By REID J. EPSTEIN | 3/3/13 9:08 AM EST Updated: 3/3/13 5:14 PM EST Four months after he lost to President Barack Obama, Mitt Romney says “it kills me” not to be in the White House finding solutions to the nation’s problems.
In his first television interview since the election, the former Massachusetts governor and Republican presidential nominee told Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday” that he was convinced he’d win until Ohio’s vote came in, and that he damaged his campaign by failing to attract black and Hispanic voters and speaking too freely in his infamous “47 percent” comments.
Romney’s wife, Ann, blamed the media and Obama’s campaign for offering what she described as an unfairly skewed vision of her husband.
Both Romneys said he would be more effective at navigating the current political moment.
“I’ll look at what’s happening right now, I wish I were there,” Mitt Romney said. “It kills me not to be there, not to be in the White House doing what needs to be done. The president is the leader of the nation. The president brings people together, does the deals, does the trades, knocks the heads together; the president leads. And — and I don’t see that kind of — of leadership happening right now.”
Romney, like congressional Republicans, accused Obama of “campaigning” rather than governing as the sequester loomed. That, Romney said, has been counterproductive.
“Well, no one can think that that’s been a success for the president,” Romney said. “He didn’t think the sequester would happen. It is happening. To date, what we’ve seen is a — the president out campaigning to the American people, doing rallies around the country, flying around the country and berating Republicans and blaming and pointing. Now, what does that do? That causes the Republicans to — to retrench and to put up a wall and to fight back. It’s a very natural human emotion.”
Ann Romney said her husband, had he won, would have solved the sequester by now.
“I totally believe at this moment, if Mitt were there in the office, that we would not be facing sequestration right now,” she said.
Up until polls closed on Election Day, both Romneys were convinced they would be in the White House.
“Yeah, I think we were convinced that we would win,” Mitt Romney said.
Ann Romney said she had no doubt: “I for sure did. I think Mitt intellectually was thinking that it was possible we couldn’t; he knew how close it was.”
Only after he saw the Ohio numbers did Romney realize it would not be.
“It was a slow recognition until ultimately when the Ohio numbers began coming in and they were disappointing,” he said. “I said, look, this looks like we’ve lost — wasn’t certain. Some people said, ‘Oh, look, if this number here comes in, why, you could win.’ But you know, by 8 or 9 o’clock, it was pretty clear that we were not going to win.”
Romney called his inability to win black and Hispanic votes “a real weakness” and said future GOP candidates must do better. He blamed himself for the infamous “47 percent” comments and said he should have been more careful when speaking privately — as he thought he was at the fundraiser in Boca Raton, Fla.
“The weakness that our campaign had and that I had is we weren’t effective in — in taking my message primarily to minority voters, to Hispanic-Americans, African-Americans, other minorities,” he said. “That was a real weakness. Uh, we did very well with the majority population, but not with minority populations. And — and that was a — that was a failing. That was a real mistake.”
Romney called the “47 percent” video unfortunate — as he did when it was leaked by Mother Jones magazine — and doesn’t represent what he believes. He acknowledged that it was damaging.
“You know, when you speak in private, uh, you don’t spend as much time thinking about how something could be twisted and distorted and — and it could come out wrong and be used,” Romney said. “But, you know, I did. And it was very harmful. What I said is not what I believe. Obviously, my whole campaign — my whole life has been devoted to helping people, all of the people. I care about all the people of the country. But, uh, but that hurt. There’s no question that hurt and did real damage to my campaign.”
Romney also said the lengthy GOP presidential primary season, in which he was pummeled for months by Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, hurt his general election chances. But he would not acknowledge that he altered his positions to win the Republican nomination.
“The idea that somehow … the primary made me become more conservative than I was just isn’t, isn’t accurate,” Romney said. “On the other hand, a long and blistering primary, where people are attacking one another and where the attacks sometimes are not on the mark but are creating an un — you know, unfavorable impression — those things are not helpful.”
Ann Romney also said no one in Massachusetts approached her about running for John Kerry’s Senate seat — and that she would have said no if they had.
“No, they didn’t approach me,” she told Wallace. “I don’t think — I think there was a thought that, ‘Oh, wouldn’t that be fun for Ann to do that?’ I’m like, ‘Did anyone want to consider how fun it would be for me to do that?’”
Ann Romney did confirm during the interview aired Sunday that she was asked to appear on the ABC show “Dancing With the Stars” but felt she was not in good enough dancing shape.
“I did consider it,” she told Wallace. “I love the show.”
“I would’ve loved to have done it, and I am turning 64, and I started thinking about it,” she said. “I’m not really as flexible as I should be. And now I know, I understand, Dorothy Hamill is been picked, and I thought, oh my gosh, am I glad I didn’t do that! I wouldn’t want to compete against Dorothy!”
While Romney took the blame for his defeat, absolving New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for appearing with Obama after Hurricane Sandy, his wife was more revealing about her feelings. She said she was “blindsided” by the president’s ground game, which she acknowledged was better than their own.
Ann Romney was also tougher than her husband in criticizing the media coverage of the campaign and the Obama operation’s response to it.
“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.
Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Like I said during the run up. We had our pick of the two finest morons the country could produce.
Neither is a moron but the sentiment is understood. One is not interested in managing the executive function, but only achieving his particular vision, and destruction of the opposing party to achieve that. The other is is Mitt Romney.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AduroT wrote: For the record, if I was in the White House, I would have already solved this whole Sequester issue thing as well, and am also sad I'm not there.
I would have solved the budget and the economy, as well as started preparing us against the pending alien invasion.
On the plus side, its what March? US divisions would have taken Western Canada by now, and bypassed Mexico City and its way south to the Isthmus of Panama. Manifest Destiny! This Time its Vertical!
I think we can take this crying and public sour grapes as a good indication we had a narrow escape.
