time to disappear back into the corporate world you came from Romney. If you
care about the republican party you need to stop holding them back with the same
failed logic and blame games that lost you the elections. far right rhetoric
only stands in the way of the part you claim to care about.
party not part sorry
"Tolstoy" of SL speaks of failed Romney logic...failed? Folks are
interested in this man because he knows how to succeed far better than most at
analyzing and solving financial problems. Whatever others have felt, I have
missed his leadership, there is a void there. If you want to talk about failed
logic, lets talk about broken promises of the current administration...you can
blame the Republicans, as the Pres. does, but he is the one who has angered and
alienated them, he has not brought the country together, he does not reach
across the isle or unite the country, but is divisive and proposes very
controversial things, seeks ways to enact that which is not wanted by tax-paying
Americans. Mitt Romney walks the talk, whether you want to talk about
charitable work, philanthropy, giving up of his time to help others, without
pay, adhering to a strict moral code in his personal and public life...folks
don't seem to like or trust someone so good...now there is irony and failed
Some just cannot wait to jump on the bandwagon of the liberal hate Romney
bandwagon even while we are going through the tough process of trying to move
ahead anchored to the present regime.
@DRay So you simply restating the same rhetoric that lost Romney the
election is suppose to convince us of what exactly? I am glad you think so
highly of him but unfortunately for you the american people did not agree with
you or Romney.
Don't go away mad Mitt, just go away.
It is so good to hear from Romney again. My hopes were dashed when he lost the
election. I am glad he is stepping back into the picture. It is good to
know that there are still good people out there willing to give to our country.
I am not talking about giving money, but giving their time and knowledge that
they have, willing to give tohelp America remain strong. I wish them the
very best in their efforts to share their knowledge with us. Thanks to you and
your family Mitt.
"He didn't think the sequester would happen. It's happening,"
Romney said.Completely the opposite, Mr. Romney.The
Republicans made the deal with Obama, because they were certain that he would be
a one-term president. Sound familiar? The Republicans presumed their nominee
would win, and then they could dictate the cuts.Obama didn't
think the sequester would happen? You couldn't be more wrong.
I can not tell you how excited I am to see Mr. Romney back. It's been a
long time since the election and nothing good has been on the news since.
Finally I'll be excited to see a Sunday political show that I actually care
to watch. I love how even Mr. Weigel realizes that they need to get Mitt on the
job to fix Michigan, something we as Americans should have done for the whole
country. Say what you will, Mitt knows his "stuff", we're just too
prideful to let him fix our problems. After the election the only thing I could
think was what I heard once said about addicts, ....."you
can't help those who don't want to be helped. They will either deny
that they have a problem, or say that they cannot overcome it, either way your
wasting your time. At some point they have to get low enough that they will
recognize what they have done and then they will seek out your help. Then they
will be ready."I guess we'll find out soon if we're
finally ready for Mr. Romneys' help.
How are voters/citizens suppose to interpret Ann Romney's "high
position/ no longer have high position=nobody" comment? How do LDS
people in lesser Church callings feel about that?Gets easier all the time
understanding "that 47%" that the Romney Clan could not relate to.
@moderate - the statement about sequester is a quote from Obama in the 3rd
presidential debate. It is his own words.
I'm sure Chris Wallace on Fox News will ask him some really tough
questions. That's the equivalent of taking a Rachel Maddow interview of Al
From what I see here, romney is still infinitely and infallibly qualified to
solve all our woes. Well, you don't have to be president to do it mitt.
Tolstoy, etal:Just come right out and say it - you Love Barack
Obama. Good for you.For my money, I will put it on Mitt Romney all
day long. We have a miserable narcissist situation in the White House. This man
has been in over his head going on five years now. Everyone knows it but him.
@ no fit in St George:It is a figure of speech. She is saying that
Mitt became the Republican nominee for President of the US, lost the race, and
is just a citizen of the US once again. I understand perfectly what she means.
