Obama and Romney Hit Final Stretch Part 3

  • Thread starter Thread starter qui_est_ce
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
Not officially, but he is being channeled by Mitt Romney.
Click to expand...
Finally, a bone of contention. I don’t see it. I believe Mitt will be a bi-partisan President willing to put everything on the table. Bush was a red state governor, Romney a deeply blue state governor. Their experience fostered different governmental approaches IMO. Moreover, Romney is not stupid. He obviously knows the various failings of the Bush presidency and his not likely to repeat them. I would not be surprised if Romney adopted the approach used by Bill Clinton following the Republican revolution.
 
iloveangels said:
Getting desperate, I see. Seems to be a Democrat meme today.
Click to expand...
Whether meltzerboy is personally desperate or not, and I think that he’s never been so, his opinion hardy represents the whole of Democratic thought.

BTW, what is a “meme”?
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Finally, a bone of contention. I don’t see it. I believe Mitt will be a bi-partisan President willing to put everything on the table. Bush was a red state governor, Romney a deeply blue state governor. Their experience fostered different governmental approaches IMO. Moreover, Romney is not stupid. He obviously knows the various failings of the Bush presidency and his not likely to repeat them. I would not be surprised if Romney adopted the approach used by Bill Clinton following the Republican revolution.
Click to expand...
I had to throw you a bone…of contention. You think Romney will move to the center, as did Clinton? I’m not sure, given the pressure exerted by the Tea Party and the conservatives who backed him.
 
Pork_Roll said:
I think we are all naively hoping that Romney will overturn Roe vs. Wade. If GWB couldn’t overturn Roe vs. Wade in his 8 years, I doubt that Romney can do it. Romney is using the pro-life movement for votes.
Click to expand...
First, no - Romney isn’t "using the pro-life movement for votes - you’re wrong there. Second, I think you don’t understand how our constitution works. A president doesn’t overturn Roe V Wade. What a president can do is try to shape the supreme court by nominating justices who reflect his view of the constitution who then have to be approved by the Senate - and if the senate is in the hands of folks who do NARAL’s bidding, then it will be even more difficult getting a constructionist judge. George W Bush was able to get Samuel Alito and John Roberts on the supreme court. If a president Romney with a Republican senate takes the advice of his advisor Robert Bork, then we could finally get a anti-Roe V Wade majority on the court. I hope this makes sense to you.
Pork_Roll said:
What we need is an outspoken pro-life president who isn’t afraid of alienating pro-choice voters like Romney is. I thought Santorum would have been that person. But we got Romney. What choices do we have?
Click to expand...
I think Romney has alienated plenty of pro-choice voters by choosing pro-life Catholic Paul Ryan as vice president and Robert Bork as judicial adviser. What choices do we have? We can vote for the pro-life candidate Romney instead of the pro-abortion rights candidate Obama. The choice is a no-brainer.

Ishii
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Finally, a bone of contention. I don’t see it. I believe Mitt will be a bi-partisan President willing to put everything on the table. Bush was a red state governor, Romney a deeply blue state governor. Their experience fostered different governmental approaches IMO. Moreover, Romney is not stupid. He obviously knows the various failings of the Bush presidency and his not likely to repeat them. I would not be surprised if Romney adopted the approach used by Bill Clinton following the Republican revolution.
Click to expand...
You’re right.

Gee, I wonder where Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale are these days?

Waaaalter Mondale. Lost everything but Minnesota and the District of Columbia if my memory serves me correctly. Anyway, it was about 13 electoral votes!! And THAT’S a landslide.

Mondale was from Minnesota. And even the dead in DC vote for a Democrat everytime. They’re as bad as Chicago. Doesn’t matter if they’re corrupt, dead or imaginary. If they’re on the ticket, they’re elected. Disgusting.
 
meltzerboy said:
I had to throw you a bone…
Click to expand...
Thanks. As to your comment on Bush campaigning for Romney, the answer couldn’t be more obvious. The Bush name might work with certain segments of the GOP base, but crossover Democrats and many independents would be turned off. Democrats would love to see Bush campaigning for Romney.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Finally, a bone of contention. I don’t see it. I believe Mitt will be a bi-partisan President willing to put everything on the table. Bush was a red state governor, Romney a deeply blue state governor. Their experience fostered different governmental approaches IMO. Moreover, Romney is not stupid. He obviously knows the various failings of the Bush presidency and his not likely to repeat them. I would not be surprised if Romney adopted the approach used by Bill Clinton following the Republican revolution.
Click to expand...
The GOP wouldn’t work with Obama.

The Democrats, if Romney is elected, are not going to work with him.
 
meltzerboy said:
He is helping the GOP campaign by staying out of it.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall Carter, Mondale or Dukakis being given a very prominet role in subsequent Democrat campaigns either. Of course all lost their elections, but it could be said that insofar as 2008 was a referendum on Bush policies, Bush “lost” as well. People say things like “where is George Bush in the Romney campaign?” thinking they’re saying something real clever, but its just simple politics.

Ishii
 
iloveangels said:
Waaaalter Mondale. Lost everything but Massachusetts and the District of Columbia if my memory serves me correctly.
Click to expand...
It isn’r whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game. Mondale played it most honorably.
 
Tampa_Dave said:
Thanks. As to your comment on Bush campaigning for Romney, the answer couldn’t be more obvious. The Bush name might work with certain segments of the GOP base, but crossover Democrats and many independents would be turned off. Democrats would love to see Bush campaigning for Romney.
Click to expand...
i don’t mind Bush so much as an Ex-President. Most of these guys tend to improve once they leave the Oval Office.
 
ringil said:
The GOP wouldn’t work with Obama.

The Democrats, if Romney is elected, are not going to work with him.
Click to expand...
That’s because these days, Democrats don’t work with anybody. If they can’t get their own way, they want REVENGE. And condoms. And pink vagina suits.
 
The Democrats are better off with Michael Moore, Madonna, Louis Farrakhan, Samuel L. Jackson, Sandra Fluke, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, and the entire MSNBC staff on the campaign trail. Or at least as far as this Republican is concerned. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top