…you haven’t provided anything but a litany of complaints about a group of capable and intelligent individuals, all of whom would be a huge improvement over Obama.
That’s actually not true. I’ve dealt more soberly with the GOP candidates than you have.
Given Obama’s dismal approval ratings, the lackluster economy, the questions about the Justice Dept aka the Gift that Keeps on Giving, the Green Energy debacle, the rising of Iran, the Arab Spring that looks more like Muslim Bros’ Revenge, why do you think he’s such a shoo-in for re-election?
Because none of these guys is the right one.
Just for grins and giggles, how many of the debates have you watched? What are your impressions of the candidates and what are those impressions based on—other than what seem to be some preconceived ideas and talking points
This is how someone describes someone else’s thoughts and arguments when they stubbornly refuse to listen to them. Thanks for assuming that I’m totally ignorant, though.
about Romney and Gingrich in particular.
You just blow off the fact that Newt is an incredible scholar,
Hardly. A man who cannot secure tenure at the University of West Georgia cannot be described as an ‘incredible scholar’–sorry.
successful author, think tank enterpreneur, and self made millionaire.
So? Obama is a successful author, AND an accomplished scholar, unlike Gingrich. This didn’t prevent him from becoming a spectacular failure as a president. I’m an accomplished lepidopterist with impeccable conservative credentials, why not elect me, Lisa?
He’s quick on his feet, a fabulous debater and would mop the floor with Obama if they went head to head.
We’ll see.
Romney although born into some wealth is also self made, a successful turnaround artist, understands business, has a squeaky clean family life and business track record.
**He’ll lose for the same reasons that John Kerry lost, except x10. In the contest of Bush v. Kerry, one of the deciding factors was Bush’s populism and folksy character. America just couldn’t get behind the whole obnoxiously-tidy, upper-crust, East Coast Liberal-thing. Mitt Romney brings us a similar presentation, except during a period where everyone’s feeling poorer and more resentful of people who wear suits than ever.
This is completely aside from the documented fact that the man is a phony: he’s a ‘lifelong hunter,’ ‘totally pro-life,’ and completely against Obama’s socialist healthcare–that, to his credit, he pioneered.
Ultimately, ‘blame the bankers’ always wins. Envy will be more motivating in our nation’s decision between two men (Romney and Obama) who would both do everything to improve our economy. The expertise that Romney, as an individual, could bring to the handling of the economy are marginal–the critical details would likely be handled by experts and technocrats, regardless.
Therefore, the ‘business-savvy’ argument comes down to a man who has done something remotely similar to the job he’s applying for, vs. a man who has 3-4years experience actually doing the job. **
I liked him in 08 and like him better now. I like both of these candidates and would happily vote for either.
Geeze, and here you are accusing me of letting my opinions/biases do the arguing for me…
Oh and Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the 20th Century. No contest. So saying ‘he wasn’t that great’ means you are either woefully uninformed or are a lefty plant who’s on CAF just to rile us up.
THIS, FYI, is an ad hominem. That is, I don’t share your opinion, so therefore I’m either (A) or (B). Also, to remind you, this is Catholic Answers Forum not Conservative Answers Forum. Apparently I didn’t get the memo that slavish devotion to the GOP’s pick was a requirement for membership…
Which is it?
Lisa
