Mitt Romney embarking on new political balancing act

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    May 7, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    If it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, well you get the picture. Must be a far left, big spending socialist (look at Greece and France). Except that in the USA the far left socialist is named Obama.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 6, 2012 2:36 p.m.


    I suggest you update your analysis. The median household income increased by 4% during the last 4 months of 2011. Nobody is arguing that the last administration didn't completely destroy the economy and it has been tough crawling back, but even the statistic you raised points to the fact that under the competence and leadership of the current administration, things are getting much better.

    Why would we want to go backward and elect another Republican administration?

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    May 6, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    1 Aggie,

    Not everyone has investments like 401k. what about housing investments? How about the fact that the median household income has dropped $4300 per year since Jan 09. That is something every middle class American can relate to. Given the fact that Obama said he measures success by how much additional money is in the pockets of middle class Americans, I would say he is not successful in that department. His words, not mine.

  • Badger55 Nibley, Ut
    May 6, 2012 5:29 a.m.

    Doug 10,

    Romney Balanced a budget and turned a 2-3 billion dollar deficit into a surplus while governor. He also left a rainy day fund of 2 billion on top of that. Some user fees were increased to cover the cost of those services. however, excess money from the fees went back to very people that paid them in the form of tax breaks. Also, the user fees only covered a few hundred million of the expected 3 billion dollar deficit. What deficit has Obama cleared up and what budget has he balanced? That's 1-0 for Romney in that department. A pretty big issue I might add. I will give Romney a shot at it this time, rather than Obama.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    May 5, 2012 4:12 p.m.

    @ Deep
    Pointing out that this is an AP article or that I am free to go to another site is hardly responsive to my point that the DN prints at least 3 articles about Mitt to 1 about Obama. The Church should divest itself of the DN or just endorse Romney... that was my point.

    I note that the DN took down my post calling Mitt a flip-flopper. I guess they can't tolerate any unkind posts (even if true) about Romney, despite all the garbage they let through dragging down our sitting president.

    To those of you saying Obama is dragging down the economy, I suggest you look at your own stock (and 401K plan) portfolios. My net worth has almost doubled since Obama took office in 2009, and yours probably has too.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 5, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    ""vast left-wing conspiracy to work together to put out their message and to attack me." Mit said...

    Funny, Hillary said almost the same thing about the media when her husband was president, except with a minor twist. It didn't work... only those who wanted to believe it, did.

    I think there will be plenty who will go along with this argument. I mean how in the world could anyone ever have a different opinion driven by different life experiences, and not be part of a larger conspiracy. But then again, he is probably right. There are those who don't want his as president, who will conspire to keep him from winning. Just like there are those who don't want President Obama to have another term, and will conspire to keep him from winning another election.

    Funny how it works that way. Like minded people will vote and promote their candidate.

    Very sinister indeed.

  • There You Go Again Saint George, UT
    May 5, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    "...I going to take My chance's with Mitt Romney...".

    Which Mitt?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 5, 2012 1:43 p.m.

    "Paul Volcker former GOP fed reserve chairman came out and said if Mitt institutes his financial program into USA the debt will increase by 2.1 trillion. Hurry up and let me vote for that."

    Even if that is the worst case scenario, that's far, far better than the $2 trillion per year that Obama is increasing. Romney's worst case scenario is better than both Bush and Obama. There's even a chance worst case won't happen (actually, worst case is Obama gets re-elected).

    "I am so tired of Pres Obama and Mitt Romney talking around other issues but never telling us how they will fix the deficit spending our Congress is hooked on, how they will get us out of debt."

    I think Obama has already shown us what he plans to do to reduce deficits and debt: he won't! He plans to keep increasing both. Why on earth would we vote for that? If you are sincerely worried about this, you'd do what you can to keep Obama from winning re-election. Even if Romney seems to have some issues, he's better than Obama, and further searching will help Obama win.

  • O-Town Girl Ogden, UT
    May 5, 2012 12:38 p.m.

    I going to take My chance's with Mitt Romney.
    I would be crazy to vote for a guy who has run this country to the ground, and left us all to rot. Obama Nation has to go.:)

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    May 5, 2012 12:27 p.m.

    What Mitt on a new "act"?

    I know Act is the important word here. Mitt has been able to bend his show wherever he goes and whoever he talks to, so no change as far as I can see.

    Whoever said we do not know how Mitt will govern needs to look at his history. No new taxes in MA but user fees increase by as much as 700%, that is in no way new taxes...according to Mitt.

    Mitt has a plan to cut overseas spending by 1/3 of 1%. Be still my beating heart, just imagine the savings.

    Paul Volcker former GOP fed reserve chairman came out and said if Mitt institutes his financial program into USA the debt will increase by 2.1 trillion. Hurry up and let me vote for that.

    I am so tired of Pres Obama and Mitt Romney talking around other issues but never telling us how they will fix the deficit spending our Congress is hooked on, how they will get us out of debt.

    What are they going to do to educate the population?

    Two puppets two parties. Where is the leader we need?

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    May 5, 2012 11:55 a.m.

    Obama = "backwards community organizer".

    Romney = "greedy, flip-flopping, opportunistic corporate raider".

    While we are throwing labels around, let's give equal time, shall we?

