New Poll Puts Mitt Romney In The Deep End

[knapplc]

I'm not "in the bag" for anybody but America. Obama isn't sunshine and daisies. He just happens to be the lesser of two evils right now.

How can you make that statement when you claim you don't know where Romney stands......?

 

Precisely because we know nothing about Romney. My mind is open - if he comes out with his plans and they seem viable, bipartisan and like they would help the country, I would vote for him. But he doesn't have that, at least not to date. At this point, better the devil you know.

 

But we do know some things about Romney, and what we know is not comforting. We know that in his first trip abroad, without the U.S. press putting their spin on things, that in each of the countries he went to he stuck his foot in his mouth. It's concerning that he offended people in each of the three countries he was in. One gaffe on his first such trip is forgivable. At least one in each place is a huge red flag.

 

Further, having watched the Republican debates, he comes across as a plastic, unbelievable person. His own party doesn't like him enough to sweep him to the forefront against pure whackos like Bachmann (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Cain (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Gingrich (who at one time was the frontrunner) pr Rick Perry (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Santorum (who at one time was the frontrunner). Romney, despite his faults, is better than any of these people, but his own party lacks faith in him to such a degree that they waffled over and over and over between utterly unelectable people like these because the alternative, Romney, was so unpalatable.

 

Even ignoring his lack of support from his own party, Romney's own words in those debates were a study in buffoonery. The man said stupid thing after stupid thing. Corporations are people? I'll bet you $10,000? How can a presidential candidate not grasp that you simply can't say these things? And it wasn't just once. It wasn't just twice. He did it throughout the debates.

 

The question isn't why is Romney a bad candidate. The question is, what makes him even remotely viable? Because if your only answer is that he's not Barack Obama, that's not going to win him this election. Obama has steered this country through some really, really muddy waters (created by eight years of Romney's party in the White House, no less), and he's kept us out of the Great Depression II and he's given us - FINALLY! - healthcare on par with every other industrialized nation in the world.

 

If Romney is going to top any of that, he'd better start talking, and doing it right now.

 

Problem is, Romney is at his worst when he's talking. It's not looking good for him.

[carlfense]

IMO, he has been the worst president ever, by far, and anyone else would have to be an improvement. I can't detail my feelings any better.

 

Buchanan, Harding, A. Johnson, Pierce...there's not even a reasonable debate. No post-war President is even in the same league as this group.

I agree . . . but I'm just as astounded that smart people (and I include JJ in that group) think that Obama is the worst president of the 21st century.

[knapplc]

I agree . . . but I'm just as astounded that smart people (and I include JJ in that group) think that Obama is the worst president of the 21st century.

 

Listen, I'll not have you talk about George W. Bush like that.

[carlfense]

I agree . . . but I'm just as astounded that smart people (and I include JJ in that group) think that Obama is the worst president of the 21st century.

 

Listen, I'll not have you talk about George W. Bush like that.

[Comish]

I'm not "in the bag" for anybody but America. Obama isn't sunshine and daisies. He just happens to be the lesser of two evils right now.

How can you make that statement when you claim you don't know where Romney stands......?

 

Precisely because we know nothing about Romney. My mind is open - if he comes out with his plans and they seem viable, bipartisan and like they would help the country, I would vote for him. But he doesn't have that, at least not to date. At this point, better the devil you know.

 

But we do know some things about Romney, and what we know is not comforting. We know that in his first trip abroad, without the U.S. press putting their spin on things, that in each of the countries he went to he stuck his foot in his mouth. It's concerning that he offended people in each of the three countries he was in. One gaffe on his first such trip is forgivable. At least one in each place is a huge red flag.

 

Further, having watched the Republican debates, he comes across as a plastic, unbelievable person. His own party doesn't like him enough to sweep him to the forefront against pure whackos like Bachmann (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Cain (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Gingrich (who at one time was the frontrunner) pr Rick Perry (who at one time was the frontrunner) or Santorum (who at one time was the frontrunner). Romney, despite his faults, is better than any of these people, but his own party lacks faith in him to such a degree that they waffled over and over and over between utterly unelectable people like these because the alternative, Romney, was so unpalatable.

 

Even ignoring his lack of support from his own party, Romney's own words in those debates were a study in buffoonery. The man said stupid thing after stupid thing. Corporations are people? I'll bet you $10,000? How can a presidential candidate not grasp that you simply can't say these things? And it wasn't just once. It wasn't just twice. He did it throughout the debates.

 

The question isn't why is Romney a bad candidate. The question is, what makes him even remotely viable? Because if your only answer is that he's not Barack Obama, that's not going to win him this election. Obama has steered this country through some really, really muddy waters (created by eight years of Romney's party in the White House, no less), and he's kept us out of the Great Depression II and he's given us - FINALLY! - healthcare on par with every other industrialized nation in the world.

 

If Romney is going to top any of that, he'd better start talking, and doing it right now.

