Archive

Dear GOP, please nominate Mitt Romney

  • Mr. 300
    So,Ptown is a single issue voter???? Would have expected more, but hey, you learn something new everyday!! :)
  • ptown_trojans_1
    believer;412370 wrote:
    Not that I'm defending Romney, but out of curiosity, what are Obama's positions on these issues? Anyone know? Does BHO even know?

    Obama was heavily involved in the final treaty days with Medvedev. He went over the final text with Clinton and Tauscher, along with Gates and Mullen. He signed off on it and fully agrees with everything in the treaty.

    In fact, Obama was so determined to get the treaty done the right way, he sent over Mullen in March, I think, to Moscow to flesh out the final differences.
    Like the Nuclear Posture Review, which the President wrote the final language on, the START Treaty had his full attention and details.

    Unlike Romney, who I'm sure hasn't read the 200 some pages.
  • believer
    ptown_trojans_1;412378 wrote:Unlike Romney, who I'm sure hasn't read the 200 some pages.
    Fair enough but I have a hunch that Obama also had no clue about it going in. I'm confident that if Romney were put in a position to do the same decision-making he'd do his homework first. And while BHO may have had our nation's strategic security in mind, I would still sleep better at night having Romney overseeing these issues than BHO...I just would.
  • Swamp Fox
    When people start talking about this subject, it gets so ridiculous so fast that there isn't much point in debating anything. Everyone knows the truth. The only problem is there are two sets of truth. I'm reading on here that names really make no difference yet we are still being bombarded by irrelevant things like Hussein, Piyush, and all the rest. We throw the words socialist and communist and anarchist and muslim, and all the rest around over and over yet we say that it doesn't matter. I would agree with those who say it doesn't do anything to change anyone's mind. I would even go a bit beyond that. I would say that reasonable people are getting more tired of it. Just to spice things up a bit, in a recently released poll rating the Presidents through the ages, (done by a couple of hundred political scholars from various schools around the country) FDR was given the number one spot. Before you get all upset and ready to fire out the socialist, communist, fellow traveller, etc etc verbage, their number two selection was Teddy Roosevelt. What a country we live in. We can have any opinion we want to have and express it anytime we wish.

    For the record, Mitt Romney will not be nominated by the Republicans because the people who are holding the power to anoint, will reject him totally. When they do that, they will have successfully done what the Democrats will no longer have to worry about. They will have put themselves on a very small island and there will not be nearly enough people to elect the conservative that the power brokers will nominate. I Don't really care for Romney anyway because I think the only thing he cares about is being President and trying to keep his hair in place.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Mr. 300;412377 wrote:So,Ptown is a single issue voter???? Would have expected more, but hey, you learn something new everyday!! :)

    Foreign policy mainly, as historically, that is where a President leaves his legacy and has the most power.
    But, my job field is nuclear weapons, so it is another issue I take seriously.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    believer;412388 wrote:Fair enough but I have a hunch that Obama also had no clue about it going in. I'm confident that if Romney were put in a position to do the same decision-making he'd do his homework first. And while BHO may have had our nation's strategic security in mind, I would still sleep better at night having Romney overseeing these issues than BHO...I just would.

    Fair enough.
  • gibby08
    Mr. 300;412356 wrote:Anyone, and mean ANYONE will be more qualified than who was elected in 2008, so experince means nothing. It's all about electability and who turns out after getting jazzed up by the party. The moderates will be jumping from Obama's camp after what he's done to prolong the economic downturn.

    You go right on ahead and keep believing that 300...but as of right now...there is NO Republican that can beat him
  • BoatShoes
    ptown_trojans_1;412362 wrote:This whole article is why I won't vote for Romney. It makes no sense.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/05/AR2010070502657.html

