Front-runner Romney fends off SC debate attacks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Jan. 17, 2012 7:03 p.m.

    I'm a Romney fan and think he gets a VEY unfair rap about being totally "plastic". He's in a tough spot on that: if he keeps his cool, he gets criticized for being fake/plastic. If he shows some passion and intensity he gets labeled as being angry.

    However, I will admit like a poster did above that I do wish he'd show a bit more intensity and passion in his demeanor. On that note, I thought he did a nice job on that twice last night; once when he got his feet under him on the Santorum issue over felons and voting rights ("I'll answer your question in my own way!") and pushing back on Newt's claim that Romney and Romney alone was responsible for the anti-Newt ads from Romney's super-PAC.

    BTW, Mitt absolutely M-U-S-T get a shorter, more clear answer on his time at Bain and present it in such a way that it easily relates to people sitting at home in their living room. He tried last night but mostly missed.

    What I'd REALLY like: a candidate with Romney's experience and calm demeanor, Gingrich's fire and Paul's small-government/Constitutional attitude.


  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    Jan. 17, 2012 6:54 p.m.

    Gingrich did well last night.

    However, you want contrasts between Romney and Gingrich?

    OK, here it is....

    Romney is the adult in the room, while Gingrich is simply the repeat adulterer in the room.

    There's no other way to say it.

    Is Gingrich intelligent?


    Is Gingrich passionate?


    Can Gingrich be forgiven of his errors?


    Is he trustworthy to lead America?


    While Gingrich can be forgiven, and therefore eventually be trusted again (and that's the key word, "eventually") there simply isn't enough time for Gingrich to build up the level of trust between himself and the average America citizen (whom Newt has most likely never even met and never will meet) in order for Americans to say "Yes, I trust Newt Gingrich without hesitation."

    One confessed session of adultery is serious enough, but two? Apparently, many Americans think adultery can be forgiven as easily as telling your wife you forgot to gas up her car when you borrowed it and that it should all be forgiven in the length of a 30-minute sitcom.

    That line of thinking is sheer madness. Even dangerous.

    Trust must be EARNED; it takes time and time is not what Gingrich has.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    Looking through other comment forums, a clear majority thought that Gingrich won this one. He's probably established himself as the alternative to Romney so the question is how many Santorum and Perry voters he can convince to vote for him on Saturday.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 11:06 a.m.

    David King,

    Thank you for the compliment. I actually considered the veto point didn't have the room to address it. Although I completely agree.

    More on the trial point- I don't think anyone should be detained without getting a trial. Military use does not excuse this either.

    One of the primary things that concerns me is the devotion we give Romney. From an LDS perspective- Being LDS doesn't mean republican and it doesn't mean other Mormons are always right. I personally didn't care for Huntsman as our governor. I do trust Romney to at least represent a good deal of my beliefs about law though. But I also don't think he's always right.

    But some people do give Romney this kind of devoted agreement. This is my concern. Why? Because no one should be detained and be denied a speedy trial.

    LDS members can't reasonably accept this either. Why? Because the very same thing was unjustly done to Joseph Smith. They used the military to detain him as long as they wished because he was considered a traitor (a legal 'loophole' I find unlawful).

    Personally, I wish more attention was brought to smaller candidates than mainstream. But that's me.

  • DougB Spanish Fork, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 10:51 a.m.

    I like Mitt. I think he's generally the best debater and he seems a genuinely affable guy. I think he's worked hard in his family, in numerous successful business endeavors, and -- apparently -- in some pretty tough previous church callings.

    All that aside, however, he doesn't seem to be the right guy for this particular position as President of the United States of America.

    He hasn't for instance, brought his considerable business experience to bear in any of his budget proposals. His proposed budget doesn't even try to balance spending with income until 10 years into an idealized future. Even if he serves two terms and everything comes up roses! And, in all fairness, if this were a traditional job application in the real business world I think he'd certainly fail for promising all sorts of unbudgeted items in addition to the unbalanced budget he's already proposing -- for instance Romney has said numerous times that if he were President he'd advocate extricating ourselves more slowly from Afghanistan and Iraq (where we still have a force 17,000 strong btw) than the Bush/Obama plan. Also he promises a likely war with Iran. Where are those items in his budget?

  • David King Layton, UT
    Jan. 17, 2012 12:08 a.m.

    Thank you for your honest response. I appreciate that you can strongly support someone while still being willing to disagree on certain issues and acknowledge it. There are, of course, many things to like about Mitt Romney. I just wanted to point out one area of concern.