Bring Huntsman next time, hell even my wife would consider voting for him (I might even be allowed to vote by then!). I know he's got contraversial ideas like 'evolution' and 'climate change' both being real, but if you can get him past your own rabid lunatics in the primaries, he might stand a chance of winning, instead of offering up the change in the wind billionaire or any of the total nutters who actual came close to being the candidate:
Married multiple times, dumps each wife when they get ill, dumped one wife for refusing swinging clubs. Wants to build moonbase...
Hates the gays, thinks the rest of the world should also be Texas, slightly stupider than toast...
Pizzalord, very very strange, highly creepy... likes the ladies, even if they don't like him...
Simple country boy, similar world view as that scary as feth preacher from poltergeist, wants to reintroduce witch burnings...
Ann Romney wrote:“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.
Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”
She seems like the only woman I would punch without cause.
The Republicans had a golden opportunity to defeat a president who was presiding over a flat-lining economy. I read that before the 2012 election, no incumbent had ever won an election with the unemployment figures that Obama had at the time, and yet, Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
I think we can take this crying and public sour grapes as a good indication we had a narrow escape.
Bring Huntsman next time, hell even my wife would consider voting for him (I might even be allowed to vote by then!). I know he's got contraversial ideas like 'evolution' and 'climate change' both being real, but if you can get him past your own rabid lunatics in the primaries, he might stand a chance of winning, instead of offering up the change in the wind billionaire or any of the total nutters who actual came close to being the candidate:
Married multiple times, dumps each wife when they get ill, dumped one wife for refusing swinging clubs. Wants to build moonbase...
Hates the gays, thinks the rest of the world should also be Texas, slightly stupider than toast...
Pizzalord, very very strange, highly creepy... likes the ladies, even if they don't like him...
Simple country boy, similar world view as that scary as feth preacher from poltergeist, wants to reintroduce witch burnings...
Holy Fething gak!!!
None of the above... 'cept, maybe Gingrich simply because of his combative interviews.... makes great pundit source materials.
I actually like Rubio... but, he has problems with the base... so, who knows who will be next in the primary.
I don't understand how they were 'convinced' they were going to win. The polls just didn't add up that way as they went into election day. They could have hoped to win, but feeling sure things were going blow their way at the last moment is just deluded.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't understand how they were 'convinced' they were going to win. The polls just didn't add up that way as they went into election day. They could have hoped to win, but feeling sure things were going blow their way at the last moment is just deluded.
Like I said, history was on the Republican side. No incumbent had ever been re-elected with the unemployment stats that Obama had. I don't blame Mitt for being confident.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't understand how they were 'convinced' they were going to win. The polls just didn't add up that way as they went into election day. They could have hoped to win, but feeling sure things were going blow their way at the last moment is just deluded.
Well... one thing that the Obama campaign did remarkably well as to reach out to the low information/rare voters... they had a top notch ground-swell program.
All of this changed the dynamic of the "traditional" voting history. I think the easy access to information/new media/facebook/twitter/etc... played a large role now.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't understand how they were 'convinced' they were going to win. The polls just didn't add up that way as they went into election day. They could have hoped to win, but feeling sure things were going blow their way at the last moment is just deluded.
It's mind boggling, really. Mrs. Romney says she "is happy to blame the media", but the only way that makes sense is if she's talking about the right-wing media. The MSM reported pretty damn accurately that he was unlikely to win fairly well in advance of the election.
Romney called the “47 percent” video unfortunate — as he did when it was leaked by Mother Jones magazine — and doesn’t represent what he believes.
Perhaps for his next election, Mr. Romney can avoid saying highly inflammatory things that he doesn't even believe.
I watched CNN all through the election, if anything they did Romney a big favor and made him up into a serious contender so they'd have ratings for their 'hologram roundtable' hype garbage.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: I watched CNN all through the election, if anything they did Romney a big favor and made him up into a serious contender so they'd have ratings for their 'hologram roundtable' hype garbage.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I don't understand how they were 'convinced' they were going to win. The polls just didn't add up that way as they went into election day. They could have hoped to win, but feeling sure things were going blow their way at the last moment is just deluded.
Like I said, history was on the Republican side. No incumbent had ever been re-elected with the unemployment stats that Obama had. I don't blame Mitt for being confident.
Few people actually think of themselves as being incompetent enough to blow a sure thing.
I will say this, I did not like Romneys wife. Her comments about knowing what the common women goes through when prancing around on a horse is rediculous
hotsauceman1 wrote: I will say this, I did not like Romneys wife. Her comments about knowing what the common women goes through when prancing around on a horse is rediculous
Even though I agree with you....
This statement seems strange coming from a poster with a MLP avatar.
What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
Of course she understands the plight of working women. She employs several to clean her houses.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
That's my point, I know working families with one parent who not only keep horses but actively compete with them. This is a dumb arse straw man to make at the Romney clan when you can actually just come out and say "Mrs. Romney is an extremely wealthy woman and has never walked a day in the shoes of working class Americans" but yeah go with the horse thing.
Ok, You dont get it. Its meant to be an example.
How about the fact that she can put several boys through college when many cannot put one.
the point is that many working women are not able to go on a stroll with their horse rather then not work
Ann Romney wrote:“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.
Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”
She seems like the only woman I would punch without cause.
Punch a woman?! Why you're no gentleman you, you...jellyfish!
Ann Romney wrote:“It was not just the campaign’s fault,” she said of his defeat. “I believe it was the media’s fault as well, is that he was not giving — being given a fair shake, that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was,” she said.
Asked why that was, she responded: “I’m happy to blame the media.”
She seems like the only woman I would punch without cause.
Punch a woman?! Why you're no gentleman you, you...jellyfish!
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
Why can she not understand it?
Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter? Hardly. If that were the case, then this forum would be a dead wasteland.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
Why can she not understand it?
Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter?
Considering how many times certain people tell others to shut up based on the flag next to their name, you would think so.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.
I think that's a flawed assumption on your part, one of many you've made in this line of reasoning.
to follow this up...
I mean heck let's go through the thought process here.
First you say she (Ann Romney) can't possibly understand the plight of the working mother because she owns a horse. This assumes that working mothers can't own horses, they do. While Mrs. Romney's therapy horse is undoubtedly a well bred and well trained animal, more so then many Americans would own (you pay for the extra training when you have so little muscle control you can barely support yourself in the saddle) the basic fact of the matter is that Americans of all income levels and domestic situations own horses.
