Best political ad ever.

It is like the whole country is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. After the last decade they still want to get screwed over by the republicans?

The King of Bain film and commercials are devastating. Message to GOP: please nominate this guy!

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are obtaining your information regarding the HOP candidiates on Meet the Press? Good grief.

I'm not sure what the HOP is, but there was an actual debate -- you know when all the candidates stand up and answer questions and so on -- on Meet the Press. I wasn't referring to reports of the Romney/Gingrich exchange, but the actual exchange that happened to be broadcast on Meet the Press.

PP doesn't believe in the liberal media. It probably thinks the GOP debate--like the moon landing--was faked to make the heroic raft of stalwarts look bad.

I have an MBA from a top school and worked for a Bain competitor for a number of years. Romney often reminds me of many of the partners I worked for and of the ethos both in the MBA program and at the firm, and let's just say that concern for the greatness of his country or for the welfare of its citizens isn't exactly the first thing that evokes--but rather something along the lines of using any legal means to get ahead. I say this without any shred of affection for Obama, who is simply beholden to a slightly different set of power brokers.

Looking at the current GOP slate constantly reminds me of Aesop's fable about the frogs who wanted a new king. The frogs go see Zeus in protest, asking to be rid of their placid, ineffectual do-nothing king (another frog) and ask for a replacement who is fearsome, powerful and decisive.
Zeus grants their wish and sends them a heron, who proceeds to decimate them.
So by and large it feels to me like if the middle class in this country wants a Bain Capital president, it deserves one, along with the consequences.

I wonder sometimes if Romney actually believes in -- or cares about -- anything except pandering to voters. I don't agree with much of anything any GOPer says, but at least some of them actually seem to care about this country, even if their proposed solutions are disastrous. Romney just wants to win.

pp .. p.s., agree that Romney alone may not be so bad because he's so spineless and malleable... but driven by the rabid creepoid haters in the House and Repub. senate, and Faux News, a complete frickin' disaster for America....

prepare to send your kids back to Iraq, etc. ;-o

Even by the standards of politicians, Romney takes utterly phony and insincere, unctuous, spineless, craven pandering to new heights ... all overlaid by this clenched-teeth smiling transparently manic & phony tic that is a psychologist/behaviorist's delight.

He's unbelievable by any standard... watch how much he smiles to hide his anger, his lies, etc. You can practically see him popping a vein trying to stay so under control.

He is incredibly out of touch about the lives of ordinary Americans ("... I'm out of work too" says the multi multi million $ man) as well as about the business and art of government (government is not private business and you can't run it as one for many reasons).

He is a real "piece of work" as they say in NJ (where "work" is a four letter word for "sh!t").

Vote not cite

Look at Reagan. As a California Governor, he signed abortion legislation. When he ran for President, he was staunchly pro-life. In the end his court appointments were intended to be pro-life.

So anyone willing to cite on the hope that Romney is a closet moderate is ignoring recent political History.

jsteele wrote:...Romney's most prominent characteristic: his willingness to say anything, take any position, or do anything to get elected.

I thought almost all politicians were insincere until I saw Mitt Romney, who taught me that I had no idea what insincerity really was. To explain why he had claimed to be a hunter yet had no license, he said that he hunted "varmints." He said that with a smile, as if anyone would accept it. He said it like Palin saying you can see Russia from Alaska, except that it wasn't even true.

How insincere is he? Even poor Republicans, who normally beg to be fucked over by a rich guy, don't trust him.

jsteele wrote:In my opinion, the important factor is not Romney's actual belief because he has repeatedly shown that his actual belief is secondary to the position he will take.

Dead on. The threat of Romney isn't Romney per se but Romney led by this Congress and by Faux.

Anonymous wrote:You are obtaining your information regarding the HOP candidiates on Meet the Press? Good grief.

I'm not sure what the HOP is, but there was an actual debate -- you know when all the candidates stand up and answer questions and so on -- on Meet the Press. I wasn't referring to reports of the Romney/Gingrich exchange, but the actual exchange that happened to be broadcast on Meet the Press.

It seem like Mitt is the only one runner. The others do not confront/attack him. Are they running for vp?

You are obtaining your information regarding the HOP candidiates on Meet the Press? Good grief.

I was just watching the Republican presidential candidates debate on Meet the Press. As it is looking very likely that Mitt Romney will win the nomination, I thought I'd take a minute to pontificate about him.

One of the most dramatic moments of this event was a confrontation between Newt Gingrich and Romney regarding anti-Gingrich ads run by a super-PAC that supports Romney. Romney stated clearly that he had not seen the ad, but then went on to describe it almost word for word. It appeared that Romney had told a blatant lie and then sold himself out about it. This highlights Romney's most prominent characteristic: his willingness to say anything, take any position, or do anything to get elected. His legendary flip-flopping, the claim by his campaign official that ads don't have to be truthful because they are "propaganda", and his constant dissembling (even wrongly stating during a debate that his first name is "Mitt" when it's actually "Willard") all strengthen the perception that there is literally nothing about this man that we can believe.

Yet, a significant number of Americans, including many people who claim to be Democrats, are willing to trust this man to be President. One of the most frequent justifications I hear for this support is a belief that Romney, despite everything, is actually a moderate who would be reasonable, even from a liberal standpoint, as President.

As best I can tell, the belief that Romney is a moderate is due to the fact that he presented himself as a moderate during his political career in Massachusetts. It is assumed that this moderate Romney persona is the true one and Romney has moved rightward during his presidential runs due to the political realities of Republican primary campaigns. But, plenty of evidence suggests that Romney assumed his moderate persona simply because that was necessary to be elected in Massachusetts. For instance, when preparing to run for the US Senate against Ted Kennedy, Romney used polling data to determine that he should run as a pro-choice candidate. Romney's position was that he was personally pro-life, but supported Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. He continued his pro-choice position during his successful campaign for governor. But in 2005, exactly when Romney decided to run for president, he announced that he had changed his position and now opposed abortion rights.

So, is Romney an anti-choice politician who took a pro-choice position in order to get elected, or is he a pro-choice candidate who has taken an anti-choice position in order to get elected? I think I could argue this either way equally strongly. Since either argument can be made, I think far too many people are projecting the view they would like Romney to hold onto him. Hence, pro-choice individuals tell themselves that Romney is actually moderate regarding abortion rights and pro-life individuals believe Romney to oppose abortion rights.

In my opinion, the important factor is not Romney's actual belief because he has repeatedly shown that his actual belief is secondary to the position he will take. The primary factor is what will get him elected. So, imagine that Romney were to win the primary and then go on to defeat President Obama in the general election. Would Romney govern in a manner consistent with his personal beliefs, or would he choose policies that would increase has chances for re-election? I think the answer to that is clear. In that case, what would drive Romney? We know that Romney, if he is elected, it will be despite the misgivings of the rightwing of the Republican party. Simply put, the rightwing doesn't trust him. Romney would have to be concerned that a failure to address the rightwing agenda would result in a primary challenge to him -- something that could be devastating to his re-election hopes. So, I think it's reasonable to assume that Romney as president would govern in a manner aimed at appeasing right-wingers. As a result, I think any liberals who believe that Romney would be a moderate president are deluding themselves.

In my opinion, those seeking a moderate republican for whom to vote already have the perfect candidate. His name is Barack Obama. Unlike Romney, he has been consistent in this regard.