 

Problem is, Romney is at his worst when he's talking. It's not looking good for him.

I'll grant you credit for formulating an articulate response..........even though I disagree with many of your points. (we've already discussed our differing views on most of it in previous posts)

But I'm glad to hear you are keeping an open mind.....

[knapplc]

But I'm glad to hear you are keeping an open mind.....

 

Have to. The fact is, this country isn't right. If there's anyone, from any party that can fix this thing, we have to get behind them.

[carlfense]

But I'm glad to hear you are keeping an open mind.....

 

Have to. The fact is, this country isn't right. If there's anyone, from any party that can fix this thing, we have to get behind them.

Agreed.

[Comish]

But I'm glad to hear you are keeping an open mind.....

 

Have to. The fact is, this country isn't right. If there's anyone, from any party that can fix this thing, we have to get behind them.

Agreed.

[sd'sker]

IMO, he has been the worst president ever, by far, and anyone else would have to be an improvement.

Whoa.

double whoa. what is the basis of that assessment?

[Moiraine]

But I'm glad to hear you are keeping an open mind.....

 

Have to. The fact is, this country isn't right. If there's anyone, from any party that can fix this thing, we have to get behind them.

 

Agreed. I actually think we're just doomed and it's a matter of time. Might be 50-100 years. I don't think things will change by using the legal methods that are in place right now.

 

 

IMO, he has been the worst president ever, by far, and anyone else would have to be an improvement.

Whoa.

double whoa. what is the basis of that assessment?

 

There is no basis. He just just likes to listen to what the TV tells him.

[knapplc]

Agreed. I actually think we're just doomed and it's a matter of time. Might be 50-100 years. I don't think things will change by using the legal methods that are in place right now.

 

I think this is a truism. There is no reason to believe that, although every other culture in history has collapsed that ours will somehow be "proof" against this. We will collapse, and it may be far quicker than the 800 years of Rome. We're 220-something years into this Republic. Things could change. Soon.

[Ziggy]

To the topic, its not surprising that Romney is waiting to put out any major policy promises before he is officially the republican nominee. Its one of the few advantages of not being the incumbent. Obama is expected to continue to being the "leader" while Romney can sit back wait til September and formulate his major push til the election. If done properly he will already have the plan ready to unveil and have a counter to every major plan that Obama has out or had recently passed. I think what is more important for Romney is his VP pick and his post nomination push. I just don't think the majority of voting Americans have paid much attention to what either side has put forth. As to likeability, I think the importance is lower in elections with an incumbent running for reelection. Obama is a pretty well know commodity at this point, Romney is really in the position to win or lose the election by increasing his likability and by keeping his base excited to elect him over Obama.

[sd'sker]

Agreed. I actually think we're just doomed and it's a matter of time. Might be 50-100 years. I don't think things will change by using the legal methods that are in place right now.

 

I think this is a truism. There is no reason to believe that, although every other culture in history has collapsed that ours will somehow be "proof" against this. We will collapse, and it may be far quicker than the 800 years of Rome. We're 220-something years into this Republic. Things could change. Soon.

there is a lot of evidence that we are not a democracy or republic, but an empire. and it is crumbling.

[krill]

Agreed. I actually think we're just doomed and it's a matter of time. Might be 50-100 years. I don't think things will change by using the legal methods that are in place right now.

 

http://www.kurzweila...tory-as-science

 

tl;dr -- following the pattern of great unrest roughly every 50 years (Civil War, Great Depression, Vietnam War) we're due up in 2020.

[Comish]

To the topic, its not surprising that Romney is waiting to put out any major policy promises before he is officially the republican nominee. Its one of the few advantages of not being the incumbent. Obama is expected to continue to being the "leader" while Romney can sit back wait til September and formulate his major push til the election. If done properly he will already have the plan ready to unveil and have a counter to every major plan that Obama has out or had recently passed. I think what is more important for Romney is his VP pick and his post nomination push. I just don't think the majority of voting Americans have paid much attention to what either side has put forth. As to likeability, I think the importance is lower in elections with an incumbent running for reelection. Obama is a pretty well know commodity at this point, Romney is really in the position to win or lose the election by increasing his likability and by keeping his base excited to elect him over Obama.

While it's true that the VP pick will generate some buzz immediately, the perception that a particular pick will guarantee a state is generally over-rated.

Historically, VP's provide an attack point man and/or a contrast to the nominee, but rarely deliver what pundits assume they can/will.

It's true that in a tightly contested particular swing state a popular choice can move the needle a couple of points, but overall that is about the best they can do.........other than maybe burnish some credentials by appealing to a faction of the base. (although in a close election, the flipping of a single state could be huge)

Bottom line is no one is voting for the VP since he/she is on the bottom of the ticket.

That said, there are certainly choices Romney can make that would be more helpful than others and given that his handlers so far have been so very cautious, I'm guessing they are proceeding under the banner of "do no harm"....