Next you say Mrs. Romney can't understand because she's put multiple children through college, I know working mothers personally who have done just that, probably with a bit more government help then the Romneys but that's not exactly surprising is it?
Next you have to live something to understand it, well there's a certain amount of truth to it, through living things we might be able to comprehend them better, but that's another assumption on our part. People make careers out of empathy and understanding how to help those in need, even though I doubt even half of those people have lived those circumstances.
So now you consider that Ann Romney has been extensively involved with programs to help assist inner city youth, working directly with those who need help and it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she might know what she's talking about.
I'm not a fan of the Romneys by any extent but you're talking out your gakhole.
djones520 wrote: I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.
Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.
Have you guys tried blaming the victim?
I'd say in this case, the victim is the whole board. I'll stop here though before I become the subject of more "moderation". It's been a while since I've had a post deleted...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Someone can sympathize yes, but truly understanding means living it.
I think that's a flawed assumption on your part, one of many you've made in this line of reasoning.
to follow this up...
I mean heck let's go through the thought process here.
First you say she (Ann Romney) can't possibly understand the plight of the working mother because she owns a horse. This assumes that working mothers can't own horses, they do. While Mrs. Romney's therapy horse is undoubtedly a well bred and well trained animal, more so then many Americans would own (you pay for the extra training when you have so little muscle control you can barely support yourself in the saddle) the basic fact of the matter is that Americans of all income levels and domestic situations own horses.
Next you say Mrs. Romney can't understand because she's put multiple children through college, I know working mothers personally who have done just that, probably with a bit more government help then the Romneys but that's not exactly surprising is it?
Next you have to live something to understand it, well there's a certain amount of truth to it, through living things we might be able to comprehend them better, but that's another assumption on our part. People make careers out of empathy and understanding how to help those in need, even though I doubt even half of those people have lived those circumstances.
So now you consider that Ann Romney has been extensively involved with programs to help assist inner city youth, working directly with those who need help and it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that she might know what she's talking about.
I'm not a fan of the Romneys by any extent but you're talking out your gakhole.
I'd like to add a bit to those comments to point out that Mitt Romney served as a Bishop. Anyone that knows a Bishop in the LDS church can tell you it is a heavy responsibility, and quite often end up helping families in crisis. These people that are helped are not part of the faceless masses, but people well known to the Bishop and his family. Quite often, the wife of the Bishop will also help these families and find herself an intimate with them.
The belief that the Romney's live in a vacumn, not understanding the problems people face was one of the hugest myths of the campaign, played off some remarks taken out of context or poorly worded.
I think that Mr. Romney might have been more successful in swatting away the wealth type arguments if he had said yes, "the president and I are both millionaires" and stuck to that message consistently.
I think the real problem his campaign, actually, came from Frazzled. As he said , "I believe he believed the 47% comment". I also believe that he really believes that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it, and he wouldn't be describing it now as "speaking too freely". I think that's an apt way of putting it as the mask truly slipped for a moment.
I don't think that anyone, of either party, should be president when they believe 47% of the country "believes they are victims" and because they are poor, they don't have "personal responsibility or care about their lives". I don't think the income tax is an arbiter of the Americans the President is supposed to care about.
The fact that he still doesn't see it makes me think that indeed, we dodged one here.
Also, in an ideal world, after you lose the election, you go the eff away for at least 3 years, bro. Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.
Ouze wrote: Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.
Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.
Ouze wrote: Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.
Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.
Cheney shot a guy, and got that guy to apologize, and you don't think he'd be fun to hang out with?
Man, I'd love to spend a day with a guy like that.
I'd love to have a beer with Cheney, try to get all the dirt on the various evils he's perpetrated throughout the world and get myself an Exec position at Halliburton.
Mannahnin wrote: I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.
That's a reasonable point of concern, although it would normally be more productive to express that via a yellow triangle on the post in question. It's entirely possible for moderators to overlook things, and we do make some mistakes.
That being said, it does seem that that particular post did not draw any flames, and instead served only to demean the guy who posted it. Sometimes a reasonable approach is to give someone enough rope to hang himself.
To be honest, I never thought he had a chance. I think people knew it too. From the start, it felt like no one wanted to even try to to run. The entire primary was full of second string and unknown people. All the quality options just stayed out.
djones520 wrote: I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.
Make the case that wanting to punch women without cause is a conservative point of view if you want to see that particular comment removed.
You're still on the forum. And I deleted more posts in this thread from people with whom you usually disagree than from folks on your side of the ideological spectrum.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
That's my point, I know working families with one parent who not only keep horses but actively compete with them. This is a dumb arse straw man to make at the Romney clan when you can actually just come out and say "Mrs. Romney is an extremely wealthy woman and has never walked a day in the shoes of working class Americans" but yeah go with the horse thing.
Ann Romney doesn't just "own a horse." This isn't a horse to ride around on a nice day or compete in hunter-jumper competitions after practicing really really hard, this isn't an off-track thoroughbred. This is a dressage horse. This is a horse valued at $500,000 which competes in the Olympics. She's not even the full owner, she shares ownership, as in common with high end animals like that. This isn't a pleasure horse, this is a top of the line, ultra expensive horse involved in an insanely expensive and "upper crust" sport. This is a horse which the Romney's claimed a 70,000 tax deduction for.
To say "She has a horse" is waaaay oversimplifying it. I know a couple of horse owning ladies, and they are hardworking, barn mucking, blood sweat and tears dedicated, beat-up pickup driving horse owners. Ann has nothing at all in common with them.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What's wrong with having a horse again? If my income was a little higher I'd have a mare. Sure it's not a high bred mare like Mrs. Romney's and I wouldn't buy such a horse if I could afford one because I have a preference for mustangs straight from the plains but I seriously don't understand the issue, lots of people own horses, and more of them are out of the Romney's tax bracket then are in it. Especially here out west.
