theodorelogan wrote:I was actually wondering today how Romney and Obama's visions of America differ. I couldn't really figure it out. Do you have any reason to believe that Romney would not continue the record deficits? After all, Bush had record deficits until the next guy showed up.

First, I will say if we were just talking economic policy, I would vote for Paul. However, that's not how it works.

Second, I do believe there will be a huge difference. Why?

1. Obama has proven indifferent to deficits. As a businessman, Romney understands ever-increasing deficits drain resources, devalue our currency (even further), and threaten future generations with a bleak outlook. Obama has not lifted a finger to reign in spending or to propose a framework for reducing the deficit. When the negotiations could have been taking place with Congress, Obama voted "present."

2. Romney will have a rather large contingent of Tea Party Republicans in Congress and in the electorate. If he continues the Bush/Obama/Reid/Pelosi increases in spending, he will be a one-term President.

3. Romney is not a revolutionary figure. He is a technocrat. He will work to bring the deficits to heel, but it will be more of a process than I would prefer.

4. This is what Romney does: take failing enterprises and turn them around. Since selling off the parts and firing all the workers is not an option, I think he'll find a way to put us on a path toward prosperity.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Here's the cold, hard truth: 4 more years of Obama and we will be in a financial pit that no one will be able to dig us out of.

1. Obama has proven indifferent to deficits. As a businessman, Romney understands ever-increasing deficits drain resources, devalue our currency (even further), and threaten future generations with a bleak outlook. Obama has not lifted a finger to reign in spending or to propose a framework for reducing the deficit. When the negotiations could have been taking place with Congress, Obama voted "present."

But when pressed for where Romney will cut spending he talks about nickels and dimes. He sounds like all Republican politicians, who get into power and keep voting for big spending.

I get the idea that he worked in the private sector. I don't see this transferring over to politics though.

2. Romney will have a rather large contingent of Tea Party Republicans in Congress and in the electorate. If he continues the Bush/Obama/Reid/Pelosi increases in spending, he will be a one-term President.

We said the same thing about 2000-2006. Bush was not a one termer, and the GOP establishment kept making excuses for him.

3. Romney is not a revolutionary figure. He is a technocrat. He will work to bring the deficits to heel, but it will be more of a process than I would prefer.

Again, where are the specific proposals?

4. This is what Romney does: take failing enterprises and turn them around. Since selling off the parts and firing all the workers is not an option, I think he'll find a way to put us on a path toward prosperity.

The real thing I come away with is that he worked in private enterprise. Yes, I can see how people might see that as a benefit. And no, I don't think he is going to change much other than MAYBE nibbling around the edges. He is the establishment guy, and the establishment (GOP and Democrats) are why we are where we are now. We need big changes, and you will not get them from voting for the establishment that got us into this mess.

Could I be wrong? Sure. Here's the cold, hard truth: 4 more years of Obama and we will be in a financial pit that no one will be able to dig us out of.

The other truth is that with four years of Romney we will be too. We need cuts-big cuts-and we need them ten years ago. Romney is not going to deliver them. You and I both know that. He's changed his positions on so many things, so many times, why would you even hold out hope that THIS time, his vaguely worded promises of reducing government spending will actually be achieved? You are setting yourself up for another disappointment. How many establishment Republican politicians have you lived through who promised reduced spending and produced record deficits? How long are you going to let them con you?

I know you are not going to change your mind about Paul. But the worldwide military presence of the US is going away, whether it is through Paul ordering it, or through financial necessity. The only question is which way you want it...with big cuts in federal spending and power, or through federal bankruptcy? Because it's coming.

theodorelogan wrote:But when pressed for where Romney will cut spending he talks about nickels and dimes. He sounds like all Republican politicians, who get into power and keep voting for big spending.

I get the idea that he worked in the private sector. I don't see this transferring over to politics though.

I do. Business is about efficiency. Lord knows, the government could use a load of that. Cut programs, force efficiency via cuts (make department heads accountable for bringing things in under budget), cut positions, etc.

Specific cuts? I agree, I would like to see a LOT of cuts. Again, on this issue, I'm with Paul. However, in a general election, we already know what this looks like. When Ryan made modest refinements to Medicare, the DNC ran an ad of him throwing an old lady off a cliff.