    1. Missile defense is not limited in any conceivable way. The only missile defense systems that would possibly be limited is the pie in the sky 100billion ones that is a decade away (when the treaty expires).
    2. Regional missile defense against Iran and North Korea is not limited in any way shape or form. The Russians are not going to strongly object and pull out of the treaty for these systems as they pose no direct threat to them.
    3. The BCC that he mentions is a mainstay in all Arms control treaties. It was in the 1st START and is just a continuation of the previous committee. (If he read the treaties he would see that)
    4. Rail based ICBMs are covered as the language of the treaty is broad enough to include any launcher that can deliver an ICBM. If the Russians do decide to do this, it would be covered, head to the BCC and be under inspection by us.
    5. The treaty does not favor the Russians. Yes, Russia is already near the 700 launcher limit, but they are far above the warhead limit and this treaty brings them from their 2,500 to 1,550. Yes tactical and MIRVs are not covered. But, that was not the focus of the treaty. It is a bridge to future treaties which will cover those areas.
    6. Tactical weapons, I highly doubt Russia will launch tactical weapons as that would spark a thermonuclear war and thus far Russia has not been stupid enough to do that. Deterrence has held.
    7. Finally, he mentions putting ICBMs on bombers? That is crazy. The warheads are completely different and would take years to engineer for a bomber. Besides, bombers are useless today as Russia's are large and slow, easily picked off by our radars. It makes no sense for the Russians to put all their eggs in bombers instead of mobile missiles.

    This article is everything I don't like about Romney. It is partisan talking points without reading the treaty and its context.

    I see what you're saying Ptown...but I've seen you say in other threads that you believe president Obama is not really a radical and actually more of a pragmatist. I suppose I don't have much evidence more than perhaps an incoherent intuition, but I tend to think that Romney is amping up the right wing talking points because as others have said, it'll be hard for him to get the nomination. I tend to think if he were actually in the commander in chief's chair and he had knowledgeable, rational experts talking to him....he'd be more rational and/or pragmatic in the same vein as BHO. But, nonetheless, I suppose an intuition isn't a good reason to vote for someone when they have stated views such as those you've cited on the record.
  • Paladin
    I keep getting alot of e-mail from Far Right friends trying to impune Obama and trashing his policies. Yet, they don't have a candidate that can beat him. And if they find a candidate, he'll run from the Far Right and Moderates won't vote for him. The demographic tidal wave coming also works against them as years of hating against women, gays, minorities, the elderly, youth & the middle class/poor leave these folks to despise Rs & their policies. The lowest party rating is still in the toilet. Obama sure looks like a two termer.
  • believer
    Paladin;414050 wrote:I keep getting alot of e-mail from Far Right friends trying to impune Obama and trashing his policies. Yet, they don't have a candidate that can beat him. And if they find a candidate, he'll run from the Far Right and Moderates won't vote for him. The demographic tidal wave coming also works against them as years of hating against women, gays, minorities, the elderly, youth & the middle class/poor leave these folks to despise Rs & their policies. The lowest party rating is still in the toilet. Obama sure looks like a two termer.
    Don't worry my liberal friend. You can be certain that the eeeevil Republicans will find a suitable candidate just in time. Plenty of time!
  • Paladin
    Good. I just love to beat an R's azz in an election. :p
  • CenterBHSFan
    I dont' know if the republicans will ever find anybody to beat Obama.

    However, in the meantime, I'm thinking that Obama is pretty much kicking his own ass. If he/his administration keeps up with the shenanigans, a random amoeba will be able to take his place. America might have had Bush fatigue, but I doubt that it will refuse to keep the transferrable condition. Democrats are not immune to the disease.

    You see, not all democrats worry so much about party nepotism.
  • believer
    CenterBHSFan;414549 wrote:I'm thinking that Obama is pretty much kicking his own ass. If he/his administration keeps up with the shenanigans, a random amoeba will be able to take his place.
    Like I said the Repubs shouldn't have any trouble finding a suitable candidate. :p
  • ptown_trojans_1
    More evidence Romney is a complete idiot when it comes to foreign policy.
    Ownage by John Kerry:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070603942.html
    My favorite quote:
    I have nothing against Massachusetts politicians running for president. But the world's most important elected office carries responsibilities, including the duty to check your facts even if you're in a footrace to the right against Sarah Palin. More than that, you need to understand that when it comes to nuclear danger, the nation's security is more important than scoring cheap political points.
    Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott, Brookings
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/07/AR2010070703037.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions
    Fred Kaplan, historian:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2259779/pagenum/all/#p2
    Conservatives 4 Palin:
    http://www.conservatives4palin.com/2010/07/mitt-romney-loses-round-1-to-democrat.html
    American Conservative:
    http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/07/06/misrepresenting-the-prague-start/

