Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Mitt Romney is getting popular

Mitt Romney is getting popular
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 11:17 PM
 
I don't know much about him, but the Drudge Poll on Drudgereport.com indicates he's slightly popular with 34% of the vote. He might give Giuliani a run for the money.

I wonder, how does a Romney/Giuliani ticket sound?
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 11:45 PM
 
It sounds like a dream ticket for a Democrat.

Anybody the GOP will put up is going to get crushed in 08'

The GOP can't win with our troops still in Iraq.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 3, 2007, 11:52 PM
 
Don't be too sure of yourself. Nothing scares a Republican more than a Democratic House, Senate and Executive office. A lot can happen.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:01 AM
 
A mormon is unelectable. Between Giuliani's abortion stance and his personal life, he is also unelectable as a Republican. His pre-9/11 record in NY would not be attractive for many undecideds.

I wouldn't mind McCain if he could get some ballz about Social Security and Health Care.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:15 AM
 
Morons, er, ah Mormons believe people from Jerusalem came here in 500 BC and eventually divided into two tribes. The evil tribe and the good tribe. The evil guys killed the good guys but not before a good guy named Mormon scratched a bunch of god stuff on gold tablets and buried them in upstate New York.

The evil ones became the Native Americans that the white man slaughtered. Natives are evil. How is that gonna get you elected if you believe all that mumbo jumbo. But then again Bush believes were in the 'end times'.
( Last edited by Atomic Rooster; May 4, 2007 at 12:35 AM. Reason: Fixed a minor error)
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:27 AM
 
As a resident of Massachusetts, I have to say that I'm utterly shocked that he's polling so high. Maybe the pollsters conveniently forgot to call anyone in this state...
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 01:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by nonhuman View Post
As a resident of Massachusetts, I have to say that I'm utterly shocked that he's polling so high. Maybe the pollsters conveniently forgot to call anyone in this state...
Maybe. I don't know enough about his positions to have an opinion.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 04:13 AM
 
Mitt Romney's Hidden Geek
What we can learn from Romney's favorite book.

By John Dickerson
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2007, at 2:07 PM ET

If you plan to run for president, you have to get your reading list straight. Inevitably a reporter will ask you to name your favorite book or a book you're currently reading, hoping to uncover a truth about your inner self. Candidates quickly learn to name either biographies of heroic ex-presidents or safe best sellers like Einstein. If a candidate is going to take a risk and go with fiction, it must be an affirming airport novel or a classic like Bleak House safe enough to be adapted by PBS. A candidate wants to show depth, but not so much depth that people hide their daughters. Even Barack Obama wouldn't want to have to explain his love for Portnoy's Complaint or Lolita to a gymnasium full of Iowa caucus-goers.

The modern media addiction to this trope appears to have started with John F. Kennedy, who said he liked reading Ian Fleming's novels.* The dashing president who liked the ladies seemed to be mirrored in his choice of books, so journalists kept asking the question. Bill Clinton, a man of wide appetites, couldn't name just one book and thereby reaffirmed the idea that by their books ye shall know them.

Answering this question correctly can be helpful to a would-be president. If you're Rudy Giuliani and you want people to think you're like Churchill, it's a good idea to tell reporters you were reading a biography of the prime minister on the night of 9/11. (The only less subtle hint would be nicknaming yourself Winston.) But naming the wrong book can send dangerous signals. Last summer, President Bush reportedly read The Stranger. Having launched an unpopular pre-emptive war in the Middle East, it can't possibly be helpful to announce that you're reading a book where the main character is an unrepentant Arab-killer.

Recently, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney was asked to name his favorite books. Romney is a man who likes to prepare. In the months before announcing his presidential bid, his foundation donated to social conservative groups that he now hopes will support him. He once seemed to enjoy distancing himself from the NRA, but before running for the GOP nomination he joined the influential gun lobby. So, it was a pretty good bet that among the current crop of candidates, Romney would have the most calculated reading list. Or perhaps, in keeping with his other policy evolutions, he'd say in his youth Gore Vidal's Myra Breckinridge was his favorite but now he reads only Edmund Burke.

What books did Romney claim as his favorites? The Bible is his favorite book. His favorite novel is Battlefield Earth by L. Ron Hubbard, the science-fiction writer and Scientology founder. The first we would have expected, but the second is so wacky, it breathes new life into the tired old reporter's trope: There must be something we can learn about Romney by examining this answer.

For those of you who didn't study it in school, Battlefield Earth takes place in the year 3000, when the human race is nearly extinct and the planet stripped of its natural resources. Mankind has been enslaved by evil aliens with very bad breath that explodes when it comes into contact with radioactive material. A young slave wielding lasers and draped in a tennis cardigan leads a rebellion and retakes Earth, only to be attacked again by a series of foes including a race of interstellar bankers trying to collect on bad debts. (There may be kung-fu fights and a championship football game, too; I confess that I haven't read it all.)

Everything about the book is bad. Just a few sentences into the first page, you're confronted by this sentence: "Terl could not have produced a more profound effect had he thrown a meat-girl naked into the middle of the room." (A clothed meat-girl apparently gets a big yawn.) Hubbard's soundtrack for the book, when played, either attracts mice or repels dogs, or both. The movie, which starred John Travolta, is what therapists show to the producers of Ishtar and Glitter to help them feel good.