    @A voice of Reason
    Thank you for your response. I always find your posts to be well thought out and informative. You certainly are "a voice of reason." And I do agree with you that it is our fault for the people we have elected and let be in charge. Nothing will ever change permanently for the better unless we change as a people. I would disagree with one thing though. I think the President has a responsibility to veto a bill he doesn't agree with, especially if it's not keeping with his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution."

  • David King Layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:57 p.m.


    "Uh, wasn't it Ron Paul (not Santorum) who took Mitt to task...?"
    -Nope, that was Santorum complaining about the ad by the PAC supporting Romney.

    "But Ron The difference between "military" and "defense" spending."
    -Huge difference. Billion dollar embassy in Iraq. Military spending? Yep. Make us safer and improve defense? Nope. Or the F-22 that Congress supported that the Pentagon said it didn't want. Military spending? Yep. Help our defense? Not if the Pentagon won't use it.

    "No foreign policy cred"
    -One of only two candidates to serve in the military. Receives the most money from the active duty troops.

    "Zero on federal income tax"
    -This is not something he would do right away, and it would take the approval of Congress. But it is possible. You could do it with the budget of about 10 years ago

    "Wants to legalize drug use"
    He believes it's an issue best left to the states.

    "Little business acumen"
    Ran his own medical practice. Made a series of predictions regarding the housing crisis and recession which have been vindicated showing a depth of knowledge about business cycles and monetary policy.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:46 p.m.

    David King,

    Indefinite detention is nothing more than life imprisonment. The real problem is a lack of a trial, even the right to a speedy trail, etc.

    I like many things about Romney. Some of his military stances have been my primary disagreements. If this is used as an attack on Romney, I would note that Obama signed this act for 2012 and most people would in the presidents position. It's not about 'the moral character' of the man. People are fallible, we all know this. The real problem is ultimately corruption in Washington and our society. Because this act wouldn't have been an issue if there was no one to support it.

    We the people can't hold one man accountable to the consequences of our actions. Yes, presidents aren't perfect and they need to be responsible and accountable. But the problem started with us and it has to be fixed with us first. It's like a crowd saying "we voted you in, we put 100 congressmen in office, we allowed them to pass immoral laws... how could you support the same law?" See the problem? What power does a president (or anyone) have over a whole population?

  • SammyB Provo, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:46 p.m.

    David King,

    I have been a Mitt supporter for years. I have a political blog where I defend him, but tonight I blogged against Mitt's stance on The National Defense Act. His defense was that we simply have to pick presidents we can trust to not overstep their bounds. He said he trusted Obama on that. Really?

    An ancient king named Mosiah abolished the monarchy because he said you cannot guarantee that you will always have a righteous king. Mitt cannot guarantee righteous use of a power that is outside the bounds of the Constitution. From a study of Biblical prophecy, we know there will come times when wicked people erode the freedoms of the people. Stick to the Constitution or reap dangerous rewards.

  • Waipahuboy WAIPAHU, HI
    Jan. 16, 2012 11:16 p.m.

    Uh, wasn't it Ron Paul (not Santorum) who took Mitt to task re the "convicted felon voting rights" dustup? I seem to recall the Romney Super PAC focusing on that issue.

    But Ron The difference between "military" and "defense" spending. No foreign policy cred. Wants to legalize drug use. Zero on federal income tax. Little business acumen. Unbelievable. And they thought Huntsman was a weak candidate.

  • David King Layton, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:31 p.m.

    Question to Mitt Romney supporters:

    At the debate, Mitt Romney said he would have signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military or police to indefinitely detain American citizens without a trial. How can he say he cares about the Constitution and then say he would have signed a bill that ignores the Constitution and our Bill of Rights?

  • paperboy111 Lindon, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 10:00 p.m.

    If you are a Mitt supporter, it might be hard to see him come under pressure, but in the long run, it will make him a better candidate. It's part of the process of vetting a Presidential candidate and serves a critical function.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:50 p.m.

    Until the "Commission on Presidential Debates" is dissolved and a system of accountability and fair debate is put in its place, I will not follow a single debate. I read each candidates "official stance", I read into their voting records, the bills they introduce, statements they've made, and any other point I find about them that I believe is worth consideration.

    But the debates? No, there is no credibility to be found in them.

  • RyanWhiting OREM, UT
    Jan. 16, 2012 9:29 p.m.

    I am a huge supporter for Mitt. He answered some things well, but he needs to just be bold. He is doing well, but it felt like he had the "prevent win" ("prevent defense") out there on the field. I was never a fan of it for football and feel the same way about the races.

    Go out and fight Mitt!