Originally Posted by klg47
You seem to imply that McCain and Huckabee are too similar to Bush. Is Romney any different? To me, he seems to be a cross between Bush and Kerry. He has the polished look and flip-flopping of Kerry combined with the policies and philosophies of Bush.
McCain is a RINO-- Republican in Name Only. There is what he says he believes in-- and then what he actually DOES. The Democrats actually extended him a warm invitation to join their party in 2002.
Now, I have nothing against Democrats in general, but be honest. McCain is not honest in the slightest. Everytime he sasy "straight talk" I laugh.http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=1503
McCain is a REAL flip-flopper.
McCain is similar to Bush, to me, in that he represents old-school insider politics in the worst form.
Originally Posted by magstphil
i know you're not addressing me but i really think Huckabee is worse than Bush *shudders* McCain i can actually stomach. Romney? i'm not even sure what his stance on anything is. he seems ready to say or do anything to win. i didn't get that from Kerry at all. i think Romney is what everyone was trying to paint Kerry as.
Romney is not ready to "do or say anything to win". The whole "flip-flop" label was given him by the media because by and large, they can't stand him. This is because he is not a political insider
. The courted him for several months, and he was not willign either to "join" them, or to burn any bridges either, but now they have decided to wage a full-scale media war against him. It is incredible how strong he has stood in spite of all of the lies. McCain, of course, being a long-time insider, is the media darling.
Originally Posted by KermitMissesJim
I sometimes wonder if the Dems aren't crossing their fingers that Romney DOES get the nomination, because he reminds me of Kerry too, in one key way: un-electability. Kerry was just too...bland to win.
Why do you think that the media attacks Romney so much? He would be one of the toughest ones to beat. I believe he could easily win against Hillary or Edwards, and stands a good chance against Obama.
Huckabee and McCain would be EASY to beat-- Huckabee because he has so many horrible skeletons in his closet, and McCain because he is old and stodgy and lacks any kind of charisma whatsoever. That's why the media wants McCain or Huckabee to win right now.
Rudy is going largely unnoticed at the moment, which is due to his own lack of campaining.
Originally Posted by klg47
That is the impression I get too.
Kerry was called a flip-flopper because he would say one thing about an issue/topic, then flip to another opinion on the topic and then flip back
. This is a flip-flop. Just changing your opinion on somethign is not a flip-flop.
Romney was first called a flip-flopper because of his change of opinion regarding abortion. His personal views never changed, but his political views changed. He was first pro-life because he had a cousin die from a botched illegal abortion. So he supported abortion at that point only because he wanted to see it be safe. But he says that the first time a pro-choice pieve of legislation crossed his desk, he was just not able to sign it, it just felt wrong to him and he knew he would be doing the wrong thing to sign it. And so from that point on he always voted/acted pro-life. His record supports this. This is not a flip-flop, it is a change of heart, and he has not had many of these.
He is said to have flip-flopped on other issues, like gay rights. He has never chnaged his stance on gay rights though-- he believes it is a state-level issue, that's the difference. so as governor, he vowed to uphold the gay-friendly rights of Mass., because he believes in supporting the laws of each state even if he doesn't personally agree with them. Not a flip-flop. He is said to have flip-flopped on whether he supported the Bush tax cuts or not, because he said something critical of them way back then, and now he supports them-- but that's not fair because it was an off-hand remark he made without having studied the issue. He now says that if he had studied the actual legislature he would have agreed with it. These stupid little fabricated "flip-flops" are all the label is built on.
He gets lambasted because he tried to paint himself as a hunter, when he's only a "varmint hunter". Well, he IS a hunter, and of course he tried to use that to his benefit. You try to identify with the people you are talking to. That's normal, that's campaining.
But Romney's number one strong point is his turn-around ability. As a venture capitilist, he would take dying businesses and turn them into huge successes. Staples was one of his projects-- he took it from one struggling store to a successful chain. Of course he turned around the Olympics, too. The SLC Olympics were an embarrassment and a mess and running in the red until he stepped in and organized it better and made it turn a profit.
He was then elected in MA because there government was hopelessly in debt. I mean, it was a mess. This is probably the only reason this very democratic-heavy state elected a Republican. Governor Romney got rid of MA's debt without raising any taxes, AND he instituted the statewide healthcare plan which the people there wanted. Now, people also attack him for his healthcare plan, but for somehtign which was a compromise on both sides (between him and his 85% democratic congress) I think they did a prett ygood job. Not perfect, but pretty good.
Romney is also lambasted because of the free formula samples in MA hospitals- thing. Some hospital workers had gotten together and developed legislation to make it illegal for the formula companies to give out free samples in hospitals. Romney stopped this legislation, I don't really fault him there, if one isn't extremely educated on the issues of breastfeeding vs. formula (and most people are not) then it does sound particularly un-American to deny a company the right to hand out free samples of somehting-- to deny a woman the right to accept those samples if she chooses to, or not.
So, that's about eveything I can think of that Romney is attacked on. He is NOT a political insider. His father, Marion Romney, actually wrote at least one of the books on government conspiracies/protecting the constitution that laid the foundation for movements like the John Birch Society, Free Republic, and others which now mostly support Ron Paul. The difference with Miott Romney is that he is smart enough to see that if he alienates himself from moderates completely he will lose. He also doesn't believe in the hardline separitism that Ron Paul espouses. But as a previous Ron Paul supporter (and Ron Paul is still my second choice,) I say take a closer look at Romney.
And, Romney is very successful and well-organized with a lot of real leadership experience and a lot of people skills. It's one thing to say you're going to do something. It's another thing entirely to be able to do it.
Okay, THAT was long, but hey-- you asked!