The whole tumbling horror of the Battlefield Earth experience is so profound it nearly comes out the other side and achieves a kind of perfection of awfulness. Is Romney being ironic, then, like those people who buy clown art? Unlikely. There's not a big irony bloc in the GOP and Battlefield Earth is a thousand-page book. No one can sustain irony for that long. (At 13,000 words per dollar it is a great value, though, which might appeal to notoriously frugal New Hampshire voters.) Romney was quick to point out that he disagreed with Scientology, so he wasn't going for that vote, or the smaller, untapped, creepy-Hubbard-ascot-fetish vote. Is Romney trying to act like he's a regular guy? Only 8 percent of the words in the book are considered "complex," so he can't be labeled an elitist, but no one trying to look like a common Joe would pick this book. You simply need a deep level of weird to like Battlefield Earth. The speed with which some of his aides tried to distance the governor from his remarks suggests they think he now looks a little too weird.

But I think they should stop covering up for the governor. Let him embrace his choice. There is no obvious stratagem behind it, which means Romney, the most meticulously arrayed and perhaps the most careful of the candidates may be giving us a peek at a robust inner goofball. Voters like to get a little glimpse of the authentic core in their candidates and Romney's team has been trying to show this side since their candidate can appear affected. It's why the campaign Web site still shows him joking around with Don Imus even after the radio host's fall from grace (how long will that clip stay up?) and why Romney and his wife joke about his corny sense of humor. Nothing could be more regular than the irony-free love of schlock found in overwrought thrillers written by self-aggrandizing madmen. Sure there are dangers—legions of former high-school film-projector operators may start attending Romney rallies, and in the wake of Dick Cheney, voters may not want to vote in another administration that believes in alternative realities—even if it's just in their nighttime reading—but these are minor concerns.

Alas, Romney is probably not courageous enough to continue embracing his literary favorites. My guess is he'll be selecting a safer favorite right quick. But if nothing else, he's shown that you can still learn something about candidates if you ask them about their favorite books. And he may have even given reporters a new way to ask the question, inspired by Char's request of Terl in Battlefield Earth: "What in the name of diseased crap are you reading?"

*Correction, May 2, 2007: This article originally had the last name of the author of the James Bond novels misspelled. Click here to return to the corrected sentence.
John Dickerson is Slate's chief political correspondent and author of On Her Trail. He can be reached at slatepolitics@gmail.com.

     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 08:21 AM
 
Romney just ooozes phoniness...you put him up against Obama and its obvious who the better man is.

I think the country finally understands the importance of electing genuine, qualified person as President.

I also think the GOP needs to go into seclusion for a while to re-find their way. A few years of soul searching will benefit the party and the country and we'll see a much healthier GOP in 2012 and beyond.

Romney would do nothing for the party or for the country...
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 09:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
Romney just ooozes phoniness...you put him up against Obama and its obvious who the better man is.
Obama has yet to impress me in any way.

I think the country finally understands the importance of electing genuine, qualified person as President.
You are dreaming. Besides, the front runners of both parties are lacking in that regard…as usual.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
Romney just ooozes phoniness...you put him up against Obama and its obvious who the better man is.

I think the country finally understands the importance of electing genuine, qualified person as President.

I also think the GOP needs to go into seclusion for a while to re-find their way. A few years of soul searching will benefit the party and the country and we'll see a much healthier GOP in 2012 and beyond.

Romney would do nothing for the party or for the country...
I totally agree. Romney is a slimeball. But this is also coming from the GOP who got Bush elected once (He was appointed, not elected in 2000). The same GOP that fell for the lie that George Bush came from Texas and was a rancher and a "good o' boy"; when in fact that he was born and raised on the East Coast. The members of the GOP are the most free thinking bunch you know? Kinda like sheep when you think about it.

The GOP is in major trouble. They have a scandal waiting around every corner. They do need to regroup or just fade away.

Especially considering that when the "troop surge" fails in Iraq, you'll see every Republican that wants to get re-elected distancing him/herself from Bush, the GOP and the Republican party.

George Will on "This Week" even stated that come September when the "troop surge" report comes out, that he wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of Republicans switch sides and become Democrats. In that same breath, he said that the September report could be the thing that will cause the shift in power across the nation; in favor of the Democrats. All this comes from one of the strongest GOP supporters in the media.

As I've said before the GOP and the Republican party cannot win the next elections for President or Congress, or the House as long as our troops are still in Iraq.

It won't happen. America is fed up with Iraq and the civil war that we started.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: I don't know anymore!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 09:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Buckaroo View Post
Maybe. I don't know enough about his positions to have an opinion.
Yet you started a thread postulating that "he's getting popular," based on a sensationalistic web site.

He's like the vast majority of those running for the office. He was once a strong supporter of gay rights, although not endorsing marriage, but civil unions. He once even stated that gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the military. Now he's changed his views on those issues, because he knows that that the Christian Right (which is niether) wouldn't tolerate that. He once was for abortion rights and now has changed his mind, because he knows that the Christian Right (which is neither) wouldn't tolerate that. He's a typical politician; say what you think your base wants to hear, and hope it works. It worked for George Bush, and look at the mess he's in now, with true conservatives shunning him like the plague.