    Point: Romney is an idiot and has no idea what he is talking about. At least get a staff member who had read the treaty. I've never seen an Op-ed suck so bad and be so off.
  • believer
    ^^^Romney will not get the Republican nod...count on it.
  • fan_from_texas
    Paladin;414050 wrote:I keep getting alot of e-mail from Far Right friends trying to impune Obama and trashing his policies. Yet, they don't have a candidate that can beat him. And if they find a candidate, he'll run from the Far Right and Moderates won't vote for him. The demographic tidal wave coming also works against them as years of hating against women, gays, minorities, the elderly, youth & the middle class/poor leave these folks to despise Rs & their policies. The lowest party rating is still in the toilet. Obama sure looks like a two termer.

    Obama looks like a two-termer to me. I think many on the far right are overplaying their hand and reacting too vehemently about everything. Sure, stuff isn't great, but the entire universe is not collapsing because Obama is the President. The constant debbie-downer chicken-little act probably does more to turn off moderates than it does to rally and shore up the base. Losing the moderates/Rockefeller Rs makes it difficult to win a national election, as we saw in 2008 when many of those voters swung to Obama.
  • believer
    fan_from_texas;415538 wrote:Obama looks like a two-termer to me. I think many on the far right are overplaying their hand and reacting too vehemently about everything. Sure, stuff isn't great, but the entire universe is not collapsing because Obama is the President. The constant debbie-downer chicken-little act probably does more to turn off moderates than it does to rally and shore up the base. Losing the moderates/Rockefeller Rs makes it difficult to win a national election, as we saw in 2008 when many of those voters swung to Obama.
    You assume "moderates" are likely to stand by Obama's failing "spend our way out of economic malaise" policies rather than switch mid-stream to a Republican who will likely espouse typical "less government is better" policies? We'll see.

    Even the Dems who I work with are questioning Obama's abilities to get the job done.

    Ask Jimmy Carter if he thought he'd be a one-termer.
  • fan_from_texas
    believer;415559 wrote:You assume "moderates" are likely to stand by Obama's failing "spend our way out of economic malaise" policies rather than switch mid-stream to a Republican who will likely espouse typical "less government is better" policies? We'll see.

    Even the Dems who I work with are questioning Obama's abilities to get the job done.

    Ask Jimmy Carter if he thought he'd be a one-termer.
    Right--I can only speak anecdotally. Mrs. FFT & I both fall in the right-center category (fiscally conservative but realistic; socially fairly liberal--perhaps more libertarian than anything else, though not fringe birthers or anti-feds) along with most of our larger circle of friends (moderate conservatives who don't like big gov't, but realize it's necessary in some form or another, and focus on efficiency; not really fans of spending on defense/foreign wars; socially liberal/moderate).

    The general consensus is that no one realistically expected Obama to turn everything around in a year and a half. The economy has taken quite a hit (which is largely the blame of ordinary Americans who overspent, not past presidents), and it'll take some time to get back on its feet. Had McCain won, we would've wanted people to show him some grace as the economy rebounded, and I think it's only fair to extend the same courtesy to Obama. The economy is by no means roaring, but it does look like we're pulling out of this recession.
  • Paladin
    Thats a huge jump. "Less govt is better" is what lead to deregulation, no oversite and the near collapse of capitalism. So you believe the public is ready to forgive the horrendous screw-up of the Rs and their policies and welcome them back for an encore performance ? Please note that an evaluation will be done for the Party of No who fought EVERY and I mean every attempt at doing anything to change or impact the situation. Me thinks you are now overcounting votes you won't get. One, the former R ideas are not popular & Two, you didn't do anything except block any attempts to fix things. Three, is the Rs will nominate a Far Right candidate who will be as popular as a sh!t sandwich at a picnic with Moderates..

