Michael, had you written this last election, you might have been right. However,
Mitt no longer preaches moderation. He no longer is campaigning as a
"middle" guy. He's campaigning as you described, "a far
right." For the last 3 1/2 years he has been trying to appeal
and gain more support from the radical right/tea party ilk. I'm not
sure what he stands for as he's flip flopped so many times.In my
opinion, we need leaders who have a solid and well thought out political
philosophy. Not someone who changes every week depending on who he's speaking
to. Mitt Romney isn't a leader, he's a politician. He'll do and say
anything to become elected. That's scary.
Ron Paul for President! And how will Mitt change anything?
Mitt now finds himself awkwardly telling CPAC that he is "severely
conservative." As he said this, the CPAC audience glowered at
him. (They'd throw rose petals before a portrait of Reagan, but rotten tomatoes
at any of Reagan's actual policies.)The rest of the nation has to
strain to stifle giggles.And now Santorum is the new leader?Republicans, you brought this on yourselves.
As a volunteer at the games, I saw Romney... - Letter Good thing
you weren't an employee: ** GOP rivals turn Romneys jobs record
against him' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSnews - 01/09/2012
A separate AP analysis found that at least 4,000 workers lost their jobs at 45
companies bought by Bain... article ** Mitt Romney as job creator
clashes with Bain record of job cuts' - By Lisa Lerer, Bloomberg News -
Published by DSNews - 07/20/11 Employees who lost jobs at
Bain-controlled companies more than a decade ago say they still hold Romney
responsible."I would not vote for him for anything," said
Phyllis Detro, 68, who lost her job... - Article. FYI,
The Olympics cost the US taxpayer, $1.3 billion of our tax dollars.
I totally agree with this letter.The Real Maverick just repeats the
mantra of the left and the far right in calling Romney a flip flopper. Romney
gets it from both sides, but those who have really studied his writings and
record know that he has steadily become more conservative. He has not changed
back and forth depending on who he's speaking to. His life experience as a
businessman and governor helped him become more conservative as he saw the
results of liberal policies. People need to stop reading the
headlines and do some real research on their own. The media only scratches the
surface in an effort to discredit or sensationalize. Their continual use of the
flip flopper label for Romney when other candidates have shown blatant flip
flopping shows not only their bias against Romney, but the fact that they just
can't find anything else to use against him.
Which one are you talking about? The one that flew expletives at an Olympic
volunteer, the one that was a democrat in 92, the one that supports a woman's
right to choose, the one that dodged the draft in the 60's, the one that has
never built anything but made his personal fortune by destroying businesses?
Maybe it's the one that admires trees that are all the same heighth or the one
that lives in ? where? I am just curious because I have yet to see how he can
change anything especially if he has a Congress that vows to destroy him the day
after he takes office or deal with the extreme right that wants to become the
Christian Taliban. Speaking of religion he can't even get the support of Mormon
hispanics. Now he is singing the praise of the contribution of auto unions. I
just can't figure what his message is.
...but those who have really studied his writings and record know that he has
steadily become more conservative. He has not changed back and forth depending
on who he's speaking to. - Mc | 8:48 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012 Reply: ** Mitt Romney steers clear of Ohio health, union issues' - By Dan
Sewell - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11 Then: **
Mitt Romney reverses himself, supports anti-union law' - By Philip Elliott - AP
- Published by DSNews - 10/26/11 FAIRFAX, Va. A day after he
refused to endorse an Ohio ballot measure that limits public employee union
rights, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he is
"110 percent" behind the effort. article Time
elapsed? Just 24 hours. Result? ** Ohio
voters reject Republican-backed union limits By Julie Carr Smyth AP Published
by Dsnews 11/08/11Me: I cannot agree with you on this,
"I saw Romney organize us in an impressive way in order to maximize and
direct our efforts. In my opinion, he is the kind of person who would be very
effective as president because he knows how to bring people together."*gasp* that sounds an awful lot like a COMMUNITY ORGANIZER! Pretty sure the far right doesn't like those. Or maybe they only dislike the
ones that are Black?
@PaganI didn't expect you to agree with me (I never agree with
you.)However, your posts are always the perfect example of forming
opinions based on headlines without knowing the rest of the story.