I, however, actually wouldn't mind Romney being the GOP nominee. It would gaurantee a Democratic victory, as it would once again show how far out of touch a bunch of old rich white men are with the American public, which is much more centrist than these old fogeys would like to believe.
( Last edited by OldManMac; May 4, 2007 at 10:05 AM. )
Why is there always money for war, but none for education?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
Anybody the GOP will put up is going to get crushed in 08'
I tend to agree that the GOP will lose…but crushed? Yeah you keep telling yourself that.

The GOP can't win with our troops still in Iraq.
How is giving up the war gonna help the GOP in '08? It wouldn't one bit. The only shot they have is to make real, noticeable progress in Iraq. I don't think that would be enough, but from a political standpoint a pullout won't help them at all. Why do you think the Dems are pushing so hard to bring them home? Out of genuine compassion and concern? They KNOW that leaving Iraq will be a disaster so they are determined to push Bush to do it, or play off of his refusal to do so.

It's gonna be really funny when we have our next Democrat in the white house and, after ALL this bickering, they LEAVE THE TROOPS IN IRAQ. That's exactly what'll happen.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 09:58 AM
 
The only things the Democrats have to run on is failure in Iraq and an expanding social welfare state. Voters rejected both in 2004. The best candidates they have are hard core leftists, one, a highly polarizing, demagogic beast and the other slick yet inexperienced with an unelectable name. The Democrats cannot win like that, unless the Republicans are completely inept.

As for Romney, he has a lot to overcome. He seems like a good guy, but he has issues. From the minute I first learned of him years ago I thought he was a little too slick. At this point he hasn't really defined himself that well, IMO. And his religion is a political handicap. If the GOP wants to win, which I'm pretty sure it does, Giuliani is the pick.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
But this is also coming from the GOP who got Bush elected once (He was appointed, not elected in 2000).


The same GOP that fell for the lie that George Bush came from Texas and was a rancher and a "good o' boy"; when in fact that he was born and raised on the East Coast.
He spent his childhood in Texas. He left to go to prep school in Mass. So, he was raised in Texas.

The members of the GOP are the most free thinking bunch you know? Kinda like sheep when you think about it.
Very intelligent of you.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Originally Posted by kobi

But this is also coming from the GOP who got Bush elected once (He was appointed, not elected in 2000).



Very intelligent of you.
You need to do some fact checking.

Bush wasn't elected in 2000. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave him the electoral votes to make him President.

Here's a link to the lawsuit Bush v. Gore: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

I think the sheep comment was in good taste, considering what some in the Republican party has done to this country.

The Missing Person's song "Clones" comes to mind when I think of the GOP and Republicans. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........

Hopefully this was intelligent enough for you Dolly.
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 10:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The only things the Democrats have to run on is failure in Iraq
...so the current administration must be working for the DNC.
... and an expanding social welfare state.
I am in social work. I honestly do not understand this statement at all. It flows so freely from republican mouths that I know it must be propoganda and not any real knowledge of the subject. Who's feeding you guys this crap? The programs have been and continue to be cut at every turn.

No. The ongoing proposed expansions in our government spending? Military. New intelligence bureaucracies. Guantanamo Bay. Effing BS moon mission BS BS BS. Oh, and services to the elderly. Do you hear any Repub candidates boasting about their cuts for the elderly? Cuz I hear crickets on that one. I want to hear Giuliani say "Hey, we need to cut social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. And while we're at it, let's drop the whole unemployment assistance thing." Yeah, right.

If the GOP wants to win, which I'm pretty sure it does, Giuliani is the pick.
First, I'm not sure it does. Would you want to inherit this mess? Second, Giuliani's abortion stance, personal ethics, and record in NY make him unelectable. His 15 minutes of fame are up.

McCain is their strongest dog in the race, even if his own party doesn't like him. I'd vote for him before I'd vote for any of the dems in the race.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
You need to do some fact checking.

Bush wasn't elected in 2000. He was appointed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court gave him the electoral votes to make him President.

Here's a link to the lawsuit Bush v. Gore: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html
Oh yeah, that. Where's that dead horse pic again…?

YAWN.

I think the sheep comment was in good taste, considering what some in the Republican party has done to this country.

The Missing Person's song "Clones" comes to mind when I think of the GOP and Republicans. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.........
Yeah, OK whatever you say.

Hopefully this was intelligent enough for you Dolly.
Not particularly, but who am I?
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:08 PM
 
Romney has been aiming at the white house since the 2000 Olympics. He used how well the Olympics turned out, his shiny shiny teeth, and his giant bags of cash, to run for governor as a stepping stone. The minute he was elected people started talking presidential bid.

I can't think of anything he did as governor to recommend him. And he has shifted stance to woo the Christian right pretty transparently.

Yet I don't think he's as much of an opportunist as Guiliani. He's got more experience.

