Maybe Some of you were right about Romney ...

... that he really didn't thirst for the power of being POTUS
http://www.france24.com/en/20121223-...ident-son-says
It is unfortunate, as this is part of the reason he might have been a very good President ... more concerned with doing what was right for the country than gloat on power and make himself a fortune. We need only look at the number of pols who have become among the 1% through their "service" in the political realm.

And if his "handlers" really believed that any focus on his "minority faith" would have hurt his chances, then they bought into the liberal argument that the country really is "racist" WRT religion.

I don't buy it. He didn't want to be President, yet he ran twice. Doesn't make since to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

I don't buy it. He didn't want to be President, yet he ran twice. Doesn't make since to me.

---

Sure it does.......it's the same thing we say when a football recruit commits to another school. "Aaaah heck.... we didn't really want him anyway." ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

I don't buy it. He didn't want to be President, yet he ran twice. Doesn't make since to me.

---

Since it was brought up, it makes sense to most of us :razz:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

I don't buy it. He didn't want to be President, yet he ran twice. Doesn't make since to me.

---

If someone sees the economic and foreign policy mess we've created, and really believes they could make a difference, someone could do this. OTOH, only an idiot would not realize how difficult the job would be to do; how much most of the press will be against tough decisions that would need to be made; how the Senate (with Reid in charge) would work against change; and the tremendous burdens placed on his family. Anyone running against Obama also knew the record of the Chicago-based campaign machine as demonstrated from his previous elections in Illinois.

The damage done by the media and campaign ads was effective. When Obama changed positions, it was accepted that a sensient being's opinions could "evolve"; when Romney changed positions, he was "flip-flopping". With the expertise of Obama's political dirt-digging machine, does it not impress anyone that the worst they could find on Romney was that a woman died five years after he left active involvement with Bain (even though she had other health insurance).

The press (and everyone else) forgave Obama for secretly (he thought) advising the Russians of his anticipated "flexibility" and his expression of his dislike for Netanyahu, but Romney is crucified for thinking that it was likely that 47% of the votes available were beyond his reach because of the message he carried?

Yes, I can imagine that Romney had mixed emotions about being President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

If someone sees the economic and foreign policy mess we've created, and really believes they could make a difference, someone could do this. OTOH, only an idiot would not realize how difficult the job would be to do; how much most of the press will be against tough decisions that would need to be made; how the Senate (with Reid in charge) would work against change; and the tremendous burdens placed on his family. Anyone running against Obama also knew the record of the Chicago-based campaign machine as demonstrated from his previous elections in Illinois.

The damage done by the media and campaign ads was effective. When Obama changed positions, it was accepted that a sensient being's opinions could "evolve"; when Romney changed positions, he was "flip-flopping". With the expertise of Obama's political dirt-digging machine, does it not impress anyone that the worst they could find on Romney was that a woman died five years after he left active involvement with Bain (even though she had other health insurance).

The press (and everyone else) forgave Obama for secretly (he thought) advising the Russians of his anticipated "flexibility" and his expression of his dislike for Netanyahu, but Romney is crucified for thinking that it was likely that 47% of the votes available were beyond his reach because of the message he carried?

Yes, I can imagine that Romney had mixed emotions about being President.

---

If I really didn't want to do something, but let you convince me to try it anyway, and it goes badly, why would I let you convince me to do it all over again? Short term memory loss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blackstone

If I really didn't want to do something, but let you convince me to try it anyway, and it goes badly, why would I let you convince me to do it all over again? Short term memory loss?

---

The article, as I read it, referred to running this time. I did not take it that he had to be convinced to do so the first time. Quite possible that some of the convincing was needed this second time due to the loss the first time. Indeed, he came a lot closer to winning this time. While the electoral votes made it seem like a landslide, the total popular vote count was not really so.

I just read an article a few days ago about Pennsylvania possibly changing its "winner take all" on electoral votes. If there are other states that might do the same, it could mean a difference in future elections. When the large cities so completely overshadow all the other voters in a state, it does make it seem that not all voters have an equal say in the outcome when many votes are totally negated by what could be a very slim majority overall.

I don't necessarily think that Romney was the best candidate for this moment, but his ability to work across the aisle (as he did in MA) and his business experience on how the engine of the economy works would have been valuable. To ignore the need to "fix" SS and Medicare is, to me, is simply asking for trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

When the large cities so completely overshadow all the other voters in a state, it does make it seem that not all voters have an equal say in the outcome when many votes are totally negated ..

---

Id be interested in hearing your logic on this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mjh345

Id be interested in hearing your logic on this

---

it's easy i live down state illinois, chicago has more dead people voting than we have live people in my county

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

I don't necessarily think that Romney was the best candidate for this moment, but his ability to work across the aisle (as he did in MA) and his business experience on how the engine of the economy works would have been valuable. To ignore the need to "fix" SS and Medicare is, to me, is simply asking for trouble.

---

I can’t agree with the contention that Romney worked across the aisle in MA. I know that’s what he claimed during the election, but the facts don’t support it. He vetoed 844 bills passed by the mostly Democratic state legislature. Even his Director of Legislative Affairs, John O’Keefe, said, “He [Romney] seemed to take great delight in vetoing bills. Some of the bills we would chuckle when we wrote the veto message.” That doesn’t seem like someone trying to work across the aisle.

In addition, in the 2nd year of his term, he mounted a campaign to unseat 131 Democratic legislators. He assembled what he called his “Reform Team” of 131 Republican candidates, spent $3 million of Republican Party money, and hired a well know political strategist to mount his offensive. His efforts failed. None of his candidates were elected, but it did manage to alienate Democratic legislators, making them more difficult for him to work with.

Further, his business experience didn’t translate into his fixing the MA economy. After 4 years, MA ranked 47th out of 50 states in job production. Unemployment remained higher than the national average his entire 4 years.

He did balance the budget, but he did it by cutting state funding to cities and towns, which led to cuts in local fireman and police jobs, and led to most cities raising property taxes to make up the shortfall. The average property tax in the state went up by 22% during his 4 years. Plus, he raised corporate taxes and state fees by $750 million per year. College and University fees for students increased by about $2,000 per year. So, the fallout from his economic reforms landed squarely on the backs of the tax payers and residents. So, I’m not sure how valuable his business experience would have been. I agree that SS & Medicare need to be fixed so they are viable, but I don’t think he was the one to do it.