    Cmon '12 elections !! :p
  • believer
    fan_from_texas;415579 wrote:The general consensus is that no one realistically expected Obama to turn everything around in a year and a half. The economy has taken quite a hit (which is largely the blame of ordinary Americans who overspent, not past presidents), and it'll take some time to get back on its feet.
    If you are referring to Federal policies "encouraging" lending institutions via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend loans to unqualified borrowers then I wholeheartedly agree.
    fan_from_texas;415579 wrote:Had McCain won, we would've wanted people to show him some grace as the economy rebounded, and I think it's only fair to extend the same courtesy to Obama. The economy is by no means roaring, but it does look like we're pulling out of this recession.
    The financial markets are slowly rebounding but when employment starts to dip significantly (like from 9.7% down to at least 7%) then I'll agree that we're "pulling out of this recession."

    As far as giving BHO the "same courtesy" I'll gladly do so when this bunch takes ownership of the current situation. Laying blame shows weakness and lack of leadership. I have a hunch McCain would be proactive in seeking bi-partisan solutions rather than laying blame.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    If Obama chooses to run again in '12 he still enjoys the CA/NY advantage, unless something crazy happens. Winning Indiana, NC and Virginia is doubtful, Florida is probably a loss and Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio are in play, and perhaps New Jersey.
  • fan_from_texas
    believer;415623 wrote:If you are referring to Federal policies "encouraging" lending institutions via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend loans to unqualified borrowers then I wholeheartedly agree.
    I guess we view this differently. I think most of the blame lies with people who greedily bought more house than they could afford, not with the lenders for letting them do it. That's not to say that Fannie/Freddie/the banks weren't reckless as well, but at the end of the day, I'm in the "personal responsibility" camp. If you borrow money to buy a house, it's on you to understand what you're doing and make the best decisions for yourself, not the government or the lender. I would expect you and most other conservatives to also be in the personal responsibility camp.

    The financial markets are slowly rebounding but when employment starts to dip significantly (like from 9.7% down to at least 7%) then I'll agree that we're "pulling out of this recession."
    Employment is a lagging indicator. When confidence returns and businesses feel safe, they'll start hiring again. The economy appears to have turned the corner, even if there are still some double-dip fears. It will take awhile for jobs to come back--we can't anticipate that decades of overspending can be remedied by a year or two of pain. It's going to take some time, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. The housing markets are already starting to stabilize. I think we would've had a faster bounce back if the gov't had allowed more short-term pain, but either way, this was going to hurt.
  • fish82
    fan_from_texas;415733 wrote:I guess we view this differently. I think most of the blame lies with people who greedily bought more house than they could afford, not with the lenders for letting them do it. That's not to say that Fannie/Freddie/the banks weren't reckless as well, but at the end of the day, I'm in the "personal responsibility" camp. If you borrow money to buy a house, it's on you to understand what you're doing and make the best decisions for yourself, not the government or the lender. I would expect you and most other conservatives to also be in the personal responsibility camp.




    Employment is a lagging indicator. When confidence returns and businesses feel safe, they'll start hiring again. The economy appears to have turned the corner, even if there are still some double-dip fears. It will take awhile for jobs to come back--we can't anticipate that decades of overspending can be remedied by a year or two of pain. It's going to take some time, regardless of who is in the Oval Office. The housing markets are already starting to stabilize. I think we would've had a faster bounce back if the gov't had allowed more short-term pain, but either way, this was going to hurt.
    Mostly agreed. The odds highly favor the economy improving enough to drag Bam across the finish line for a second term. Not that he'll want a second term after the joy of 2 years of Speaker Boehner. ;)
  • believer
    fan_from_texas;415733 wrote:I guess we view this differently. I think most of the blame lies with people who greedily bought more house than they could afford, not with the lenders for letting them do it. That's not to say that Fannie/Freddie/the banks weren't reckless as well, but at the end of the day, I'm in the "personal responsibility" camp. If you borrow money to buy a house, it's on you to understand what you're doing and make the best decisions for yourself, not the government or the lender. I would expect you and most other conservatives to also be in the personal responsibility camp.
    Oh I agree with this. HOWEVER, any financial institution that doesn't do due diligence on the borrower's ability to repay the debt is far more damning to the economy than the pie-in-the-sky borrower who managed to find a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan that was way beyond the borrower's ability to pay. That's the difference in my mind.

    While the borrower had a moral responsibility to repay, the finger should be pointed at the government policies and associated financial institutions for irresponsibly setting up the framework for the inevitable housing meltdown.