. Bachman on Today Show said a lady came up to her and told her that her
daughter was now "retarded" because of gardisil immunization.I
do not agree with Perry's executive order but did Bachman really quote one lady
who's daughter is supposedly retarded from an immunization? Preventing HPV and
cervical cancer is a huge concern and should not be dropped from discussion or
treatment because of a stupid executive order. What educated person makes a
comment like she did and expects to be elected?
Sorry. In my last comment re: Michelle Bachmann the spelling should be
Personally, I was very disappointed with the lack of dignity and respect Romney
and Perry displayed. I don't think either of them would make a good president
for our country. I am pro-women, but I feel sorry for Michelle Bachmann because
she seems to be living/speaking of a ferry tale. Unfortunately, she sounds like
another Sara Palin. Michelle needs to study some more on the relations between
U S of America and the rest of the world. I had hoped for more from Huntsman,
because in my opinion, he would be better than Romney or Perry. I hope he gains
some speed on all this. I am a democrat, but when Huntsman was Governor of Utah
he did a great job. He did not let religion/or church dictate what was best for
the State of Utah.
RNC needs MORE picks, these stink, they better put better out there, or it'll be
Obama come 2012.Here's how CNN's analysts and contributors saw the
debate:Gloria Borger, CNN chief political analyst: "I think
that Mitt Romney started chipping away at the economic miracle of the state of
Texas. And it's clear he's going to continue to go back at that. He said, you
know, when you're dealt four aces, it's easy to win the hand. And I remember
that happening with [1988 Democratic presidential candidate] Michael Dukakis,
talking about the 'Massachusetts Miracle.' They started chipping away at that,
it was a big problem for him."Erick Erickson, CNN contributor
and RedState . com blogger: "I think this may be the first debate where
Mitt Romney didn't come out the clear winner. Perry needed to do well. I think
he did well. Paul Begala, CNN contributor and Democratic strategist:
"This is, in fact, I think long-term, strategically, the real Achilles heel
for governor Perry, that is where Michele Bachmann took it she took it to
'crony capitalism.' She's trying to suggest that Rick Perry will depart from
conservative values if there is money to be made for lobbyists.
I am no Republican, but I am so thankful that Mitt (and others) are showing the
country this guy (Perry) for what he is. I am an Obama man all the way, but one
thing I'm sure of is that Mitt is at least a good man. I feel sorry that the Tea
Party (in all likelihood) will eventually hold that against him.
In the last Presidential election, it seemed too few Americans really thought
much about their vote for President. Pres. Obama promised to solve all my, all
everyone's problems, and that was enough for many. I'm concerned their are only
29 comments on this article, while a sports article will quickly rack up many
RNC needs MORE picks, these stink.Rick Perry and Mitt Romney might
have traded punches about Social Security during last night's Republican
presidential debate, but Michele Bachmann's and Newt Gingrich's focus on
Obamacare and the economy was the high point of the evening, Rush Limbaugh said
Tuesday. Why do we have to settle for the fact that this is a two-man race?.
Limbaugh asked. There are only two of them up there that I would have a problem
being elected president of the United States. The conservative talk-show host
said GOP candidates Jon Hunstman and Ron Paul should take one for the team. The
first conclusion I came to, Huntsman and Ron Paul need to quit the Republican
Party, join the Democratic Party and run against Obama and then everything get's
cleaned up, he said. The questions we got from the tea party made me feel like
I was home last night. It was an upper. I had a tough time going back to the
football game. Limbaugh said Perry seemed to get tired toward the end of the
debate, searching word by word for the word to say. Gingrich was like the
adult in the room.
Hmmmm.....Romney's 4 for 4, eh?Wow, that's gotta tick off the
anti-Mormons!Go Romney, go!
Romney is looking more and more like the best option. He seems like the most
level-headed, even-handed candidate. I don't like everything about him, but
there is a lot of good there. He would be much better economically.
I am definitely in favor of Romney for President. I think some of the other
candidates might be good as VP. I like many of Cain's ideas, but I don't think
he has enough experience to be President, but might be good in an office dealing
with finances. I love to hear Newt's comments. He is not afraid to say what he
thinks, and I believe he could be a good VP, but might not be electable, since
he is part of the established politico in Washington. He, however, would have
more foreign relations and military/defense experience than some of the others
I'm familiar with. Romney has both domestic and foreign business/financial
experience, and knows how the local, national, and world economy functions. I
believe he is the one we need right now. If he surrounded himself with good
people who have expertise in areas that he lacks, it would be a great team. His
public speaking skills are improving. I've been a little surprised at his
awkwardness early on, considering all the years he has spent speaking in many
different settings. Frankly, Ron Paul makes me a little nervous.