About Romney's sinful wealth. It just occurred to me. With all the noise the
media is making about Romney's wealth, I don't recall such bluster and
hang-wringing over the Kennedy fortune. Or, for that matter, John Kerry. Or the
fact that John Kerry gave virtually nothing to charity while Romney gave
something on the order of $4 million. Oh. Wait. I just remembered. Romney is a
moderate Republican. Kerry and the Kennedys are Democrats. Also, Romney worked
for his money. Kennedy inherited his. And Kerry married it.
However, your posts are always the perfect example of forming opinions based on
headlines without knowing the rest of the story. - Mc | 9:44 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012
Alright. Go ahead and look up the story! :) I did give you the: Date Title Author Source And I didn't have to project any failings to you personally.. to do it.
@ugottabkidnYour post is the perfect example of someone who has only
read or seen what others have said about Romney without reading the whole story
or any of Romney's own writings. Each point you brought up is only part of the
story (though I have no idea what your tree comment is about)For
example:Romney voting democrat in 1992: He registered as an
independent in Massachusetts because there was seldom a republican primary in
that solidly democrat state. Independents could vote in the democratic primary,
so he would vote for the least liberal or least electable democrat in an effort
to have some effect on the candidates there. He was never a domocrat and never
voted for a democrat in a general election.Dodging the draft:
Romney simply lived his religion and went on a mission at that time. When he
returned he had a draft number, just like every other eligible male at that
time. The fact that his number wasn't called up is not his fault. He has said
he would have gone if called upon.Building his fortune by destroying
businesses: The Gingrich ad has been shown to be false. The four businesses
used in it either didn't really close or closed long after Romney had anything
to do with it, the result of union demands more than anything Bain Capital did.
80% of companies Bain invested in succeeded and led to thousands of jobs.
That's a better record than most capital investment firms and, in reality, our
free market system could not continue without companies, like Bain, who make it
possible for start up companies to make it, especially when banks today are not
as willing to invest in new companies.Romney speaks of the
contributions that unions made when originally formed in helping create better
working conditions and child labor laws, but he has not changed his position on
the threat that unions can be to the health of a company when they go too far in
their demands. His business experience has shown him the results.Mormon hispanics don't like his immigration stand. If he was really a flip
flopper he'd be changing his stand to please them. Their opposition is also
another example of not reading the whole story. Romney has said he wants to
make it easier to come here legally. He is not anti-immigrant. If
you don't understand Romney's positions it is because you are not getting your
information from the source- Romney himself. Read his book. Check out his
positions on his website. Read the many op ed article he has written. Look at
his record, not what others say about it without looking at the whole story.
Quit relying on biased media reports and headlines.
Re:BroChuckSchroederSen. Kerry reported $395,000 in taxable income
and paid $90,575 in federal income taxes, according to a campaign press release.
Kerry's income included his senatorial salary and $89,000 in proceeds from his
book, "A Call to Service."Kerry reported $43,735 in
charitable contributions.(CBS 2003 tax return)Romney
benefitted greatly from his father's wealth and to portray him otherwise is not
truthful. How many college students live off money invested in the stock market
or have parents who "loan" them money to buy a house while still in
college? Ann Romney also came from a family with means.
Again, those Democrats or "independents" who would never vote for ANY
Republican are telling us Republicans how to vote. They're not satisfied
pointing out any attributes of their own candidate, so they resort to bashing
Republicans. Let them praise Obama. Let them find something that he
has done that was Constitutional and at the same time something that was good
for the Country. Because he has done nothing to reduce unemployment; because he
kept us from drilling in the Gulf and in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming where we
have vast oil reserves; because he seized private property and violated the 5th
Amendment; because he signed a law that allows American citizens to be jailed
without telling them why, allowing them to have an attorney or bringing them to
trial; because he extended everything that he blamed Bush for doing; HOW COULD
they cheer for him. Because they can't cheer for Obama, they bash
Republicans.Romney is a GOOD MAN. He has principles that the
Democrats long ago abandoned. He STANDS for something. That's why they bash
him.Misery loves company. They want us all to be miserable.