Nothing, but saying that you understand the plight of a single working mom while you have a horse is kinda difficult.
Why can she not understand it?
Does someone have to experience something to sympathize, understand, or otherwise speak intelligently on the matter?
Considering how many times certain people tell others to shut up based on the flag next to their name, you would think so.
This was beautiful, 10/10 would read again. Exalted to the fullest extent of a the papacy.
Ouze wrote: I think that Mr. Romney might have been more successful in swatting away the wealth type arguments if he had said yes, "the president and I are both millionaires" and stuck to that message consistently.
I think the real problem his campaign, actually, came from Frazzled. As he said , "I believe he believed the 47% comment". I also believe that he really believes that - otherwise he wouldn't have said it, and he wouldn't be describing it now as "speaking too freely". I think that's an apt way of putting it as the mask truly slipped for a moment.
I don't think that anyone, of either party, should be president when they believe 47% of the country "believes they are victims" and because they are poor, they don't have "personal responsibility or care about their lives". I don't think the income tax is an arbiter of the Americans the President is supposed to care about.
The fact that he still doesn't see it makes me think that indeed, we dodged one here.
I'm not sure that any candidate in recent memory has really had the backs of the middle class. So I don't think that Romney's belief would necessarily have made him a bad president. I do think that his failure to stay on message -- or generate any coherent message at all, really -- and lead a successful campaign against a highly vulnerable incumbent suggest that his leadership skills ultimately weren't POTUS-caliber.
The Obama team ran a technologically superior campaign, no doubt. And few here have beat the demographics drum as much as me. But campaigns are still about messages. The Obama team's message was as flimsy as "Romney is a detached rich guy," and Romney and company showed little ability to deflect that or even avoid walking straight into it (hello 47%...a gift from God to the Dems if I've ever seen one).
They also allowed those little gaffes like the Olympic comments in the UK etc. to stick. Those would have been swatted away easily by a candidate and campaign with a coherent, relentless, resonant message that they can keep cycling back to. As a former flight instructor of mine once told me -- and this great lesson applies to not just aviation but almost anything in life -- even Chuck Yeager makes mistakes when he flies. The difference between him and you and me is that he's constantly identifying and making the proper corrections so that we don't even notice.
The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him. If the people he's selected aren't getting the job done, he has to recognize that and do something about it. Romney's campaign was bleeding out all last summer, and he either didn't realize it or decided to make no adjustments. And that was basically that.
Romney might be a very strong leader compared to most of us. I'm not doubting that. But Anne and Mitt -- there is NO WAY you can look at that weaksauce campaign of yours and say, "yeah...now THAT'S a POTUS!" It's past time for you to go.
Mannahnin wrote: I've edited or deleted a few posts which were off topic or feeding a troll. -Mannahnin
I like you did this, while leaving the post of the guy who said he wanted to punch a woman with MS for no cause.
That's a reasonable point of concern, although it would normally be more productive to express that via a yellow triangle on the post in question. It's entirely possible for moderators to overlook things, and we do make some mistakes.
That being said, it does seem that that particular post did not draw any flames, and instead served only to demean the guy who posted it. Sometimes a reasonable approach is to give someone enough rope to hang himself.
Appreciate it! Ask my DnD buddies, it's always good to have more rope!
sebster wrote: Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.
Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!
sebster wrote: Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.
Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!
Please, tell me more about how when Mr. Romney took office January 2013, he would have avoided the effects of legislation passed in Ausgust 2011 (with unanimous Senate votes) which formed the super-commitee, who failed and set the stage for sequestration, having closed up shop January 2012.
Sure, Obama signed the bill. But lets not pretend both houses didn't pass it and hand it to him first, yes? But, if you do decide to tell me more, please do so here - this thread is about how Mitt Romney had a sad.
sebster wrote: Oh look, more Republicans dreaming that it's Obama's fault that the Republicans aren't taking the deal on sequestration that they said they wanted.
Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!
Please, tell me more about how when Mr. Romney took office January 2013, he would have avoided the effects of legislation passed in Ausgust 2011 (with unanimous Senate votes) which formed the super-commitee, who failed and set the stage for sequestration, having closed up shop January 2012.
Sure, Obama signed the bill. But lets not pretend both houses didn't pass it and hand it to him first, yes?
Oh... I don't know... maybe a more realistic plan?
You know, if Mittens had been elected. Also would have been known as "the dumbest thing that would have ever happened in America since Bush Jr. was elected twice".
And yeah, I felt bad for Mrs. Romney due to her physical disabilities...but those disabilities shouldn't include "doesn't know when to shut up".
You know, if Mittens had been elected. Also would have been known as "the dumbest thing that would have ever happened in America since Bush Jr. was elected twice".
And yeah, I felt bad for Mrs. Romney due to her physical disabilities...but those disabilities shouldn't include "doesn't know when to shut up".
Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...
whembly wrote: Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...
It's like some folks prefer despot dictators...
I don't support Chavez, at all, and never have - just as I don't support the people who see a thread about a famous dead person and feel the need to get in there and crap on their memory before the body is cold (that's not directed at you).
whembly wrote: Jeeze... what I find ironic is that those who regularly lambast the Mittens also supports Chavez...
It's like some folks prefer despot dictators...
I don't support Chavez, at all, and never have.
Sorry...didn't mean any dakkanauts...
Putting it this way... the people who sang with glee at the death of Andrew Breitbart will scold us for not showing the proper respect to Chavez. I'm thinking of staying off twittah tonight.
EDIT: sorry... ^^^ this here really should be in the Chavez thread.
Sigvatr wrote: Well, it is. If Mitt was elected, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Obama handling this issue reminds me of a game of chicken. And he decided to fully crash into the other car. What a president! 'MERICA!
That only makes sense if you don't look at the substance of what Obama is offering. When you look and see Obama is offering exactly what Republicans claimed they wanted (entitlement reform and tax deduction reform), you start to see it is a very strange game of chicken.
Obama - Okay, to stop these cars colliding I'll move to the left. Republicans - No way. This can only be avoided if you promise to move your car to the left. Other Democrats - Uh, Republicans, Obama just said he'd move his car to the left, so we're all good. Republicans - Yeah, but we don't believe him, so lets crash.