If I were republican I'd vote McCain though.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by wolfen View Post
Effing BS moon mission BS BS BS. Oh, and services to the elderly. Do you hear any Repub candidates boasting about their cuts for the elderly? Cuz I hear crickets on that one. I want to hear Giuliani say "Hey, we need to cut social security, Medicaid, and Medicare. And while we're at it, let's drop the whole unemployment assistance thing." Yeah, right.
That's what I mean by the expanding social welfare state. Elderly entitlements are the biggest threat to the fiscal solvency of the United States. Non-discretionary spending dwarfs discretionary spending and the problem will just get worse. However, I think Rudy may be the one to get a handle on things. He works tirelessly for his constituents, and if he were to be elected president he would probably realize how substantial the problem is. The politicians are good at lying, but eventually they'll have to face the truth.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 02:09 PM
 
There's really only one worthwhile criteria for judging last night's debate: Which one would you rather have a beer with?

Right?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
The politicians are good at lying, but eventually they'll have to face the truth.
That's hardly a republican-only reality. Most elderly are republican. Until "the greatest generation" dies off, we're stuck with their bills.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 4, 2007, 07:33 PM
 
Romney is flip-flopping, opportunist scum.
On Guns:

Old Mitt: Supported Gun Control, Bragged That His Views Were "Not Going
to Make Me the Hero of the NRA." In 1994 and 2002, Romney supported the
Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban, even bragging that his positions
were "not going to make me the hero of the NRA." As governor, Romney signed
a 2004 law making Massachusetts the first state to pass a permanent assault
weapons ban. [Boston Globe, 1/14/06]
New Mitt: Opposes Gun Control, Brags About Brand New NRA Card. Romney
admitted that he had just joined the National Rifle Association last
August. [Boston Globe, 2/19/07] This follows his efforts in January to
highlight his newfound support for gun owners by heading to Orlando to tour
one of the country's largest gun shows with Wayne LaPierre, executive vice
president of the National Rifle Association. On Wednesday he told the
online The Glenn and Helen Show that states should "continue to ease
regulations on gun owners" and claimed "I have a gun of my own." Later,
Romney was forced to admit to reporters in Orlando that he in fact did not
personally own any guns. [Boston Globe, 1/14/06]
---
On Abortion:
Old Mitt: Supported a Woman's Right to Choose, Courted Pledged to
Respect And Will Protect A Woman's Right To Choose in 2002. In 2002, Romney
said on a NARAL questionnaire, "I respect and will protect a woman's right
to choose." He also reached out to Republican Majority for Choice to ask
for its endorsement and later issued a press release highlighting that
endorsement. Romney also completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire in
Apr '02, saying "yes" to a question about whether he supported "the
substance of" Roe v. Wade, "yes" to "state funding of abortion services
through Medicaid for low-income women" and "yes" to supporting "efforts to
increase access to emergency contraception." [Weekly Standard, 2/5/07].
New Mitt: Views Have "Evolved." "Romney says his anti-abortion views
have 'evolved and deepened' since he took office, colored in part by the
debate over embryonic stem cell research. 'In considering the issue of
embryo cloning and embryo farming, I saw where the harsh logic of abortion
can lead - to the view of innocent new life as nothing more than research
material or a commodity to be exploited,' Romney wrote in an opinion piece
in Tuesday's Boston Globe.' He also said he believes each state should
decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the 'one size fits
all' precedent of Roe v. Wade. [newsmax.com, 7/27/05]
---
On Gay Marriage:
Old Mitt: Opposed Federal Marriage Amendment, Promised to be Stronger
Leader on Gay Rights Than Senator Ted Kennedy. Romney once opposed a
federal constitutional amendment defining marriage and pledged to provide
"more effective leadership" on establishing "full equality for America's
gay and lesbian citizens" than Senator Ted Kennedy. [Boston Globe,
10/17/94]
New Mitt: Supports Constitutional Amendment, Even Worked to Block
Same-Sex Couples From Adopting. Romney told the National Review Institute's
Conservative Summit that he as "was unequivocal" on gay marriage, saying:
"I opposed then, and do now, gay marriage and civil unions."
[Newyorktimes.com, 1/28/07] Romney also now supports a constitutional
amendment on marriage and tried to allow religious agencies to block
adoptions to same-sex households. ["Transcript of Romney Address to Liberty
Sunday," EvangelicalsforMitt.com, 10/16/06; Boston Globe, 3/16/06]
---
On Stem Cell Research
Old Mitt: Supported Stem Cell Research in "Broad Terms,' Pledged to
Lobby Bush. "When he ran for governor in 2002, he endorsed embryonic stem
cell research in broad terms, saying at one campaign stop that he would
lobby Bush to embrace it." [Boston Globe, 2/11/07]
New Mitt: Opposes Expanded Funding, Tries to Have it Both Ways on
Federal Spending. "In February 2005, as the state Legislature was
considering a bill to promote embryonic stem cell research," Romney decided
"he would fight efforts to clone human embryos for research," though he
"believed it was ethical to experiment on embryos left over from fertility
treatments." Romney also now opposes the Castle-DeGette bill now before
Congress, which would lift President Bush's ban on additional federal
funding for stem cell research, because "in part because he objects to any
expansion of taxpayer-funded human embryonic stem cell research." [Boston
Globe, 2/11/07]
---
On Gays in the Military
Old Mitt: Said "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" a First Step Toward Full
Service. "When [Romney] ran for Senator in 1994, [he] supported the "don't
ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military as what [he] called a first
step that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve
openly and honestly in our nation's military." [ABC News "This Week,"
2/18/07]
New Mitt: Ten Years Later, No Need For Change. "It's now been in place
for well over a decade. We're in the middle of a conflict. Now is not the
time for a change in that regard and I don't have a policy posture as to
allowing gays in the military to serve there openly.
---