Let me get this straight -- the current GOP-presidential front runner is someone
from Texas who used "stimulus" funds to balance his state's budget,
which means that was the only way he could offset the $6Billion shortfall. So,
as President of the country, if elected, would it appear that he'd be willing to
do the same with the federal budget, that is, run a deficit or borrow the money?
Actions speak louder than words, Governor Perry, and, IMO, we do not need
another spender-in-chief. Mr. Romney had four years out of four years of
balanced budgets. Actions DO speak louder than words! Romney/Rubio in 2012!
How about voting for a candidate who is the best for this country and not for a
candidate who you think can win just because the media says they can?
The "Experts" are nothing more than propogandists.
OK, so to me it sounded kind of sexist when Perry said he would bring his
beautiful wife, that turned me off. Will she try to outdo Michelle in being the
fashion queen? I actually called Perry's office before he decided to run,
asking that he run, I regret that now, cause I don't like him. I was shocked
that people booed him, but really surprised when they booed Ron Paul, cause he
is adored by the Tea Party, but to accuse this nation for being responsible for
9-11, so wrong, he might as well quit now. I do agree with the article that
Perry is helping Romney to be better and I am liking seeing him be more
aggressive and less passive. We need someone strong to not only protect our
nation but our economy. I think I have finally decided that Romney is who I
want, I love Gingrich, but he won't win. I do hope that Romney use these people
if he becomes president, they all have things to offer.
Kudos to Mitt Romney! He was totally presidential in his delivery and articulate
in his responses on the issues. He is the man for the job and what America needs
at this time.
The only winner last night was Cheesecake Factory. How can a room full of
overweight 40+ yr old citizens be against health care when we are the ones who
are going to pay for their cocktail of medication required to treat their
diabetes and coronary disease. The inherit racism and inhumanity displayed last
night was a terrible indictment on our country. If the GOP decides to cede the
election to this mob known as Tea Party, we can look forward to another 4 years
of executive incompetence and partisan grandstanding by both parties.
Perry or Romney - I really don't care. Just need someone to emerge to beat
My prediction is that Mitt will win all the debates and Rick will win the
nomination. The result will probably be that President is re-elected with
unemployment still at 9%.
It looks like the establishment's "man" is being steered toward the
nomination as expected. Ron Paul made the most sense from a Constitutional
perspective, but who actually pays any attention to THAT anymore? Even the
"conservative" crowd in attendance seemed clueless. Herman Cain was
@CougarKeith"The fact is Romney nor Perry are
"Flip-Floppers", people don't understand what they meant when they
said or wrote what they said or wrote""I was effectively
pro-choice when I ran for office."-Mitt RomneyThose are his words, I
don't think I am misunderstanding them. People can change, to be sure, but
there are a number of changes with Romney. How he feels about civil unions, how
he felt about the bank bailouts, how he feels about Ben Bernanke and the Federal
Reserve.I don't have a problem with change so much as the timing and
manner of his change. It always seems to have more to do with what office he is
going for or what direction the political winds are headed.
I've run across plenty of hard-core conservatives -- many of whom deride Romney
as a "flip-flopper" -- who absolutely idolize Winston Churchill.They may not be aware that Churchill was an absolutely epic
flip-flopper. He started out Tory (Conservative), bolted to the Liberals in the
early nineteen aughts (if I remember my years right), and then went back to the
Conservatives in, I think, the twenties."Anyone can rat,"
he said. "But it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat."
danish american:read the article. Hal names his sources.
CougarKeith | 11:03 a.m. Sept. 13, 2011 "I think Ron Paul needs to
give it up, and get out of the race"Why should Ron Paul give it
up when he is actually saying something? He just doesn't pay lip service to
small government, he actually believes it. Why should he give up when he is
polling third nationally and is seeing an increase in support? Why he should
give up when he offers a unique foreign policy message? One that troops
apparently approve of, as he raises more money from the troops than Barack Obama
or more than double all of his Republican competitors COMBINED. Why should he
get out of the race when others are sounding like him circa 2008 on everything
from the Federal Reserve and sound money to taking troops out of Afghanistan?
Whether Ron Paul wins or not he is shifting the debate in his direction as more
Americans discover what a principled defense of the Constitution actually looks
To "Manny Being Manny | 10:39 a.m." Perry is still against SS. What
he wants to do is to phase out SS. That way current and near retirees will get
their SS benefits, but future generations will not have to deal with the mess
that is SS.I only hope that the Republicans come up with a good
canidate, not just somebody who isn't Obama.
As a conservative I liked Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich last night. (Admittedly,
I would never vote for Newt and Cain could never get elected.)The winner
last night was, "None of the above," and I don't mean Palin.I
keep hoping there is someone out there with a conservative foundation, military
experience and a successful career in business.Am I asking for too much?
re: Manny - A flip-flop is when you start at a position, move to another
position (flip), and then come back to your original position (flop). I don't
mind people who change their minds (flip), but if they come back to their
original position (flop) it brings up two concerns in my mind: perhaps they
weren't diligent in their original research and mind-change (which calls to
question their judgment and decision making ability) or they were just playing
the political winds. I don't believe assigning either of those concerns or the
title "flip-flopper" is appropriate for someone who has just changed
their mind from a position to another. I think some of us would call the
"growth and learning" rather than flip-flopping.