Putting it this way... the people who sang with glee at the death of Andrew Breitbart will scold us for not showing the proper respect to Chavez. I'm thinking of staying off twittah tonight. EDIT: sorry... ^^^ this here really should be in the Chavez thread.
Breitbart is a strange case, because when someone says what he said on the death of Teddy Kennedy, well there's no reason to expect people to respect his death.
Not that I'd say anything nasty about someone's death (what's the point, really?) but I also wasn't about to criticise anyone for being nasty on the death of Breitbart, as nothing I read was anywhere near as nasty as what he'd said about Teddy Kennedy.
And bare in mind I didn't even like Teddy Kennedy. But seriously, just read what Breitbart said on his death;
"Kennedy is my villain. He took me from left to right during the Thomas hearings. Really. Then read Joe McGuiness book & I wanted to puke." "he was a f@#$er. a big ass motherf@#$er. this aint a 24-hour zone, baby. he was a bad, bad dude. & if mary jo were your kin youd be dancin'." "I'll shut my mouth for Carter. That's just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement."
The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.
No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.
The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.
No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.
The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.
No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.
The problem with that analogy is that directors usually hire the talent. In politics, the talent hires his director.
The candidate obviously isn't personally responsible for every aspect of the campaign, but the buck still stops with him.
No, it really doesn't, that's what naifs claim. The candidate is the talent, the campaign manager is the director, and the party is the producer. In this case they all failed miserably.
The problem with that analogy is that directors usually hire the talent. In politics, the talent hires his director.
Sort of, the relationship between a candidate and a campaign manager tends to be one of mutual agreement. You don't apply to be a campaign manager, you establish a relationship that makes you the presumed "choice". Mind, this goes both ways, candidates glad-hand campaign managers as much as campaign managers glad-hand candidates.
Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.
Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.
Than ANY you can think of? What's it like trying to think with that extra hole in your head?
I had the good fortune to see every single primary candidate from both parties due to both the Repubs and Dims holding their debates at my school. It was very interesting. In person Mitt was very convincing on economic policy but completely out of touch on military affairs. Very much a Reagan-Cold War view of the role of the military and how it should be outfitted. Obama looked like he was about to fill his trousers, but I guess that is understandable when you're a black dude running for president and debating on the campus where students started the Civil War. And not on the side that won. And they all have guns in their room.
MarsNZ wrote: Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.
Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.
MarsNZ wrote: Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.
Another republican president was exactly what I'd expected last year, colour me surprised, America.
MarsNZ wrote:Chavez was a better president than any US president I can think of, he actually had the concerns of his people in mind, also he never invaded anyone illegally, so there's that. An ounce of respect for the recently departed would be nice.
Roosevelt, FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy. That's just the 20th century.
I thought JFK was actually sort of an awful president, on the whole.
I thought Teddy did both awful things and awesome things, but mostly the latter. Also it seems kind of unfair to apply 2013 value judgements on a man from 1900.
Ouze wrote: Go show some of the class George W. Bush showed. Don't be Cheney.
Another thing that comes up sometimes is the "would you have a beer with him" factor. I don't agree with quite a few things that Bush did, but I think he would be a nice guy to hang out with and to have a conversation with. Clinton seems like he would be a hoot, and I think I could spend an afternoon talking to Obama. But I just don't see anything I would talk to Romney about, or Cheney.
My oldest brother met him twice while in the Marines. Once at a ball, and once while protecting him in France. He said Bush was a VERY cool guy, that you could easily have a drink with. Not so on many other politicians and leaders he has met else where.
I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.
A President being likable is a pretty huge factor, that often directly impacts their ability to get some things done.
Fair point, I didnt consider that, But for some reason "President you can have a beer with" still irks me for some reason. I think it may be because it is an anti-intellectual argument that reached out to the LCD.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I dont get the "President you can have a beer with" it turns the election to something even more like highschool prom election. I dont care if a president is "Likable" or "Fun." Why? Because im never going to meet them for that beer.
While you or I won't ever get to meet the President socially, lots of other high ranking people from other organizations and governments will. It is very important for a president to be socially adept.
But I think he's got a reasonable point that being socially adept and able to interact productively with the folks the President needs to is a bit different from being someone you average LCD voter feels like he would enjoy having a beer with. I do think there's an element of not wanting our President to be "too smart"/unapproachable there. When in reality we really do want the most competent (which includes both social and intellectual abilities) person we can get there. Not really an Everyman, which was part of Bush's appeal to many voters.
I have friends who served wtih HMX-1 during the Clinton and Dubya years (Presidential Helo Squadron) and he said it was always his experience that the Clintons were always very distant and/or just on the edge of rude to any military personnel who might be around under flag rank, but the first time Dubya went out to Camp David the first thing he did was shake hands and jaw briefly with the Marine security and helo mechanics out there, then did little stuff like opening up the President's personal theater to the Marines and sailors, then at random he'd walk in, get some popcorn, grab a chair and just "hang out" very personable guy over all.
While that is cool(I kinda like GB for that kinda stuff)
But the point is, the argument leans towards "Do you want an Uppity First class show pony for a president or a Laid back cool guy for president" and not if they are distant or not.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Fair point, I didnt consider that, But for some reason "President you can have a beer with" still irks me for some reason. I think it may be because it is an anti-intellectual argument that reached out to the LCD.
I agree with this fully. However, that anti-intellectualism has become a necessity in order to win some states.
d-usa wrote:Is "do I want a beer with him" really any more or less important than "do I want the guy with the horse owning wife"?
I would say so, yes. While I think the "do I want a beer with him" argument is just an anti-inellectual perversion of the "is he socially intelligent, or is he just a robot with a human suit" question; the "do I want the guy with the horse-owning wife" is somewhat of an indicator of just how out-of-touch someone can be during a time when 40% of the country is close to or below the poverty line. Particularly when an entire campaign is based around image being substituted for fact, the horse element is quite representative of either that candidate's cluelessness or else sheer arrogance (or both, in Mitt's case).
d-usa wrote:Is "do I want a beer with him" really any more or less important than "do I want the guy with the horse owning wife"?