On Immigration Reform:
Old Mitt: Supported A "Path to Citizenship" For Undocumented Workers.
"Gov. Mitt Romney expressed support yesterday for an immigration program
that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward
citizenship. 'I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing
them at gunpoint from our country,' Romney said. '[T]hose that are here
paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process
towards application for citizenship, as they would from their home
country.'" [Lowell Sun, 3/30/06]
New Mitt: Opposes Path to Citizenship, Talks Tough on Immigration.
"[T]hose people who are here illegally should not get any benefit by being
here. Those that have committed crimes should be taken out of the country."
[ABC "This Week," 2/18/07] Romney has also called for penalties on
employers who hire illegal immigrants, supporting construction of a
700-mile fence along the more than 2000 mile U.S.- Mexico border, and
calling for National Guard troops to be stationed at the border until the
wall is finished. " [Boston Globe, 12/1/06]
---
On Campaign Finance Reform:
Old Mitt: Supported Campaign Finance Reform. During his 2002
gubernatorial campaign, Romney "proposed taxing political contributions to
finance publicly funded campaigns," while during his 1994 Senate campaign
Romney "publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional
campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs)." [The Hill,
2/8/07]
New Mitt: Opposes Campaign Finance Reform, Calls It "One Of The Worst
Things In My Lifetime." Referring to the McCain-Feingold law on campaign
finance reform, Romney called it "one of the worst things in my lifetime."
[The Hill, 2/8/07] Romney pledge to "fight to repeal McCain-Feingold."
[Remarks to Conservative Political Action Conference, 3/2/07]
---
On Taxes:
Old Mitt: Romney Refused To Sign "No New Tax" Pledge, Called It
"Government By Gimmickry." When he thought he needed to look more moderate
to get elected governor in 2002, Romney's campaign mocked the pledge as
"government by gimmickry." [Boston Globe, 1/5/07] As governor, Romney
drastically raised fees and taxes.
New Mitt: Signed Pledge to Hide Tax Raising Record. This month, Romney
signed the same "no new tax" pledge he refused to sign in 2002 to hide the
fact that under his failed leadership, Bay Staters saw their tax burden
increase by more than 5 percent, and Romney's cuts to local communities
sent Massachusetts property taxes to their highest level in 25 years.
[Massachusetts State-Local Tax Burden Compared to National Average
(1970-2006), The Tax Foundation; Quincy Patriot Ledger, 12/16/05]
---
On the Bush Tax Cuts:
Old Mitt: Refused to Publicly Endorse Bush Tax Cuts. Romney refused to
endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program in 2003.
Romney's spokesperson said that it's "just not a state matter." [Boston
Globe, 4/11/03]
New Mitt: Bragged About Support for Bush Tax Cuts. During a November
13, 2006 press conference held in Arizona, Romney outlined differences
between himself and McCain. Romney said "he was quicker than McCain to
endorse President Bush's tax cuts." [East Valley Sun, 11/14/06]
---
On His Own Health Care Plan:
Old Mitt: Championed State Wide Health Care Plan as "Conservative
Victory." The plan was once considered "the centerpiece of Romney's
administration" and "a key part of his presidential resume." [Boston Globe,
2/3/07] Romney even championed the plan "as a conservative victory that
leads residents to take responsibility for their own health insurance."
[Business Week, 4/4/06]
New Mitt: "Distancing Himself" From Plan After Conservative Backlash.
Romney "has begun to distance himself" from the plan in the face of
conservative skepticism of the plan, skyrocketing costs for consumers, and
new reports that the plan will force some 200,000 Bay Staters who already
have health insurance to buy more. [Boston Globe, 2/3/07] "Many
conservatives view the concept of requiring individuals to purchase health
insurance -- and penalizing some businesses that don't offer it -- as
anathema to their principles." [Boston Globe, 2/3/07]
---
On Social Security:
Old Mitt: Supported Social Security. "I don't think you go back and
rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."
[Bloomberg, 2/7/2007]
New Mitt: Weighing Deep Cuts to Social Security. "[Romney] is weighing.
deep cuts in automatic-benefit programs such as Medicare and Social
Security. [Bloomberg, 2/7/2007]
---
On the Minimum Wage:
Old Mitt: Supported Minimum Wage Hike. "I think the minimum wage ought
to keep pace with inflation. I think the minimum wage is a good thing."
[Boston Globe, 10/17/94]
New Mitt: Opposed Minimum Wage Hike. Romney vetoed a Massachusetts
minimum wage hike, a veto state legislators overrode. [Associated Press,
8/1/06]

On His Own Political Heroes:

Old Mitt: Distanced Himself from Reagan in 1994 & 2002. Romney once
claimed to be "an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush" who was "not
trying to return to Reagan-Bush." [Boston Globe, 1/19/07]
New Mitt: Takes Every Opportunity to Call Himself a Reagan Republican
Romney now calls President Reagan his "hero" and praises "Ronald Reagan's
brand of visionary and courageous leadership." [Boston Globe, 1/19/07]
Romney even cited President Reagan in explaining his decision to flip-flop
on abortion during a speech to the National Review Institute's Conservative
Summit, saying: "On abortion, I wasn't always a Ronald Reagan conservative.
Neither was Ronald Reagan, by the way." [Newyorktimes.com, 1/28/07]
---
On His Own Conservative Credentials:
Old Mitt: "I'm not the most conservative candidate on every issue."
[NewsMax.com, 2/9/07]
New Mitt: Media Attacking Me Because I'm the Conservative. "I think it
proves that the media has determined who the conservative candidate is,
because they're going after me with hammer and tong and that's the way you
would expect to go after the conservative candidate." [Boston Globe,
3/2/07]
13" MacBook Intel Core Duo- 1GB RAM- 80GB HD| 30GB iPod Video| 1GB iPod Nano
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2007, 10:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by CleoW View Post
Romney is flip-flopping, opportunist scum.
Looks like you did a major "SMACKDOWN" CleoW and shut this thread right down.
     
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2007, 10:36 PM
 
Anybody the GOP will put up is going to get crushed in 04'
Anybody the GOP will put up is going to get crushed in 08'
I see a trend.
     
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2007, 10:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I see a trend.
Yeah, a little more than 50 percent of Americans are inbred rapture-rights.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 12:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Yeah, a little more than 50 percent of Americans are inbred rapture-rights.
Ah the tolerant left…
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Ah the tolerant left…
There's a difference between tolerating diversity and suffering fools.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I tend to agree that the GOP will lose…but crushed? Yeah you keep telling yourself that.



How is giving up the war gonna help the GOP in '08? It wouldn't one bit. The only shot they have is to make real, noticeable progress in Iraq. I don't think that would be enough, but from a political standpoint a pullout won't help them at all. Why do you think the Dems are pushing so hard to bring them home? Out of genuine compassion and concern? They KNOW that leaving Iraq will be a disaster so they are determined to push Bush to do it, or play off of his refusal to do so.

It's gonna be really funny when we have our next Democrat in the white house and, after ALL this bickering, they LEAVE THE TROOPS IN IRAQ. That's exactly what'll happen.

Maybe the Dems are pushing hard to pull out because there is nothing we can do in Iraq at this point to quell the civil war?

Seeing how there is nothing we can do, it's a simple matter of utilizing our resources wisely. Sounds cold, sounds irresponsible, but that's the way it is. There are no good solutions here, just cutting our losses.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 01:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Maybe the Dems are pushing hard to pull out because there is nothing we can do in Iraq at this point to quell the civil war?
If by "quell" you mean "completely stop dead in its tracks," the evidence is in your favor. If you mean "mitigate and end as soon as possible," that's a pretty specious claim.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 11:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
If by "quell" you mean "completely stop dead in its tracks," the evidence is in your favor. If you mean "mitigate and end as soon as possible," that's a pretty specious claim.


Why is it a specious claim? How would we be able to:

- Understand the root of the conflict that has been going on for generations
- Sell both sides on an alternative idea
- Communicate with either side, since they have no centralized location and no single leader
- Win them over enough to do any of this

If you suggested that we were in the position to do this, *that* would be a specious claim IMHO. The US is not the best suited to confront these challenges, and there is far from any guarantee that even confronting these challenges would result in something positive. We sure as hell aren't doing any of this under Bush's command.
     
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by CleoW View Post
Romney is flip-flopping, opportunist scum.
I thought that was a prerequisite to join the GOP and the Republican party?

Right?
The Religious Right is neither.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 03:11 PM
 
No...GOP "stays the course." They refuse to define the course, or let you know when the course will have run its course...but you just stay it. Just stay the course.

Take a deep breath and repeat. "Stay the course." Rosary beads and incense are optional.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by kobi View Post
I thought that was a prerequisite to join the GOP and the Republican party?

Right?
Don't be so simple. Whether you agree with the GOP platform or not, you can recognize that there are people within it that are fairly consistent in their ideology and have firm personal conviction about their socio-political positions. There are still people like this in every party, although their numbers are probably diminishing.
13" MacBook Intel Core Duo- 1GB RAM- 80GB HD| 30GB iPod Video| 1GB iPod Nano
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NYNY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 04:19 PM
 
I am not a Democrat...but will absolutely vote Dem (Obama) this time around.