If you don't, then I'm sorry for you. I have had higher and lesser
church callings in my life and have been released from each one amd became a
regular member once again. I do not feel like that is anything like what Ann is
saying. I feel that Ann was talking about Mitt being the Republican candidate
for president (rather than a high church calling) then when he lost, they felt
like they were "nobody". Only someone who has been in that position can
truly understand and have that feeling that they are "nobody", when they
are not selected by the American people. It would have to be a heck of a
letdown. Nothing like having a church calling and being released.
Did Ann Romney just say they are "use to being in high positions in the
church..than being released...than being a nobody"??? Wow!!! What
compassion! You know, I really liked the Romneys...at first. But the more we
have gotten to know them..I think they are about as tone deaf and narcissistic
as the current resident of 1600 Penn Avenue!!
All you fiscal hawks that voted for Romney, he was on the record as saying he
would ADD 2 TRILLION on top of Department of Defense budget request for
defense. He is no fiscal conservative just like GW Bush and his UNFUNDED
Federal mandates. 2 TRILLION, look it up.
Moderate,"He didn't think the sequester would happen. It's
happening," Romney said.Romney said this because Obama said in the
last debate that it wouldn't happen. He also said that it was not
something he proposed. Unfortunately, he is wrong in the latter and most likely
wrong in the first statement. The Budget control act(sequestration) was
sponsored by Senator Thomas (D-IA), the only sponsor btw, and introduced in the
Senate. The House had passed their own debt reduction plan, but the Senate
would not move on it. So the Republicans compromised on the Budget Control Act
and now get blamed for it. Not much incentive to compromise with the President.
Congress controls the purse strings. Members of both parties in both houses
need to get moving. NOW!Romney won't run again, UNLESS the
Republican party changes enough that he won't have to tack so far to the
right to win the nomination that he loses the election. Moderate
Republicans, where are you?
Pragmatic and others: There is no such calling as a lesser calling. Some
callings have more responsibility but there is no lesser calling. If you think
so then you really do not understand the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints. The other is that one day a person can be a Bishop or a Stake
President, Primary or Relief Society President, a Sunday School teacher or a
Primary worker and the next Sunday you could be released and have no calling at
all. You're not a nobody, just an individual without a responsibility.
You sit back and wait until you are called once more to fulfill a calling that
the Lord has geared especially for you.That is exactly what Ann
Romney meant and exactly how it happens in the Church they attend. If you
don't understand that then you will never understand his comment of the 47%
which is completely and totally true.
Thanks, Brother Romney, for your valiant offer to serve. You and Ann are saying
that you won't ever run again, like you say, "the [roller-coaster] ride
ends and then you get off."*** Well Mitt, did you know that you
can actually get *back* in line and get *back ON* the ride and do it *all over
again*? ***We want you to try again next time, Mitt! Get back in
line and ride the roller-coaster AGAIN! You know, Lagoon and Disneyland, etc.,
let you do it!(But please just don't try so hard to be someone
you're not in a bit of a sorry attempt to look "cool" in places
where it just isn't natural for you. I don't think people bought that
much. Just be the real Willard Mitt Romney but try to avoid the occasional faux
pas from the past--and next time, see if you can bring some new material to the
table.)I voted for you at all last opportunities I had, and I would
do it again (well duh, of course, because here I am asking you to run again)!Thanks if so,Mike A. Christensen
@tomEverybody knows it? Funny that's not what the voters in
November said but you keep beating that same old drum it as empty as the
@Pragmatic: You don't know anything about the way the Mormon Church
operates. When you have a calling you do your job and execute your duties to the
best of your ability. The church is gracious enough to not let you "burn
out" in your calling. And when released and another person is called you are
done. Now it is that persons change to learn and progress in the calling. Your
time is finished and you will probably be called to another job. Active members
usually don't get much of a layoff between callings. Efforts to belittle
the Mormon faith or any other faith by ignorance, really only show how
uninformed one is of their operation.