I would say so, yes. While I think the "do I want a beer with him" argument is just an anti-inellectual perversion of the "is he socially intelligent, or is he just a robot with a human suit" question; the "do I want the guy with the horse-owning wife" is somewhat of an indicator of just how out-of-touch someone can be during a time when 40% of the country is close to or below the poverty line. Particularly when an entire campaign is based around image being substituted for fact, the horse element is quite representative of either that candidate's cluelessness or else sheer arrogance (or both, in Mitt's case).
I suppose that a horse is good enough to base a choice between two rich schmucks off of.
Between two guys wealthier than most of us will ever be, although the President's level of wealth is much more achievable,
One is a guy who gew up with fairly well-off parents and grandparents (and clearly a successful stepdad), but went to prep school on a scholarship, then undergrad at Occidental and Columbia and worked for five years before going to Harvard Law and being elected President of the Law Review, and seems to be in a position of needing to work to support his family (although of course, once you've been President, you can pretty much work part time writing books and doing speaking tours).
One is a guy who grew up rich, went to prep schools and Harvard straight up (though did take a couple of years out for missionary work), and currently has a family net worth of around 300 million, counting himself, his wife, and the trust fund he established for his kids.
The horse thing is just symbolic of the kind of wealth where you can buy and sell companies, will never have to work again, and neither will any of your kids or their kids or probably any of their grandkids or great-grandkids either.
It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.
I agree that the shorthand "owning a horse" is an inaccurate encapsulation of the concept being expressed, as lots of people who aren't rich own horses. Owning an Olympic show horse worth hundreds of thousands of dollars is much more symbolic of her/their wealth and perspective, but it's not nearly as pithy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.
Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
Mannahnin wrote: I agree that the shorthand "owning a horse" is an inaccurate encapsulation of the concept being expressed, as lots of people who aren't rich own horses. Owning an Olympic show horse worth hundreds of thousands of dollars is much more symbolic of her/their wealth and perspective, but it's not nearly as pithy.
I won't say it's not a fair point though Rafalca, the Oympics show horse in question isn't worth over $100,000, the total number of horses the Romney's own is over $250,000 which is based out of a Moorpark California stable that Mrs. Romney's a senior partner in. Any less ridiculous? To me not really, I have expensive hobbies too, and mine don't make me money or win international sporting awards. Just a matter of scale at that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've heard you can get horse super cheap in the UK; mostly in lasagne.
Kilkrazy wrote: Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.
Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.
Kilkrazy wrote: Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.
Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.
Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.
Kilkrazy wrote: Mrs Romney doesn't have to budget for her surgery, or her two Cadillacs, or her children's university fees.
Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.
And Romney spent just shy of a decade involved in work for his church, in addition to working his job full time. I'm not a big fan of Mormons but their clergy work hard for their communities and you see everyone in their churches from the lowest to the highest. Ann Romney has also been extensively involved with charity work for underprivileged children in Massachusetts and nationwide. I'm still not seeing much difference here. Both are rich, both are schmucks, both have put in time with the poor. One guy's just richer then the other guy. Both are out of touch, with reality at least if not the country.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
I can't agree. Obama didn't grow up so wealthy that neither he nor his kids would ever have to work; nor is he so rich now that his kids won't have to. And he spent five years working with the poor as a community organizer between undergrad and law school.
Further, I would hardly describe Obama as a career university man. Sure, he was a lecturer at U Chicago, but he was also employed as an associate attorney, and an attorney of counsel during the same period; while also being involved with various NPOs.
I'm also going to dispute the idea that "career university men" belong to the upper class, and cannot understand the plight of the common man. Some do, the ones that teach at upper-tier private schools, but state school professors don't make a lot of money considering that they generally spend 9-10 years in school, the majority of which are spent living on a ~15-25k stipend (depending on the school).
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.
But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.
Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.
Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.
Were you trying to miss the point? The difference isn't to hold Romney accountable for being born into affluence- the difference is that he tried to convey that he understood what it was like to not have been, when every single piece of information we saw and every quip he made demonstrated the opposite. Romney was born so far above the middle class that he could only read about it in books, and he didn't even bother to do that because he was born so rich he'd never need to.
azazel the cat wrote: But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.
I think that second part of your post is the salient element here. While they both are rich now, at least Obama knew at one point what it felt not to be.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.
But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.
I think I mis-communicated, in the choice between a cosmetic surgery and the horse I chose the surgery, because being blind sucks.
azazel the cat wrote: But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.
I think that second part of your post is the salient element here. While they both are rich now, at least Obama knew at one point what it felt not to be.
Yes, Obama was well aware of what it was like to be in the upper middle class, what hardship he must have felt.
Yeah, your comments equating the situations of the two really don't correspond to reality.
One is a guy who had to work for a living. The other never needed to. One is a guy who, if he hadn't become President would have been comfortably able to put his kids through school and help them get good jobs. The other is a guy who could endow entire schools, and whose kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will never have to work a day in their lives unless they feel like it. I'm not saying this is makes them in any way bad people, but when you have three hundred million dollars or so, I'm not going to be shocked or saddened when people find that worthy of comment or parody.
d-usa wrote: So a burger walks into a pup, the owner asks "why the long face?"
You're on a roll lately!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: Yeah, your comments equating the situations of the two really don't correspond to reality.
One is a guy who had to work for a living. The other never needed to. One is a guy who, if he hadn't become President would have been comfortably able to put his kids through school and help them get good jobs. The other is a guy who could endow entire schools, and whose kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will never have to work a day in their lives unless they feel like it. I'm not saying this is makes them in any way bad people, but when you have three hundred million dollars or so, I'm not going to be shocked or saddened when people find that worthy of comment or parody.
Yeah... that's a fair point.... I've liken'ed the Presidency similar to "American Idol" now. And Obama just oozes Charisma...
But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
While it's worthy of parody, it's true that almost all our presidents are both wealthy and graduated from Yale or Harvard.