Dems have plenty to run on in 08, these are all Democrat issues now:

Protecting personal liberty
Fiscal discipline
Restoring international credibility
Restoring economic prosperity
Restoring dignity to the office of the president
Killing more terrorists then we create
Energy independence = National Security
Energy Independence = jobs
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by Moderator View Post
Protecting personal liberty
I have yet to see a single Democratic candidate campaign on a platform of personal liberty.
Fiscal discipline
Are you kidding me? Social welfare state. Entitlements. No Democrat hopeful wants to touch the biggest budgetary problem - they want to make it worse.
Restoring international credibility
Pelosi style diplomacy? Breaking protocol to break bread with terrorist-abetting countries?
Restoring economic prosperity
We had a short lived recession inherited from the end of President Clinton's term, we bounced back after 9/11, we've seen moderate growth since then, low inflation, low unemployment and record highs in the stock market. What kind of prosperity do you want to restore? Or is that just a codeword for more thorough redistribution of the wealth?
Restoring dignity to the office of the president
While I will concede that the Bush Administration hasn't had much success on that front, I'm not sure there's much a president can do in the modern era to avoid scandal and innuendo.
Killing more terrorists then we create
Well I'm glad you support that goal, but in order to kill terrorists America actually needs to get its hands dirty on occasion and do just that. The Clinton Admin didn't pull the trigger against Bin Laden because officials were afraid there was the possibility of killing civilians at a playground. In comparison, I doubt President Bush would have flinched. I'd love to hear how you think a Democratic candidate would prosecute the WoT. I have a sneaking suspicion that if a Dem were elected, we'd revert to handling terrorism as a criminal matter and make the same mistakes we made pre-9/11.
Energy independence = National Security
That's great, but what do you want the president to do about it? Energy independence will come about when Detroit realizes internal combustion is no longer a viable energy source for the future. The government cannot force the executives of a particular industry to do something contrary to their current vested interests.
Energy Independence = jobs
And how is the president supposed to make those jobs? We already invest a substantial amount of money into alternative energy research. It doesn't seem to have gotten us all that much as of yet. Instead of providing a one liner, please give some specifics on how a candidate, any candidate, is going to get you the alternative energy industry you want.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 05:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why is it a specious claim? How would we be able to:

- Understand the root of the conflict that has been going on for generations
- Sell both sides on an alternative idea
- Communicate with either side, since they have no centralized location and no single leader
- Win them over enough to do any of this
Your argument is that our military will be ineffective because we can't solve the problem through diplomacy? What? We didn't need to understand the root of the conflict between Japan and Asia in World War II — we just went in and spanked Japan's ass.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 05:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Your argument is that our military will be ineffective because we can't solve the problem through diplomacy? What? We didn't need to understand the root of the conflict between Japan and Asia in World War II — we just went in and spanked Japan's ass.
What problem can the military solve? Whose ass are we going to spank?

This is no longer about us vs. them, this is Shia vs. Sunni.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 05:27 PM
 
Just in case y'all were wondering if it's possible someone would be so partisan and thick-headed as to actually wish for troop failure;

Originally Posted by kobi
Especially considering that when the "troop surge" fails in Iraq, you'll see every Republican that wants to get re-elected distancing him/herself from Bush, the GOP and the Republican party.
Try not to slobber on yourself over the death count kobi.

Have we lost our friggin' minds? Are we really this consumed with the party line? This is absolutely disgusting. To those of you looking forward to Bush's term being up soon, power to you. I just ask that you search your soul and if you find the above quoted statement anywhere on your wish list, seek help.

There is no right or wrong. Only left or right.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Just in case y'all were wondering if it's possible someone would be so partisan and thick-headed as to actually wish for troop failure;



Try not to slobber on yourself over the death count kobi.

Have we lost our friggin' minds? Are we really this consumed with the party line? This is absolutely disgusting. To those of you looking forward to Bush's term being up soon, power to you. I just ask that you search your soul and if you find the above quoted statement anywhere on your wish list, seek help.

There is no right or wrong. Only left or right.
Eh? He didn't say anything about Americans dying, nor about wanting anything to fail. It's not party line, it's reality, as far as I'm concerned. Does any serious person believe that what we're doing is working or can work, or even really know what it is that we're doing except causing more violence? Only Republican politicians who believe their political fate is wrapped up in this, as far as I can tell. That's where the partisanship is.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:13 PM
 
My point stands. Kobi's got another thread going on the same premise. He's practically frothing at the mouth for troop failure. He's waiting for the announcement in September. Absolutely disgusting.

How do you think troop failure will manifest? *hint; more dead and exponentially more to follow.

I told myself the first one to reply was the one who did the soul-searching and found "troop failure" on their wish list. That said, I believe I know you well enough to know better. Whether you "think" the troop surge will succeed or not is irrelevant. Congress will give Bush the necessary funds to continue without a withdrawal date so it'd be a good idea to hope for the best.

Honestly, It's amazing some people even get out of bed in the morning.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What problem can the military solve? Whose ass are we going to spank?

This is no longer about us vs. them, this is Shia vs. Sunni.
Presumably we are on the Iraqi government's side unless we intend to overthrow them again. So we spank insurgents. I thought that seemed fairly obvious.

Anyway, we broke it. It's our responsibility to fix it. Cutting and running is the only way to be sure we fail.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
My point stands. Kobi's got another thread going on the same premise. He's practically frothing at the mouth for troop failure. He's waiting for the announcement in September. Absolutely disgusting.

How do you think troop failure will manifest? *hint; more dead and exponentially more to follow.

I told myself the first one to reply was the one who did the soul-searching and found "troop failure" on their wish list. That said, I believe I know you well enough to know better. Whether you "think" the troop surge will succeed or not is irrelevant. Congress will give Bush the necessary funds to continue without a withdrawal date so it'd be a good idea to hope for the best.