We said the same thing about 2000-2006. Bush was not a one termer, and the GOP establishment kept making excuses for him.

The Tea Party did not exist and certainly did not have anyone in Congress.

Again, where are the specific proposals?

His 59 point proposal is online somewhere. I have no idea how specific it is. I think it is important we have a President who will listen when cuts come up. I think he will.

The real thing I come away with is that he worked in private enterprise. Yes, I can see how people might see that as a benefit. And no, I don't think he is going to change much other than MAYBE nibbling around the edges. He is the establishment guy, and the establishment (GOP and Democrats) are why we are where we are now. We need big changes, and you will not get them from voting for the establishment that got us into this mess.

If I believe what you are saying, then we're done as a nation anyway. We will be broke in 20 years as the entitlement tidal wave grows and then surges over our head.

The other truth is that with four years of Romney we will be too. We need cuts-big cuts-and we need them ten years ago.

Well then, you better figure out where you want to live because Ron Paul is not going to win. Period.

Romney is not going to deliver them. You and I both know that. He's changed his positions on so many things, so many times, why would you even hold out hope that THIS time, his vaguely worded promises of reducing government spending will actually be achieved? You are setting yourself up for another disappointment.

I don't think so. I think he is the opposite of Bush. Bush was "compassionate conservatism." I think Romney is going to surprise a lot of folks by being far more conservative in governance than they had imagined. The difference between him and Obama is that Romney won't want to run the ship into an iceberg. Obama would like nothing more--even a failed State. Why? Because whatever replaced it would likely be less powerful and more socialist. Obama has always been far left of center and that is not going to change.

I know you are not going to change your mind about Paul. But the worldwide military presence of the US is going away, whether it is through Paul ordering it, or through financial necessity. The only question is which way you want it...with big cuts in federal spending and power, or through federal bankruptcy? Because it's coming.

I've said many times I would cut any number of bases. There is no reason for us to be in Italy, in Germany, and in the UK. We should reduce our troops in South Korea. I would pull us out of Afghanistan.

We don't have to go bankrupt, but it will take someone with a businessman's eye to pull us out of the fire.

Alright well all I can say then is we'll see. I think Romney is going to have a tough time differentiating himself from Obama in the general. But the anti-Obama sentiment is pretty strong and will likely get stronger, so maybe we'll get to see whic of us is right about Romney

rickyp wrote:I'll predict that his eonomic team make up actually becomes a part of some television commericial or other. Only because tieing Mitt to Bush would be an obvious winning strategy. And its pretty easy to do with these bios....
(And its not guilt by association. He hired these guys.)
Pretty hard for Mitt to defend too.

Well considering 56% of people think Obama is that same as or worse then Bush, I am not sure it would be such a sure thing hurt for Romney.

Reason to include those in the "Same As" category as a negative for Obama is that

those who say Obama has been about the same as Bush generally view Obama negatively, with 27% approving and 62% disapproving of the way Obama is handling his job as president.

Steve:

I think Romney is going to surprise a lot of folks by being far more conservative in governance than they had imagined.

I wonder about this. It seems to me that you need 2 attributes to pull this off: 1. a conservative core and 2. steely nerves. Reagan and Thatcher had both. Christie would enjoy it. Paul would do it, but perhaps in a dangerous way.

Romney would have to curtail or even cut government spending and not raise taxes. There will be pain; there will be vested interests that want the status quo; there will probably be an economic dip when federal spending is reduced. There will be intense Democratic, Occupy, and media outrage.

I didn't closely follow Mass politics when Romney was governor, but my sense is that he is mostly a get along type. What's the evidence that he will stay true to his currently espoused conservative principles?

Ray Jay wrote:Steve:

I think Romney is going to surprise a lot of folks by being far more conservative in governance than they had imagined.

I wonder about this. It seems to me that you need 2 attributes to pull this off: 1. a conservative core and 2. steely nerves. Reagan and Thatcher had both. Christie would enjoy it. Paul would do it, but perhaps in a dangerous way.

Romney would have to curtail or even cut government spending and not raise taxes. There will be pain; there will be vested interests that want the status quo; there will probably be an economic dip when federal spending is reduced. There will be intense Democratic, Occupy, and media outrage.