Personally, I don't see a ton wrong with Romney's comments. As someone who was on the fence, and ended up voting for Obama, I have been wondering the exact same thing- "Would Romney have handled this sequester / economic situation better?" (Note: Not, would he have been a better president, as obviously I voted the other way)
I've had this discussion a number of times in-person and it does bother me how far left Obama planted his flag (from my perspective) both in his acceptance speech, and his state of the union speech, and how little he spoke about the economy in either. I think it's fantastic that democrats and republicans may be able to reach a grand bargain on immigration- but I want a grand bargain on the economy, too.
My friend and coworker is of the opinion that Obama did this as a debate tactic. If that's so, and it works, he'll end up with my support in the end. But if his agenda for his second term is truly a laundry list of democratic "wants", and little to do with the economy, he'll have definitely swung me back the other way.
To put this in perspective- I work in a building with 3 companies. 2 have closed within the last year, and my company has laid off half of it's workforce (not me- yet... but I'm looking for jobs at this point just in case, obviously). The economy should absolutely be remaining front and center, and I absolutely wonder if Romney would be handling the current economic climate better.
Again, not if he would be a better president overall, but if he would be handling these economic problems better. He'd obviously have more support from the House. Would the Senate compromise with him...? Who knows. But he's done it in a business environment, and it's a valid question.
If you don't think it's a valid question, I really think you're not looking at the issues, and I don't think he's a "sore loser" for saying out loud that he thinks he could've handled this crisis well.
No, I don't think he's a sore loser for saying he could handle this well; but I think he kinda is for all the other stuff he said in that interview.
I agree with you that I think Romney would have handled it as well though, mostly because I don't think there was a huge amount of difference between either one of them really, policy wise. A few niggles here and there but ultimately I think on many important issues, but especially the economy at large, the President can do a lot to ruin it, but not too much to fix it; just a cheerleader really.
Ouze wrote: No, I don't think he's a sore loser for saying he could handle this well; but I think he kinda is for all the other stuff he said in that interview.
I agree with you that I think Romney would have handled it as well though, mostly because I don't think there was a huge amount of difference between either one of them really, policy wise. A few niggles here and there but ultimately I think on many important issues, but especially the economy at large, the President can do a lot to ruin it, but not too much to fix it; just a cheerleader really.
Okay... let's backup... what can the President do for the Economy? Obama or Romney? I mean...really?
Obama's problem is with the Republican House... had Romney been elected, he'd have problems with the Democratic Senate.
The real problem is in Congress... are we asking our President to be leaders of their parties to facilitate optimal governance?
And Romney spent just shy of a decade involved in work for his church, in addition to working his job full time. I'm not a big fan of Mormons but their clergy work hard for their communities and you see everyone in their churches from the lowest to the highest. Ann Romney has also been extensively involved with charity work for underprivileged children in Massachusetts and nationwide. I'm still not seeing much difference here. Both are rich, both are schmucks, both have put in time with the poor. One guy's just richer then the other guy. Both are out of touch, with reality at least if not the country.
That hits it right there. I have close friends who were and others who are currently Bishops in their wards as Romney was in his, and it is no picnic. It is a 5 year calling where not a lot of their life can they call their own. My friends days start working their regular jobs for sometimes as long as 12 hours, after which they make it home for an hour or so before going out for yet more hours to perform their calling. They can expect to be rousted at all hours, day or night to deal with any number of problems, such as helping with someone needing money for food or rent, or hospital care to comforting the families of someone who died or is in crisis. Pretty much any hardship a human can imagine going through, they have had to help with as well as deal with any situation they have going on at home. At the end of the 5 years, they may well again be asked to serve another 5 years, which I have seen happen more than once and they accept.
None of this is done for money, because there is no paid clergy in the LDS church, it's all lay people working in the various offices. It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.
Even after the time as Bishop ends, there are always other responsibilities laid on, as most members will find themselves working in some capacity. Home teaching is something members universally get called to do. That involves being given families to take care of to make sure they have what they need in the way of material and spiritual support.
I'd say that Mitt Romney definitely is in touch with people and their problems just by virtue of the callings he has served in.
Relapse wrote: It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.
Any leadership position will involve making choices that are unpopular with some, and many of the people you are supposed to be leading will opt out as a result; yet people still seek (or accept) those positions for petty reasons like prestige and glory. What makes leadership in the Mormon Church any different?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I have friends who served wtih HMX-1 during the Clinton and Dubya years (Presidential Helo Squadron) and he said it was always his experience that the Clintons were always very distant and/or just on the edge of rude to any military personnel who might be around under flag rank, but the first time Dubya went out to Camp David the first thing he did was shake hands and jaw briefly with the Marine security and helo mechanics out there, then did little stuff like opening up the President's personal theater to the Marines and sailors, then at random he'd walk in, get some popcorn, grab a chair and just "hang out" very personable guy over all.
Cool. It had been like 12 months since I heard a 'Clintons are arrogant and rude to the military' story from a guy who knows a guy who said this guy he knows serves who met the Clintons and they were totally rude.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Good for them. Neither do a lot of people who make a lot more money then I do, which given my income level at present is pretty much everyone. I suppose I'm just failing to see the point. Obama and Romney as individuals both chose certain professional paths, and were financially rewarded for them. I doubt either man or his family has ever wanted for anything. What I do find interesting is that both are almost perfect representations of the two poles of America's upper class. The corporate executive and the career university man who went into politics. Neither understands the plight of the common individual.
True.
I mean, beyond money and connections there is a massive difference between someone like Romney or Obama that makes them and their life experience fundamentally different to our own - they are very successful individuals. The plight of the common man, on the other hand, is basically by definition mediocrity. Minimal achievements, modest job, no fame.
I mean, we can look at a president and think 'I'll never know what it's like to command armies, set policy that affects millions, and dictate the course of history' and if a president ever set himself to really think about our experiences they'll likely think 'I'll never know what it's like to reach middle age and realise that whatever I achieve, I am basically irrelevant to the course of human history'.