@Mike Richards | 10:51 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012 South Jordan, Utah Again,
those Democrats or "independents" who would never vote for ANY
Republican are telling us Republicans how to vote.============= On the contrary, I vote for Republicans every election.BecauseI vote for the Person, and never ever the Party.Tell me Mike - Honestly....When was the last time you voted for someone
who was NOT a Republican.That to me is more telling, IMHO.BTW - Mitt Romney may stand for something [as you say], it's which
"Direction" he is standing on any given day that most of America can't
seem to support the guy.Like a rudderless ship.
"He STANDS for something."The biggest flip-flopper in the
race STANDS for something? How laughable! Yeah, he stands for something:
whatever it is he thinks that will get him elected.
LDS Liberal,I will never vote for a candidate who accepts the
Democratic platform which allows an unborn baby to be destroyed in the womb
without due process, without requiring extensive counseling and without medical
tests that show exactly why the mother is in danger. In many States, that
unborn child has been deemed a person when the mother is killed. I also deem
that unborn child to be a person, so I will NEVER vote for ANYONE who accepts a
platform that brushes aside life.You have the right to vote for
whomever you want. I have that same right. Not you, nor anyone else in
America, has the RIGHT to know how I vote. That decision is mine and mine
alone. It is finalized as I cast my PRIVATE ballot for the candidates of MY
choice.That's the way we do things, here in America.
It seems to be a favorite tactic for many peopl,e who post comments, to bash
Romney without giving specifics and without giving context. They use
"sound bites" and "snip its", out of context to bash him and
those who favor him. Every time any of us does something, we do it
in a context based on conditions and expectations. Sometimes the choice that we
have to make is not the choice that we would make if we controlled the context
and the situation.Abortion is one of those issues, and it is an
issue where Romney has been accused of "flip-flopping". His life's
experiences gave him a reason to change his mind on abortion. He thought about
it outside the context of HIS life's experiences. He thought about it in the
context of what is best for the mother, the unborn child and society. He
changed his mind AGAINST popular opinion and AGAINST mainstream American, and
yet he is criticized and called a "flip-flopper". Mr. Obama has done
just the opposite. He counted the possible votes and decided that life was not
as important to him as getting the votes.Context is everything.
I think we as a society can change social norms to reduce the incidence of
abortion, just as we did with smoking. However, Republicans/Conservative
policies run counter to that effort. Such as their ridiculous opposition to
contraception (yes, even apart from the church/state issue), their oppposition
to social programs to help the needy, including needy children and their
opposition to public education. on a related note:The NY
Times recently had an article about unwed mothers. It said "the fastest
growth of unwed mothers in the past two decades has occurred in white women in
their 20's. In 2009, 59% of women were married when they have children. But
2/3 of the unmarried women giving birth are younger than 30. College graduates
overwhelmingly marry before having children. Almost all of the rise in
nonmarital births has occurred among couples living together. While in some
countries such relationships endure at rates that resemble marriages, in the
U.S. they are more than twice as likely to dissolve than marriages." Another interesting factor, not mentioned, is the mean age of women at
the birth of their first child, lowest (OECD countries) in Eastern Europe and
Mike Richards | 11:40 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012 South Jordan, Utah "I will never vote for a candidate who accepts the Democratic platform
which..."================ Therein lies the root
cause of your Political error.I know Plenty, PLENTY of Democrats who
do not cow-tow the Party-line, and regularly vote AGAINST the party platform.These are men/women of "principle", They vote their
Conscious, They Represent their Constituants....NOT their Party.You keep putting the cart before the horse.You and your politically pure
Party-Line ideology is the most dangerous form of tyranny in America, and is THE
biggest threat to Democracy I have ever seen.I see no differnce to
your hard-line Republican Party stance, than say Nazi Germany, the former
Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, Taliban Afghanistan, or
the Islamic Republic of Iran.Believe it or not; No Party is
perfect, No Party can fully represent any one person, No Party is
always the same, and No one needs to lock-step to pure Party
Political ideologies.But why am I wasting my breath, and 25% of my
comments with you anyway?
All I can say is I don't see Mitt ever becoming President. Lately I have
wondered if he regrets even getting into this quagmire. What a mess, and that
includes Mitt not being able to be himself in a party controlled by looney
extremists. I'm beginning to feel sorry for him. Obama, 2016. Maybe the GOP
can pull itself together in 2016, but it ain't happening this year.