Oatmeal--Republican's don't need advice from liberals.
jorgesbronxi think you may be more comfortable reading the ny times
and their totally liberal bias. north-easterners love government to take care of
them. I know I lived there and couldn't wait to leave and get freedom back.
romney is head and shoulders over the guy in the wh. it is just too bad there
are so many that want stuff from the government, like jorges
Sort of off topic - but not really. I think the picture DN picked for this
pieces illustrates one of the difficulties Romney had. If you are an observer
of people, facial expressions convey a lot - intended or not - about the person.
One thing that jumps out is that when Mitt smiles, he shows no
teeth - it is a closed mouth smile. Subtle, yes. As much as we hate it, first
impressions stick. How you stand. How you smile or not. Eye contact. Mitt
Romney does well on a lot of things, but his smile is reserved. It isn't
wide open and welcoming. This is not to say as a person, he is not
a welcoming person. But the persona he projects is reserved. Besides the other
oft too well documented issues Mitt had, in survey after survey, he suffered
from likability. Perhaps it is this perceived reservedness that set him back.
Compare Mitts smile here, with the common images of Reagan - where Reagans smile
was bolder, open, welcoming... even if you didn't like his politics, you
want to talk with him.Small, but could have been a difference maker.
Some just cannot wait to jump on the bandwagon of the conservative love Romney
bandwagon even while we are going through the tough process of trying to move
ahead anchored to the problems his party created.
"...you can be in a very high position but you recognize that you're
serving, and then all of a sudden you're released and you're
nobody..." I think I know what Ann Romney meant when she said that but it
came off in the wrong way, at least to me. In the church people serve in
positions they are called to. Some of them are high profile and others are not,
but all who serve, regardless of where, are doing their part to further the
cause. I think it was either Harry Truman or Harry Truman quoting Ben Franklin
who said something like "Stepping from the office of the president to that
of a private citizen is actually an increase in stature." In the church no
one is a "nobody" regardless of what office they hold."...he knows how to succeed far better than most at analyzing and solving
financial problems. " I think DRay has it right. I've heard talk that
Mitt Romney would be asked to come resolve the financial problems of the city of
Detroit. Given his attachment to the Motor City, I think that would a valuable
and noble use of his talents.
We actually had a chance to get someone in office who really knew what he was
doing--who really knew how to turn this mess around. And...out of emotion, not
logic, we chose the wrong path. Now we are living with the consequences and who
knows how far down we will go. Who knows how deep this hole will get. We
really had a chance and we blew it. We may be paying the price for
Many of these politicians and their followers (i.e. those making comments here)
have abandoned their family values to government values and look at the
constitution and God as aliens to the cause of mankind. Their policies, you
name the policy, only further embed what is only making it worse. You
can't take God or His constitution out of public policy without destroying
lives and diminishing mankind. Romney most certainly would have made a better
president than Obama. How much, we'll never know. Obama has shown no
leadership. In five years, I have not heard him once praise or act on a
Republican idea. Of course, the Republicans aren't much better than the
democrats, who by all standards don't even recognize individual rights,
only collective rights. I'm not sure Democrats even understand what is
meant by 'individual right'. If they do, their actions show quite the
opposite, ObamaCare being the most egregious and notable example. This country
will only make progress when individuals live up to God's standard,
something most Democrats and many Republicans find contemptible.
Though I understand what Ann Romney meant, I do think her choice of words was
regretful. You are certainly not a "nobody" in the church, no matter
your calling or lack thereof. I am sure she did not mean it the way
it sounded. But I do wish she (and Mitt, for that matter) could be more careful
in their choice of words.Still, I think they are both amazing
people. I so wish we had President Romney in the Whitehouse today. What a
missed opportunity for this nation.
Somebody should remind Romney that the election is over. No need to campaign
anymore. You lost, badly.
