The Inevitable Mitt Romney Tour Running Thread

[Stitch]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

I can't take anyone seriously if they actually believe the tripe about them being afraid of not recognizing America if the incumbent wins. It was a BS statement in 2004 during W.'s re-election campaign, and it's BS this time around. Are you going to move to Canada if Obama wins?

 

[LongTimeListener]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

LOLZ!

We had to destroy the village to save the village.

I am still waiting for Armageddon to arrive as predicted by John Boehner vis a vis health care.

 

[Brian]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

I can't take anyone seriously if they actually believe the tripe about them being afraid of not recognizing America if the incumbent wins. It was a BS statement in 2004 during W.'s re-election campaign, and it's BS this time around. Are you going to move to Canada if Obama wins?

I, perhaps naively, believed if Bush were re-elected in 2004 that America would attack Iran.

I simply don't see how electing Mitt Romney changes America's course so significantly?

Do we really believe he's going to tackle entitlement spending in the U.S.? Do we really believe ANYONE has the political fortitude to do that?

I don't.

 

[DanOregon]

I think there will be a big vote against Obama, I just don't know if there will be a big enough vote FOR Romney to get him over the hump (the low turnout in his wins kind of speaks to that). You think of Reagan and Clinton, the most recent examples of candidates who unseated a President, Romney isn't in that league.

 

[Bob Cook]

You're not going to recognize your country in four years no matter who wins, if for no other reason than the masses of aging white Baby Boomers and even older white people are being replaced mostly with minorities, particularly Latinos, and recently arrived immigrants. The younger population is much more ethnically and religiously diverse, is much more likely to approve of, say, gay marriage and drug legalization.

Not for nothin', but minorities are among the most ardent opposition to gay marriage.

And, Starman is polling WAY ahead of Mitt here in Va. So all of you in the "Romney is inevitable" crowd can suck on that. And once we get Bob Cook as our running mate, the sky's the limit. ;D

What you say is true to some extent, although the differences by age are still true whatever the racial/ethnic breakdown.

Still, the Republicans are blowing a golden opportunity with the Hispanic vote. Regarding social issues, there is a large audience that would be supportive of Republicans. Yet not only has the party at large not courted them effectively, many seems active in pissing them off as much as possible to look tough to the currently active crop of older white voters. Short-term gain, perhaps, but given that Hispanics made up more than half of the U.S. population growth from 2000-2010 (a rate expected to accelerate), that could cause some serious long-term pain.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

I'm not going to sit here and spew hyperbole about how Obama is ruining the country, but I think he's been a colossal disappointment as President. Part of that was due to unrealistic promises and expectations. Would Romney be better? I think it would be naive to say yes, but I'm willing to give him a chance, even though I'm far from being a big fan of his.

I think Romney is a flawed candidate, who I'm not particularly thrilled with, but he's a pretty good referendum candidate. If you want to vote against Obama, he is a solid, responsible choice.

 

[Starman]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

Shut off your radio and boost your IQ 100 points.

 

[Magic In The Night]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol

You're not going to recognize your country in four years no matter who wins, if for no other reason than the masses of aging white Baby Boomers and even older white people are being replaced mostly with minorities, particularly Latinos, and recently arrived immigrants. The younger population is much more ethnically and religiously diverse, is much more likely to approve of, say, gay marriage and drug legalization.

Beyond race and ethnicity, the overall trend for population growth is slow, because of the large aging (and dying) part of the country. So we won't get fast growth that comes with lots of people having lots of babies.

I don't mean to bring this up to accuse you or anyone of being racist or unduly nostalgic. But the people who say we need to "take our country back" have to be aware that you can't take it back to 1955 or 1981 or whatever ideal year is stuck in your head. Profound changes are coming no matter who is President.

The thing is, the younger generation doesn't necessarily vote, especially in off-year elections. So most in Congress don't feel beholden to doing things they want done and will continue to pander to older voters and their corporate overlords.

 

[steveu]

I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

Shut off your radio and boost your IQ 100 points.

Wow. That's good.

For the record, I don't listen to either Limbaugh OR Glenn Beck. Can't a guy be allowed to state his opinion of what the country might look like under a second term of Obama without being referred to as a forking dittohead?

My arguments about not recognizing this country lean toward health care. Obamacare is one big piece of crap. If the Supreme Court renders it unconstitutional, I'll breathe a lot easier. Yet Mitt Romney endorsed the same damn thing in Massachusetts. I understand why a lot of GOP'ers don't like Romney for that reason, and I'm one of them.

I consider myself more of a fiscal conservative, pro-life but leaning in the direction of civil unions/gay marriage. So in short, I am NOT your stereotypical, bible-thumping, Republican. If anything, the Republican party is going to have to change to fit the future direction of the country. Current generations are far more permissive than previous ones were.

But yet people brand the GOP as getting their news from Beck, Limbaugh, Fox, etc. (And I don't watch Fox News, either.)

 

[Justin_Rice]

My arguments about not recognizing this country lean toward health care. Obamacare is one big piece of crap.

Elaborate.

What makes "Obamacare" one big piece of crap?

 

[Starman]

The alternative to Obamacare is for everyone to buy huge buckets of vaseline, bend over, and let the kind and generous insurance companies ram it to us for the rest of our lives.

And the main problem with Obamacare is it allows too much of that to continue. Of course that's the result of Obama's brilliant "punt on first down" strategy in effect for most of 2009-2011.


Most of the components of "Obamacare" are wildly popular in polling -- it's only when the oogie-boogie Faux Fascist Propaganda wingnut brand name is used that eyeballs start spinning backwards in their sockets and the pea-soup vomiting begins.

 

[steveu]

Okay. I don't want to take this thread too far off topic, but since you asked...

1. The individual mandate. We've had this discussion before on this board, but I happen to believe this is an intrusion of government into your private life. What's next? Will the government tell you what you can eat? What type of car you can drive? Where you can live? If a business is mandated to purchase insurance for its employers and it cannot afford to do so, it will either take the individual fine per employee or, even worse, cut workers to save on paying salary/benefits.

2. No establishment of a free market for insurance. If you're allowed to buy your insurance from a company across state lines, and policies offer the same amount of coverage for differing prices, eventually more insurance offers will drive down the cost of premiums.

3. No real attempt at tort reform. You're asking doctors to pay through their ass for malpractice insurance, and some lawsuits that go through the system are considered frivolous. Real tort/malpractice reform is a first step toward lowering malpractice-insurance cost and, to an extent, lowering premium costs.

4. Dozens of tax increases, including tax hikes on investment income. Discourages investing in mutual funds, stocks, and saving money in general. Payroll taxes go up, leaving you with less take-home pay.

That's at least four. Look, I don't deny some form of health overhaul is needed. The "we need to pass the bill so you can see what's in it" approach does not work.