Romney the Centrist Peeks Out

[ringil]

It's inevitable and not extraordinary that he would and will move towards a more centrist position. That's politics 101.

Romney's not my choice but I'm not going to fault him for this.

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by ringil

It's inevitable and not extraordinary that he would and will move towards a more centrist position. That's politics 101.

Romney's not my choice but I'm not going to fault him for this.

Ringil, Romney might not be your choice but my to you for the early call here on CAF. Way back in the pre-Santorum days of Bachmann, Perry, Herman, Newt, you called it all along. Mitt's their guy! You never once had a doubt or waivered for someone who Romney was not their choice. You get the trophy.

[ringil]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Ringil, Romney might not be your choice but my to you for the early call here on CAF. Way back in the pre-Santorum days of Bachmann, Perry, Herman, Newt, you called it all along. Mitt's their guy! You never once had a doubt or waivered for someone who Romney was not their choice. You get the trophy.

Oh this thing was decided LONG ago and I suspect that many around here knew it was as well. I suppose the game can still be fun even if you know the eventual winner.

[ishii]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Would be a Catch 22 for Romney. He wouldn't be able to get reelected either by bending over backwards to the Tea Party conservative types. Liberals over the course of Obama's first term have seen this as well. Every candidate needs independents, not merely their base, and liberals have seen Obama be willing to compromise and to govern more from the center at times than perhaps they'd have preferred.

You always lump together conservatives with the tea partiers in an attempt to defame conservatism. I never said that Romney would have to bend over backwards to keep the tea partiers happy. I think supporting the Ryan budget to help avert the fiscal mess that Obama has gotten us in will endear Romney to conservatives, tea partiers and probably moderates as well - anyone who doesn't want us to have a fiscal crisis and knows that a tax the rich scheme would not do much to lower the deficit, but only feed into class envy. Also if Romney nominates solid justices he will please the conservative base. These are things that are mainstream conservative and also appeal to the mainstream of America because most Americans aren't on the left. That is why Obama care is so unpopular. Sometimes your political analysis is correct but this time I think you're letting your liberal hopes and dreams cloud your vision.

Ishii

[ishii]

Originally Posted by ringil

Oh this thing was decided LONG ago and I suspect that many around here knew it was as well. I suppose the game can still be fun even if you know the eventual winner.

It was decided? By who, a sinister cabal of backroom establishment types conspiring to nominate Romney? Did they orchestrate the rise (and fall) of Perry, then Cain, Gingrich, Santorum et al? This must be some powerful group. Hopefully they can conspire to overthrow the Obama regime.

Ishii

[ringil]

Originally Posted by ishii

It was decided? By who, a sinister cabal of backroom establishment types conspiring to nominate Romney? Did they orchestrate the rise (and fall) of Perry, then Cain, Gingrich, Santorum et al? This must be some powerful group. Hopefully they can conspire to overthrow the Obama regime.

Ishii

The candidate with the best chance will be selected. Yes, folks will play with the flavor of th e day, but in this case it was always going to be Romney.

[ishii]

Originally Posted by ringil

The candidate with the best chance will be selected. Yes, folks will play with the flavor of th e day, but in this case it was always going to be Romney.

If you're saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don't think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we'll never know.

Ishii

[ringil]

Originally Posted by ishii

If you're saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don't think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we'll never know.

Ishii

I'm just comenting that so many pretended that there was really ever a chance that it wasn't going to be Romney. Perhaps hopeful thinking for some but Romney was pretty able to stamp out any meaningful gains by his oponents before any real danger was posed to his eventual nomination.

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by ringil

I'm just comenting that so many pretended that there was really ever a chance that it wasn't going to be Romney. Perhaps hopeful thinking for some but Romney was pretty able to stamp out any meaningful gains by his oponents before any real danger was posed to his eventual nomination.

It was always obvious that Romney was going to go into the convention with the lead; the only issue was whether or not Ron Paul's dream scenario of a contested convention could actually come true. I don't think it can, and so we'll go another four years to wait for that to happen (there hasn't been a contested convention since 1960, and there hasn't been one that was legitimately up for grabs since 1952; there was drama at the DNC in 1968, but Humphrey had the delegates sewn up and it was never going to be anyone but him).

[Lujack]

Originally Posted by ishii

If you're saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don't think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we'll never know.

Ishii

I don't think Pawlenty had the money. He also has less charisma than Romney; I know that some of my College Republican friends would refer to him as "Tim Pawlenty, the most boring man alive".

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by ishii

You always lump together conservatives with the tea partiers in an attempt to defame conservatism. I never said that Romney would have to bend over backwards to keep the tea partiers happy. I think supporting the Ryan budget to help avert the fiscal mess that Obama has gotten us in will endear Romney to conservatives, tea partiers and probably moderates as well - anyone who doesn't want us to have a fiscal crisis and knows that a tax the rich scheme would not do much to lower the deficit, but only feed into class envy. Also if Romney nominates solid justices he will please the conservative base. These are things that are mainstream conservative and also appeal to the mainstream of America because most Americans aren't on the left. That is why Obama care is so unpopular. Sometimes your political analysis is correct but this time I think you're letting your liberal hopes and dreams cloud your vision.