"So I will NEVER vote for ANYONE who accepts a platform that brushes aside
life." Can anyone else see the irony in that?
LDS Liberal,In America, no one is forced to join a party. When a
party lists on its platform that they believe in abortion, that candidate knows
BEFOREHAND joining that the people he will serve with on committies, the party
leaders who will determine which committies he will serve on, and the people who
voted for him will expect him to follow party line.BECAUSE he joins
a party of his own free will, I will use MY FREE WILL to vote against him -
every time. I do not join organizations whose values contradict my valuesIt's that simple.When conception takes place, there are
three years lives to consider, not just one.
I will never vote for a candidate who accepts the Democratic platform which
allows an unborn baby to be destroyed in the womb without due process... - Mike
Richards | 11:40 a.m. Feb. 22, 2012 ** Romney Maintained
Massachusetts Contraception Requirement That Mirrors Obamas Rule' - By Igor
Volsky - Think Progress 02/07/12 In 2002 the very same year
Romney campaigned for governor of Massachusetts the state enacted a
contraceptive equity law that REQUIRED insurers that provide outpatient benefits
to cover hormone replacement therapy and ALL FDA-approved contraceptive methods.
article The problem, with pandering to every side of a
debate... ...is that people can then criticize you, on any part of
the debate. Romney is against birth control (not abortion) now. Not Massachusetts. 2002. Also, I've given an
example of Romney changing stances in just x24 hours. 9:00 a.m. Whever you are? I hope you enjoy the rest of your day.
Re: TruthseekerSLO, CARe:BroChuckSchroederSen. Kerry
reported $395,000 in taxable income and paid $90,575 in federal income taxes,
according to a campaign press release.Reply: Show me the reciepts
then. Just like peas in a pod, milk and cookies, wheels on a bicycle and
matching socks, most things in life are better in twos.
McWest Jordan, UTFYI, Mr Romney was home from his mission a few
years before the draft lottery came about. I know because I lived in the era.
Like many things Romney states that doesn't match the facts. I think many of the
supporters support the faith rather than the opinions and if he is elected
that's what you'll need. Faith.
I had a good laugh at the title of this letter: "Our Next Presidemt".
Hillary Clinton isn't mentioned anywhere, nor is the year 2016 mentioned, so I
don't know how DN could have possibly come up with such a misleading title (for
a letter about Mitt).The only thing Mitt is ultimately going to accomplish
by running is finally bringing attention to (and causing congress to abolish)
the unfair 'carried interest rule' that has made him so wealthy.
I think we're truly seeing how utterly desperate Romney is. He once
campaigned on being a moderate. Now that he sees that he cannot win his party's
nomination with that, he's attempting to campaign on being a radical
conservative.This circus is getting old. I'm just thankful that
Santorum is finally putting Romney out of his misery.
1- The current President will also be the next President. The repubs have lost
it.2-If Mitt were elected nothing would change. Wall Street would still
own the US Government. Stop pretending Mitt would go back to DC and "fix
things". Nothing is going to change.
Utah is totally infatuated with Willard. The rest of the GOP and the country
does not share your infatuation. Mitt will say anything to get elected. He is
the worst example of a pollitician one could ever imagine. Thats why the GOP is
clamouring, "Anyone But MITT" He will never be president. EVER. Obama
Pagan, the 1.3 billion was the total budget. Less than 10% came from direct
federal and state subsidies. Sponsors and media contracts paid for most of the
Olympics. The most came from whichever TV network broadcast the olympics.
The President is center left and Romney is center right pandering to the Fox
radical Limbaugh right.
I was privileged to work at the '02 Olympics, (yes I got paid) and I saw how
Mitt Romney's leadership and know-how turned around the most disastrous Olympics
into one of the most successful. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't want that
for our country, unless you are not a citizen. But being a citizen myself, and
seeing the menu for who could reasonably be our president in 2012, Mitt Romney
is our best bet. I am more concerned about turning around our economy than I am
with which Church he attends, which investment he has, or how many people with
unnecessary jobs he had to eliminate. I know Mitt is a very concerned man who
knows, and that is important, he knows how to improve the business environment,
and we need that. I will support Mitt this election, and by so
doing, I will support America's turn around.