I didn't closely follow Mass politics when Romney was governor, but my sense is that he is mostly a get along type. What's the evidence that he will stay true to his currently espoused conservative principles?

My only evidence, and it's pretty much like the "evidence" Mr. Ricky presents, is sheer extrapolation with a healthy dollop of hope. I think Romney stopped the Mass health debacle from being worse than it is. He can't say that because it makes him look a victim, which is not presidential.

I don't believe there will be a dip when spending is reduced. Why not? Because I think the banishment of Obamacare will move many companies off the sideline and get a lot of the $2T in reserves off the sideline. I think there will be a major economic sigh of relief the moment Obama is defeated.

Occupy have shown themselves to be what I always said they were: leftist rabble. Their moves to shut down ports, protest Christmas, and even their attempts to interfere with the Iowa caucus show them for who they are. If they carry on, their approval rate will be something akin to Congress by election day.

The Democrats will cry no matter what. This is what they do. For every faux moderate like McCaskill, there are dozens of quasi-socialists, like Waters, Pelosi, Frank, Sanders, Mikulski, Boxer, etc.

I think we will see the beginning of a real recovery by Inauguration Day, 2013. This will embolden Romney to at least listen to the likes of Ryan.

You sound like the dewey-eyed Obama supporters who though Obama was going to end the wars and put a stop to the crony capitalism going on in DC.

archduke

Well considering 56% of people think Obama is that same as or worse then Bush, I am not sure it would be such a sure thing hurt for Romney

and from your source:

A plurality of respondents, 43 percent, said Obama was a better president than Bush.

The headline could have been 65% think Obama is better or the same as Bush.

No one is going to quibble with the description of Obama's Presidency as disappointing. But it needs reminding that the majority of Americans still blame the 8 years of Bush for the hole, and Obama only for not digging out of it fast enough. If Romney is tied to Bush, and its possible not just in staff but in his support for a lot of Bush mistakes (i,e, Iraq) ...

I noticed that Gingrich continues to lead the polls in South Carolina and is very close in Florida. Maybe there is a twist in the story in those states yet?

rickyp wrote:The headline could have been 65% think Obama is better or the same as Bush.

Uhm did you see my second post? You know the one that said the reason to include the same in the worse then category is that 62% of them think Obama is a bad President? I think that pretty much says that even though they think Obama is the same as Bush, they ain't gonna vote for him.

To go back a little bit...

Archduke Russell John wrote:

RUFFHAUS 8 wrote: The 4th Ammedment says nothing about abortion. The 10th Ammendment says that all powers not listen are to be left to the states.

And the 9th Amendment says the preceeding 8 rights is not an exhaustive list of protected rights. In other words there are some rights the Federal, and through the 14th A, States, can not interfer with. Is it possible controlling ones reproductive processes is one of them?

Additionally, the 10th Amendment actually says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" (bold for emphasis).

States Righters often ignore the last four words of the 10th.

The favourability of Obama is not that relevant to the Republican Nomination. Comparative figures for Republican candidates are, but not his +- figures. Neither is his comparison with Bush. As some are fond of pointing out, Bush is not standing (and didn't stand last time).

The real question at hand in this thread is who will win the GOP candidacy. Romney looks like the favourite still. Santorum might snatch Iowa after a late surge, but does he have the staying power for a sustained challenge? I don't think so. Each of the Great Right Hopes has faded.

Santorum might snatch Iowa after a late surge, but does he have the staying power for a sustained challenge?

Could it be he's running with an eye for the VP position? He's certainly not offended any of his opponents with his campaigning .And his inclusion on the ticket would provide enthusiasm for the religious right who distrust the Mormon?

theodorelogan wrote:You sound like the dewey-eyed Obama supporters who though Obama was going to end the wars and put a stop to the crony capitalism going on in DC.

You need your "ears" checked.

Not only was that a highly qualified statement, but I've repeatedly said I would welcome someone else into the race. I would prefer several non-candidates.

theodorelogan wrote:You sound like the dewey-eyed Obama supporters who though Obama was going to end the wars and put a stop to the crony capitalism going on in DC.

You mean like a Paulista who thinks he'd do the same?

Yeah right.