Richard Saunders, Romney is right on both his 2202 & his 2011 quotes, and
ANYONE who understands the gospel understands he is PRO-Life! He is also someone
who believes strongly in a persons right to choose, "For there must needs
be an oposition in all things", although the "CHOICE should ALWAYS BE
FOR LIFE!" As for the debate, Romney came out hands down the winner, I
think Bachman and Gingrich were impressive as well, and Perry was given Center
Stage to show what a radical he can be. Perry will shoot himself in the foot
with Social Security, or some other "Constitution" thing. Perry and
the vaccine thing and the in state tuition for alians will be his down fall,
along with his Social Security views from his book. Then if he changes his
views, he is a "Flip-Flopper" like Romney was labeled in the last
election. The fact is Romney nor Perry are "Flip-Floppers", people
don't understand what they meant when they said or wrote what they said or
wrote. Perry didn't mean, Social Security was a "Ponzy Scheme" as in,
get rid of it, he meant it needs to be phased out over time!
I also struggle with Romney's seemingly convenient change of stance on key moral
issues, particularly when the previous stance was great for getting elected Gov.
of Massachusettes but bad for getting elected President. Still, there is little
doubt that he is the most intelligent candidate among the republicans currently
(the republicans need an intelligent President). His seven points last night
were all right on. Rick Perry isn't going to hurt Romney in the long run, he's
an empty basket so far. Inspite of some of my apprehensions, Romney may just win
me over yet.I have to say that Huntsman is a complete
disappointment. I would imagine he's already regretting his decision to run. It
looks like Obama was worried over nothing.
Don't know which experts Hal Boyd is listening to, but the "experts" I
have read this morning didn't think Mitt did very well.
Perry is a typical texan...everything is bigger and better in Texas. Too pompous
for me. Puffed out chest, bravado, unpresidential. Any are better than o, but
Romney is best qualified.
Very interesting debate I thought, I thought Michelle Bachman was strong, and I
thought again Gingrich did well when given a chance to answer a question. I
think Ron Paul needs to give it up, and get out of the race. Huntsman is a
broken record and is throwing his daddy's hard earned money out the window! I
think the serious contendors are Romney, Perry, Bachman and Gingrich. The
problem I have with Gingrich is his "Hard Line Party Stance", although
I do know he can work across party lines. I thought Romney won it, and I thought
Bachman and Gingrich and Senturim did well. I think Perry is becoming a guy I am
not so sure about. He seems to have that "Texas arrogance", and I am
not so sure I like that very much? All I know is I am starting to narrow my
choices for vice-president!
Mitt Romney is certainly a great debater, because he knows how to say what
people want to hear. Here's some examples:to reporter in 2008
campaign: well, I dont recall God speaking to me. I, I dont recall God speaking
to anyone since, uh, Moses and the [burning] bush, or perhaps some others, but,
but I dont have that frequent of communication.The "perhaps
some others" caveat gives his jut enough wiggle room that the Mormons won't
be too mad, while the others won't think he is weird.Or how about
these:"I will protect and respect a woman's right to choose."
(2002)"I will be a pro-life President." (2011)It's
all about the office he is running for and when he is running for it. Did
anyone else notice that in the CNN video clip that no new ideas were offered?
Just attacks on Rick Perry and about how bad he is. Just being better than
Perry is not good enough for America. Sure, we want Mitt to do well because he
is one of "us", but let's not be so biased that we ignore his faults.
If Romney gets the Republican nomination, bye-bye Obama. If Perry gets it, the
national election will be 50-50.It'll be interesting to see whether
the Republican machine figures this out in time.
Can someone explain to me what the definition of a flip-flopper is? I know Mitt
has been labeled as one for his views on abortion. So why wouldn't Rick Perry be
one for "adjusting" his views on Social Security? First he's against
it, and now he's for it? If Perry's claim is that he just wants to
reform it - of course, most every candidate has indicated that. But Perry's
stance in Fed Up went much further than just reform.And why does
Perry get a free pass on the "untruths" he keeps forcing on Romney
(see Fact check on "criminal" and "claims about Dukakis' job
creation". Politics, sheesh.
MittRickMichelleDaffyMickeyAs long as it's
not barackFrom CNN today:"The nation's poverty rate
rose to 15.1% in 2010, its highest level since 1993. In 2009, 14.3% of people in
America were living in poverty. About 46.2 million people are now considered in
need."Way to go barack - that's all you.He told us
if we spent his original 787 billion that unemployment would not reach 8%.Whoever believes him anymore is a fool.