Bill in Nebraska"then you will never understand his comment of
the 47% which is completely and totally true."No, that comment
is demonstrably false on two levels. 1) A significant portion of the 47% are
elderly, folks trying to raise a family on less than $50K per year, and those in
the military. Not the moochers Romney labeled them as. 2) They didn't all
vote for Obama. Many voted for Romney. The sooner conservatives bury that 47%
lie, the better.
Ann Romney was expressing the feeling felt by many who have been Bishops, Stake
Pres. etc. which Mitt has been. These are callings, without pay, done on
one's own time that require many hours of service. Once released it leaves
a void in your life that you have to adjust too. Don't criticize what you
don't know or understand.If they are serious about renewing Detroit
they should give it to Mitt, bet he would even do it on his own dime.
"The church is gracious enough to not let you "burn out" in your
calling. "Ummm.... maybe in Utah, but not the case everywhere.
The church is run by humans, and humans do human things. We locally had a
Primary President that begged to be released, and wasn't done so for over 6
months. She absolutely was "burned out". A buddy of mine has served
in a Stake Presidency for over 15 years now. He is tired, has medical issues,
but still serves to the best of his abilities. Lets not pretend that sometimes
we don't get released a little late from some callings, and others a little
earlier than we would choose.But that wasn't the point. There
is nothing misleading, or wrong about what Anne said. A Stake President is
called and known by all, for an extended period. They are the most notable
person in that stake. Then they are released, and the new stake president holds
that mantle. And you go from meetings many times a week, to a normal calling in
your ward. Yes, there is a let down. What she says is true, and isn't
controversial at all. It just is.
re: UtahBlueDevil March 2Agreed 147%.re: Cats March 2We did? Ron Paul was marginalized in the GOP primaries. No way, could
you be talking about anyone else.
Long before any sequester cuts were instituted:1) The GDP plummeted over
three-points to a pathetic growth rate of 0.12) Incomes took their
biggest plunge in 20 years3) Unemployment inched back up to 7.9% 4)
Consumer confidence hit a two-year low5) Gas prices exploded6)
The price for health care premiums exploded7) The GAO says the deficit is
unsustainable8) 1 in 5 Americans are on food stamps9) The long
term unemployment rate is over 14%10 Chronic unemployment hasn't
been this bad since WW1112) BTW per gallop's latest #'s
approval now at 47% 13) 2000 illegal’s who were picked up for
criminal actives released on the streets and the police or gov never
advised14) Wants Supremes to overturn defense of marriage15) Gun
debacle (you know who has-in the past-taken citizen's guns)All
I know is we are not reading the same facts!Thanks to web site!
@OatmealA $17 Trillion national debt doesn't call for
moderation. It calls for extreme. You don't realize how serious the
situation is, do you?
@Cats We actually had a chance to get someone in office who really
knew what he was doing--who really knew how to turn this mess around. And...out
of emotion, not logic, we chose the wrong path. Now we are living with the
consequences and who knows how far down we will go. Who knows how deep this hole
will get. We really had a chance and we blew it. We may be paying
the price for generations. -------------------- Agreed.
That good candidate was named Jon Huntsman, Jr. BUT, because he was a
middle-of-the-road, moderate Republican who refused to pander to those to the
far right, the far right refused to consider him and instead seleted Romney, who
pandered. Thankfully we escaped having Romney inflicted on us -- he would have
continued the GWBush policies, and really put the country down the toilet. I just wish that the parties had nominated good candidates instead of
giving the voting public the lesser-of-two-evilss choice that we faced. We
didn't have much to choose from but, thankfully, we avoided Romney. There
was a price with Obama but the price would have been a lot worse with Romney.
Looking forward to the interview tomorrow, and finally hearing some words of
wisdom. No surprise that once again the president didn't do what he said
he would, or wouldn't do.I've never seen so many people
scared for the course our country is taking. Somebody needs to tell the
president that the election is over, so he needs to start leading, instead of
campaigning more and trying to improve his golf score! He's always blaming
somebody else for the woes of our country, of course he never does wrong.