Ishii

Tea Partiers tend to be conservatives, Ishii, judging by those elected in the off yr midterm election of 2010. I don't argue there are not varying degrees on the "right". But the same can be said for the left. And you never heard me say most are on either extreme. The vast middle are inbetween. What saddens me thouigh about the analysis of conservatives is you always lump fairness and justice with "envy".

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by ishii

If you're saying that Romney was the frontrunner and had the best chance I would agree. I don't think there were very many serious contenders this time. Perry showed that he was a lightweight - and unable to debate. Neither Cain nor Bachmann was ever a serious candidate. Newt and Santorum gave Romney a run for his money but they had big negatives that have been discussed already. Romney was the strongest candidate in a mediocre field. Some observers said that Tim Pawlenty dropped out too early - that he could well have come back and challenged Romney and possible won. I guess we'll never know.

Ishii

Bachmann won the Iowa straw poll but wow does that seem like light yrs ago. Cain rose in polling until his personal problems brought him down. Indeed Perry showed he was a lightweight. In the end I would agree the field was mediocre.

[ishii]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

Tea Partiers tend to be conservatives, Ishii, judging by those elected in the off yr midterm election of 2010. I don't argue there are not varying degrees on the "right". But the same can be said for the left. And you never heard me say most are on either extreme. The vast middle are inbetween. What saddens me thouigh about the analysis of conservatives is you always lump fairness and justice with "envy".

Cmatt, conservatives were around before anyone spoke of "teapartiers" and will be around when most have forgotten the tea party movement. But I notice that you speak derogatively of the tea partiers and use them interchangeably with conservatives. The tea party mainly is concerned with fiscal issues and the budget, conservatives are concerned with those issues as well as social issues. But I can understand your desire to marginalize conservatives by calling them "tea partiers".

And no, confiscating others' hard earned money out of a misguided sense of "fairness and justice" will not solve our deficit problems brought on by Obama - but it will make liberals "feel" better - which is what counts for them, I guess.

Ishii

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by ishii

Cmatt, conservatives were around before anyone spoke of "teapartiers" and will be around when most have forgotten the tea party movement. But I notice that you speak derogatively of the tea partiers and use them interchangeably with conservatives. The tea party mainly is concerned with fiscal issues and the budget, conservatives are concerned with those issues as well as social issues. But I can understand your desire to marginalize conservatives by calling them "tea partiers".

And no, confiscating others' hard earned money out of a misguided sense of "fairness and justice" will not solve our deficit problems brought on by Obama - but it will make liberals "feel" better - which is what counts for them, I guess.

Ishii

No one said a thing about all of the deficit problems (which began long before Obama) being fully erased by a fairer tax policy where the wealthiest, those who can afford more, are asked to pay higher rates than they are. But it would be a start to have more revenue coming in to help towards the deficit. That's simple math. But good grief Republicans haven't even been willing to support ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts geared to the wealthy and going back to Clinton era rates for them. I know they try to use the excuse that tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs but it didn't work. We had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts. And of course not even a single Republican of whatever conservative stripe would raise their hand when asked in one of the debates if they would support a deficit reduction plan with even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. Not even a show of a single hand for a 10:1 cuts to revenue ratio! So you might as well lump them altogether. I'd think the Democrats would have a picture of Romney among that group to run in an ad.

[ishii]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

No one said a thing about all of the deficit problems (which began long before Obama) being fully erased by a fairer tax policy where the wealthiest, those who can afford more, are asked to pay higher rates than they are. But it would be a start to have more revenue coming in to help towards the deficit. That's simple math. But good grief Republicans haven't even been willing to support ending the portion of the Bush tax cuts geared to the wealthy and going back to Clinton era rates for them. I know they try to use the excuse that tax cuts for the wealthy would create jobs but it didn't work. We had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts. And of course not even a single Republican of whatever conservative stripe would raise their hand when asked in one of the debates if they would support a deficit reduction plan with even a 10:1 ratio of cuts to revenue increases. Not even a show of a single hand for a 10:1 cuts to revenue ratio! So you might as well lump them altogether. I'd think the Democrats would have a picture of Romney among that group to run in an ad.

I have a hard time taking you seriously, Cmatt. You say we had a Great Recession after the Bush tax cuts - newsflash, Cmatt: the Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001. The recession didn't start until 2008. If the tax cuts caused the Great Recession then it took seven years for that to happen. The Bush tax cuts brought our country out of the Clinton/dot.com bubble recession of 2001. But I can understand your desire to blame lower taxes for the recession as that is part of the soak the rich/class warfare solution that the Democrats offer. As for the deficit, it has risen significantly during Obama's term compared to Bush admin. So its obvious that the biggest problem is Obama's out of control deficit spending - including Obamacare which is (surprise, surprise) going to end up costing way more than earlier projected. But that is what happens when you put the federal government in charge of things - efficiency isn't a trait of the federal govt.

No doubt, Obama will use his billion dollars to smear Romney as being too rich and out of touch. All Romney will have to do is come back and highlight Obama's own failed record during the past four years - including the unemployment rate for women going from 7% to 8.1%. Talk about a war on women!

Ishii