|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 RomneyIm kinda surprised. dok |
||
|
From a psychological perspective makes a certain amount of sense From a practical perspective it makes zero sense. Nothing has fundamentally changed enough in this country to remotely suggest that guy that didn't get the nod last time can get the nod this time. |
||
|
I believe that the voting public is ready for a little "America First" type talk from somebody with some actual experience behind them. But, more likely we are ready for a real "outsider" who is not a career politician. |
||
|
And most of his career has not been as a politician. At all. You don't know much about the guy do you? There have been multiple presidents that have run three times and then won. Ronald Reagan did. Vastly popular. He ran against the first Black President. An uphill climb to say the least. Maybe you have something substantive against him besides snubs. You probably don't mind Bloombergs money or Kerry or Clinton.... Clinton is a lifetime politician that made all of his money in politicking. I believe 100 million. And he made a lot of that speaking for his wife---hired by the State Dept she ran...no complaints about that? What is it that you think would preclude him from being a very successful president? dok |
||
|
Nobody does that. He just happens to care about things. dok |
||
|
saintinsanity 10-Jan-15, 12:04 |
|
||
|
DOK Romney is great but might fail the "strength" test. |
||
|
|
||
|
He is no different than anyone else. He is wealthy. Very. But it seems like people are really hung up on that when he isn't even the top of the wealthiest politicians list. prog, you made the comment that he was a billionaire and pawn seems to agree that this precludes him from being able to represent the people well. Have you any idea how wealthy some of our greatest presidents were? Including the founders? You may not like him, fair enough, but if he has been too successful for you, that strikes me as strange. I would prefer a person that was as successful as we could find. Be that Ben Carson or whomever. Thats a good thing. As for Romney's career. He was Governor for four years. He has held no other office and he is almost 70 years old. Not sure how that translates into 'much of his adult life"...but he actually hasn't done that at all. I believe he is 67 years old. He doesn't look it though. He looks like 55 to me. Softie, what do you mean by the strength test? He's a nice guy, that has been an absolute force in everything he has ever done. That is a good thing. As for modern presidents running: There is this: www.washingtonpost.com dok |
||
|
In short, he'd be correct again just like in the debates with Obama, but he'd not pounce on it and not make a good advantage of it. |
||
|
The bigger point stands. America said no once. What has fundamentally changed that would make them say yes now? Nothing. I have nothing against him. He's probably a nice enough guy but I've seen nothing that would convince me he's got a real shot. |
||
|
Also, the American public found out that th points he made during the debates about the economy and geo-political issues were more accurate than perhaps any other person that spoke up in years. His insight and understanding surpassed the pundits and the experts alike. He is very bright. He has also spent a lot of time supporting and helping the Republican party in the election and helped them gain the Congressional gavels they needed. Id say thats a lot. As for your mistake, no big deal...I make them all the time. Seriously, its hard to think one thing and find out you weren't right and then admit it. I have a lot of respect for that. Softie, I know you are a die hard constitutionalist. And I appreciate that. I have many leanings that way as well. But, I think that Romney, if anything is smart. HE will learn from his mistakes and do better. He could've won last time--and many thought he would. He improved dramatically from his first attempt and going the nomination. I suspect that if he is serious about this, that we may not know a man among us that is more capable of improving on his past performance than he is... The article I quoted says the same thing. dok |
||
|
Dok |
||
|
anomalocaris 12-Jan-15, 15:22 |
America I do think Softy has a point though. If Romney goes against Hillary , everything he says will either be too weak or it will be the war on women all over again. it will be a tough spot. |
||
|
Next president. |
||
|
Honestly, I see prog point and stinky's and ace's... And they are all legitimate. In fact, they tell me one thing: Politics is tough! Progs: It is true, Americans may not care enough. But then again, they may. I believe they care in cycles. When things are good, they just let things go and they are easy. NO agenda to push. When things are bad or under pressure however, Americans wake up and get involved and they do it in very powerful ways. Perhaps the answer is this: Will sentiment be stimulated during the election which os by no means happening tomorrow. If they feel that the world is struggling, then the democrats are going to have a very difficult time not getting their noses bloodied by whoever gets the nomination because they can't run from 8 years of policy. Likewise, half of America has been gritting its teeth trying to bear the last 6 years of pain while wishing their guy had been in there. Strengthened by being proven right over and over, Romney may be the face that they trust this time because they realize how stupid they were and how very capable he is. Ace, I don't think Hillary is going to be as strong as people think. Bill has been an anchor for her among the portion of voters that aren't in love with er without being able to tell you one thing she has accomplished in her career besides Benghazi. The recent terror attacks and her poor recent performances tell me she would have been a formidable candidate 8 years ago. But today, she seems to be a half step slow and not so strong as she was in the past---politically speaking. dok |
||
|
jonheck 13-Jan-15, 11:05 |
|
||
|
dok |