Mitt Romney survived a brutal election with a gang of political character
assassins in Chicago.These so called elites were willing to say or do anything
true or not to destroy Romney.It is a sad commentary that our elected leader had
to follow the gutter path of distortion, $500 million in attack ads in
swing states to win. This most negative campaign
against a decent man who only wanted to unite our country andhelp create
jobs is the sad polarized state of our country.
I dismiss Obama.I wanted more from Romney.I expect to never see
another republican president.I see civil war in this country again.Liberals fighting with Starbucks cups.
Mitt Romney had a much better grasp of what had to be done to turn around the
economy than Barack Obama. The old rules of who ever wins the independents wins
the whitehous didn't apply. What actually happened is that 3 million
moderate republicans in key battleground states were influenced in a negative
way by the constant bombardment of negative ads and they did not vote. This is
voter suppresssion and it was Obama's plan all along and it worked. It was
voter suppression. The Democrats always do the thing that they blame the
Republicans of doing.The black vote was through the rood so whose vote really
@New to Utah 8:52 p.m. March 2, 2013It's funny, and sad, to
think that someone would consider telling the truth about Romney to be
"character assassination." The President didn't beat Romney.
Romney beat himself by letting people see who and what he really was and is.
One thing he was NOT was "a decent man who only wanted to unite our country
and help create jobs" -- his words and actions showed him to be the exact
opposite of that. Discerning people were able to see though the smokescreen he
created to the truth of his (lack of) character, and as a result they rejected
him. Thank God. Obama is bad, and I didn't want him (and didn't vote
for him), but Romney would have been much, much worse.
E major: I concur with your statement. Romney's needs to apoligize for his
47% comment. It is not true. I wish Mitt would admit he misspoke. I used to
respect the man. No more. He has no comprehension of what life is like for
the middle class or working poor. I could care less how many cadillacs Ann
drives. Mitt thinks 250 K a year is middle class and hundreds of thousands a
year in speaking fees is pocket change. Really. He insults voters and then
blames Obama for loosing. Mitt lost because because he ran a terrible campaign.
Romney is out of touch. And I still voted for him.
After fact checking my own comment I did get the name wrong of whose divorce
that Obama used to propel him to the top of his Senate Democratic Primary. It
was Blair Hull and not Bobby Rush. But as we can see Obama uses Chicago Style
politics to get what he wants.
Furry 1993, the mainstream media fooled a lot of people. The talking heads
especially MSNBC who spent more than a year bashing Romney with such thugs as
Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews. In my opinion it
appears that you drank deep at the well of liberal water. I have actually lived
in liberal states and participated in campaigns and believe me cheating is not
something they ignore.It is fine to have your negative view of Mitt Romney but I
have a different view.
@New to Utah 3:24 p.m. March 3, 2013Sorry to disappoint you -- I
know that type of "MSM" clim is what people try to use to brush off
complaints about Romney, but I didn't get my opinion from any one source or
type of source and especially not from the MSM. I don't listen to
O'Donnell, Maddow, Matthews, or any of their ilk any more than I listen to
Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, or any of their ilk. To the extent that I
consult media, I consider sources equally from all accoss the political spectum
-- exteme far right all the way to exteme far left because there are snippets of
truth to be found in all of them and all of them provide leads for
investigation. Basically,I do my own individual research from original sources
and reach conclusions based on where the FACTS take me (and, with a law school
education and years of practicing law under my belt, unbiased reasearch is
something I have learned to do well). The real Mitt that is found in the
in-depth research is not the principled Mitt that he tries to show himself as
being. And that is sad.
Could we as a nation have been any more clueless, selfish, lost and
self-deceived by passing over a guy like Romney for a guy like Obama?No, we could not.Oh, America, how the mighty have fallen....
Sorry folks there is no beating free stuff Mitt never had a shot.