Honestly, It's amazing some people even get out of bed in the morning.

I'm not going to defend Kobi or even comment on whether or not I agree with him, but you really need to understand how frustrated some people are with this administration. To say they've screwed the pooch is an understatement. Patience has run out, and emotions are extremely high.

Just offering you a little perspective here.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:36 PM
 
Let me ask you ebuddy - why do you think Republicans are extending our troops' stay in Iraq? Is it because they believe we are going to "win"? "Winning" isn't even defined in a military sense, it's just a political slogan. How can they really believe it?

I'll tell you this: I firmly believe that the only reason Bush is keeping our troops there is because he knows that what he has done has been a disaster with no solution, but he wants someone else to deal with it. He wants to just keep it going so he can blame the next guy. I believe Bush and the Republicans are willing to sit by and watch the ongoing deaths of Americans and Iraqis because they're concerned about their political image. It is not wrong to hope that death for politics ends sooner rather than later, which I believe is what Kobi is saying.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Presumably we are on the Iraqi government's side unless we intend to overthrow them again. So we spank insurgents.
How can a government be formed when nobody is convinced of its legitimacy, and nobody is really wishing to support it? This is a war of ideas.

If the Israely and Palestinian governments cannot quell the violences between their own people, do you think we will fare any better, especially having just invaded the country and quite likely having little real understanding over the nature of this conflict?

Are you just playing Devil's advocate here, or do you really believe everything you are saying?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post
I'll tell you this: I firmly believe that the only reason Bush is keeping our troops there is because he knows that what he has done has been a disaster with no solution, but he wants someone else to deal with it. He wants to just keep it going so he can blame the next guy. I believe Bush and the Republicans are willing to sit by and watch the ongoing deaths of Americans and Iraqis because they're concerned about their political image.
Bush doesn't care about his political image — he's made that clear by giving the middle finger to everybody who's ever disagreed with him over past seven years and continuing with policies that have been proven to harm his approval rating. If he wanted an easy out, the Democrats just gave him one — we could get out and Iraq could completely fall apart (which they seem to be saying is inevitable) and he could go, "Well, you know, those silly Democrats wouldn't pay to keep the peace anymore, LOL."
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How can a government be formed when nobody is convinced of its legitimacy, and nobody is really wishing to support it? This is a war of ideas.
Then we fix the government. This is not new ****ing ground here — we've destroyed and rebuilt countries before, we've set up governments before. I don't feel that rushing in there, destroying everything and then running out without so much as an apology is morally right.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you just playing Devil's advocate here, or do you really believe everything you are saying?
I don't believe everything I'm saying with absolute certainty, but I don't feel the opposing viewpoint is necessarily more valid.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:47 PM
 
Chuckit: I think perhaps you are pragmatic to a fault.

Your line of reasoning seems to involve not thinking that anybody in our government could be doing a better job. That may be true, but it is also important to set the bar high, and keep our eyes on attainable goals. If there are two people in the room and both smell, although one smells worse, they still both smell, and ideally they should stop smelling. It isn't incorrect to state that there is some stink in the room.

If America is really the greatest nation on the Earth, there is nothing wrong with setting high expectations and being a little optimistic. Even if this optimism is misguided and misdirected, it is better to set our sites on something worth having rather than resigning ourselves to a consolation prize right out of the gate.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 06:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chuckit: I think perhaps you are pragmatic to a fault.

Your line of reasoning seems to involve not thinking that anybody in our government could be doing a better job. That may be true, but it is also important to set the bar high, and keep our eyes on attainable goals. If there are two people in the room and both smell, although one smells worse, they still both smell, and ideally they should stop smelling. It isn't incorrect to state that there is some stink in the room.
No, it's not wrong to say that there's a problem, but it is a bad idea to arbitrarily kick one stinky person out and snuggle up real close to the other. The simple fact is that we don't have anyone making smart, constructive suggestions. I keep looking for one and would really like to find one, but that person doesn't exist right now.

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
If America is really the greatest nation on the Earth, there is nothing wrong with setting high expectations and being a little optimistic. Even if this optimism is misguided and misdirected, it is better to set our sites on something worth having rather than resigning ourselves to a consolation prize right out of the gate.
You believe giving up on Iraq is the optimistic approach? That seems like an odd way to frame things.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2007, 07:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Bush doesn't care about his political image — he's made that clear by giving the middle finger to everybody who's ever disagreed with him over past seven years and continuing with policies that have been proven to harm his approval rating. If he wanted an easy out, the Democrats just gave him one — we could get out and Iraq could completely fall apart (which they seem to be saying is inevitable) and he could go, "Well, you know, those silly Democrats wouldn't pay to keep the peace anymore, LOL."
Oh please, this is the most image-conscious presidency ever. Politics is the only thing that explains their behavior. All of the military and foreign policy experts said that setting a timetable for withdrawal was the best policy to improve the situation there. It's why they rejected the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that they had formed, who opposed troop increases. It's why they replaced Casey, who opposed troop increases, with Petraeus. No one believes this is an effective military or foreign policy strategy. Policy doesn't explain Bush's decisions, but politics does: If he accepts that this was a stupid war, it will sink his legacy forever. So he sits on death and waits it out so he can blame others.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2