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:54 a.m.

    Riverton Cougar

    I think One Old Man feels strongly about gay rights. At least I have seen that in past posts of his. However he forgets that when Obama was running for office in 2008 he stated he was a strong advocate of marriage between one man and one woman.

    Most recently Obama reports his views are "evolving" on gay marriage.

    Sounds like you can always count on Obama to stick to his guns and never ever say something to pander to anyone. Flip flopper AND inept. What a combo.

    Oh...but he was president when the navy seals took down Osama Bin Laden. A year ago. That has to be worth at least a book deal one day, but please, not 4 more years of this economically backwards community organizer. We are headed towards European socialism at light speed.

  • David King Layton, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    Attracting independents is not necessarily an issue of conservative/moderate but I think has more to do with having a voting record that is based on principles and not just the party line. In a PPP poll in the past week, they asked independent voters who they prefer out of Barack Obama and Ron Paul. Ron Paul leads among that group 55-33. That's a 22 point advantage for someone that no one would describe as "moderate" or "centrist". I believe it is because Ron Paul votes based on a set of principles, and doesn't march lockstep with his party. Independents refuse to join one of the two major parties for any number of reasons. Wouldn't it make sense that they would support a candidate that can have opinions outside his party and decide what he believes without talking to party bosses or donors?

  • MGB Saint George, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:44 a.m.

    What trully saddens me about both the article and the comments is all the talk about right, left, center, conservative, liberal, moderate, and not one word about constitutional principles. All of the above terms are meaningless when it comes to original intent of our constitutional "republic" form of government. We are not a democracy ruled by majority but a republic ruled by constitutional law which has been totally destroyed by both parties. Vote for Obama if you want to contiune the march towards Marxis socialism if that is what you want. We know that is what we are getting with Obama. Rommy may at least slow down that march to socialism somewhat. That remains to be seen. But I would rather take my chances with an unknown Rommey than a known Obama.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:41 a.m.

    Most centerist politicians have this problem, balancing the extremists while appealing to the moderates. The far left criticizes Obama and he waffles as has Romney with the far right. Such etch a sketch (for Romney) and flexibility (for Obama) are the same thing under different terms. Obama said he would halve the national debt in his first term. "Knowing where Obama stands" is a day to day exercise that only Homer Simpson would believe.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:37 a.m.

    Deep, true. But you need to look much further than that number. Politifact also shows that he compromised on about 100 more and thus gained partial success.

    Then you need to ask how much of what Obama promised to try to do was thwarted simply by political obstructionism by the Party Of No?

    So should we turn our government over to extreme ideologues who have pledged to do all they can to stem any hope of progress for common people while pushing for greater destruction of the middle class?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:29 a.m.

    one old man,

    So you are saying you will vote for someone who has shown that he will run our country into the ground, because the alternative is someone with unknowns, who might run our country into the ground? Completely logical. Romney might make some bad decisions, it hard to tell, so let's go with the guy we KNOW will make bad decisions because he is doing it now!

    Does anybody else see the logic in this?

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    @ One old man

    Like Obama's promise to close Guantanamo Bay or cut the national debt in half by now? Politifact reports Obama has only kept about 160 of his over 500 campaign promises.

    Nice try...

  • deep in thought Salt Lake, UT
    May 5, 2012 10:04 a.m.

    @ 1aggie

    This AP article was written purposely using terms and examples to play up the "flip flopper" image. However, there has NEVER been a Republican presidential candidate in history who hasn't pulled right for the primary and moved center for the general. It states clearly Romney is still leaning right even though it is alienating the independents.

    If you are tired of these opinion pieces read a different website. Most LDS people are interested in the first Mormon nominee whether they love Mitt Romney or hate him. Last time I checked there are about a zillion news outlets.

    Finally, most AP articles I've read here are anything but complimentary of Romney, so if you think pushing constant negative or neutral articles about a Presidential candidate constitutes some sort of "glowing endorsement" then I am speechless to convince you otherwise.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 5, 2012 9:50 a.m.

    Why can't we have a candidate who stands for what he stands for without trying to pander to anyone?

    When people like Mitt try to please anyone, we wind up with no way to know exactly how they will govern. I find that very unsettling. So we're expected to vote for all sorts of unknowns? Like trying to run a ship at full speed through a dense fog.

    Romney is dangerous. We can't know what he may do in any given situation. If he's willing to sell out to extremists and then try to schmooze with less extreme members of his party, that fogs things up in this voter's mind.

    I'll be voting for Obama again. I know where he stands even if I don't always agree.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    May 5, 2012 9:33 a.m.

    Why does Romney need to worry about the conservatives anymore? Appeasing conservatives was needed to land the nomination. He has that. He has to win the middle to win the general election. The conservatives will vote for him in the general, because they have no other choice. They certainly aren't going to vote for Obama.

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    May 5, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    Whoops. Glenn Beck spoke at Liberty University in 2010. Should have checked before I said 2009.

  • Mc West Jordan, UT
    May 5, 2012 9:20 a.m.

    Romney will not be the first Mormon to speak at Liberty University. Glenn Beck spoke at their 2009 graduation.

    It's surprising that an AP reporter would get that wrong. Makes you wonder what else he got wrong. Do these guys do any research at all?