Which, you know, is okay. The problem comes with pretending that they are like us, and therefore the best person for the job is the one most like us. It doesn't just lead to very unexceptional individuals sometimes getting picked, it also leads to a culture in which some very talented people have to start pretending to be like us. And that really is a cult of mediocrity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, I have to agree it was clever of Romney to choose to be born the son of a top executive of a major corporation, and Obama was rather foolish to choose to be born the son of a black Kenyan immigrant.
Why doesn't everyone have the intelligence to choose to be born into a rich family? The world's problems would be solved overnight. It must be because only rich people are brainy enough to make such life choices.
I don't think there's much to be gained by trying to criticise people for simply being born in to wealth. I mean, Romney could simply by virtue of his birth led a comfortable life, but instead he worked to make his own money (albeit aided greatly by his Dad's connections), shift into politics and make a run at the presidency.
The mistake I think people make is in thinking his wealth, or anyone else's wealth, is somehow an indicator that a person is more likely to succeed in politics. As if business success somehow means they have any understand at all of economic policy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Yeah... that's a fair point.... I've liken'ed the Presidency similar to "American Idol" now. And Obama just oozes Charisma...
But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
It isn't a good thing or a bad thing. It isn't a thing at all when it comes to answering the question of whether a person will be capable as a President, and whether his policies are what the country needs.
It's funny that you liken it to American Idol, because that show loves to have those little life story moments, about their sick mum or their brother with irritable bowel syndrome or whatever. And I just sit there asking 'yes, but can they fething sing?'
Same thing with the presidency, all this nonsense about who's richer than who, and the question has to be asked 'yes, but can what are their policies?'
Relapse wrote: It's definitely not done for glory. A friend of mine had members in his ward leave because he got called, and quite a few times a Bishop will have to make a descision that will upset people.
Any leadership position will involve making choices that are unpopular with some, and many of the people you are supposed to be leading will opt out as a result; yet people still seek (or accept) those positions for petty reasons like prestige and glory. What makes leadership in the Mormon Church any different?
A fair enough statement that I can only answer through the observations I have been able to make over the years along with similar stories I have heard from other friends. Perhaps there are some who have a strange notion of glory about what it is to accept such a calling, but they are few and far between, and in all my years, I have never met such. As I said, it's a rough position that would break a lot of people within the first year. That being said, I am also told there is no feeling like being in a position to help people that really need it.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:It's just such a stupid symbol of it. I'd own a horse right now if I didn't have to budget for my surgery this coming week and I'm a limbo dance away from the poverty line.
But you do have to budget for your surgery and you are a limbo dance away from the poverty line, so you don't own a horse. Romney does own a horse, and but tried to pretend like he'd ever known what it was like to be in your situation.
I think I mis-communicated, in the choice between a cosmetic surgery and the horse I chose the surgery, because being blind sucks.
Perhaps I miscommunicated. I'm not juding your choice for (what I would not to be mere consider cosmetic surgery). My entire point is that there was never an instant in Romney's life where he would have had to make an either/or decision like that; yet he tried to pass himself off as understanding what it would be like to do so.
whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
2. Romney used his inherited wealth and connections to create a company that would turn other companies into chop shops, laying off American workers and sending their jobs overseas.
3. Nobody was throwing tomatoes at Romney because he was "too rich/successful". The Romney hate stemmed from the fact that his opinions were informed by an upbringing that had ensured he never once knew the sweet flavour of ketchup-packet soup, then went on to make a business career out of facilitating the need to eat that particular cuisine for the lower-working class, and finally would go on to act as though the very people he may have put out of a job were parasites on the system, despite Romney himself disappearing massive amounts of wealth from the US economy in the process.
Relapse wrote: Perhaps there are some who have a strange notion of glory about what it is to accept such a calling, but they are few and far between, and in all my years, I have never met such. As I said, it's a rough position that would break a lot of people within the first year.
No offense, but the mere fact that it "...would break a lot of people..." makes the position a great opportunity for glory.
whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
2. Romney used his inherited wealth
You probably means, his parents helped him go to school and all that jazz... what parent doesn't do this?
and connections to create a company that would turn other companies into chop shops, laying off American workers and sending their jobs overseas.
And you continually ignore the companies that they've rescued... cherry picking today...ain't ya.
Staples for one... A sporting company for another that I can't remember the name. Oh yea, the Olympics.
3. Nobody was throwing tomatoes at Romney because he was "too rich/successful".
Um... you haven't paid enough attention then.
The Romney hate stemmed from the fact that his opinions were informed by an upbringing that had ensured he never once knew the sweet flavour of ketchup-packet soup, then went on to make a business career out of facilitating the need to eat that particular cuisine for the lower-working class, and finally would go on to act as though the very people he may have put out of a job were parasites on the system, despite Romney himself disappearing massive amounts of wealth from the US economy in the process.
Okay... we get it... you dislike really successful business folks.
Because that statement just there can be tweaked for just about ANY successful folks... gak, I can probably turn it around and make it fit with Obama's decision to shut down the WH tours because of sequesaggedon. o.O
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.
Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.
Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.
So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?
Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?
And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.
Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.
So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?
Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?
And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?
Not really, not many white people living in Canada really notice institutionalized racism partly because they never experienced what it's truly like to be a minority for example, I genuinely believe you can't know what something is like until you've experienced it.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
As has already been said hundreds of times, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money isn't the issue, the fact that he has a ridiculous amount of money and kept on going on about how he knew what it was like to not have that money was the issue.
Your addendum emphasises the point. He had enough money that he could give away his entire inheritance and still be considered to be really rich, but still went on about knowing what it was like to be poor.
So... to know what it's like... you'd have to experience it?
Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is?
And he was a bishop for his church helping people? Or even a couple to buy a house?
Not really, not many white people living in Canada really notice institutionalized racism partly because they never experienced what it's truly like to be a minority for example, I genuinely believe you can't know what something is like until you've experienced it.
I guess what I'm saying you could attempt to emphasize another's loss or lack of 'whatever'.
But, I'm tired of the whole, "it never happened to you, so you don't know how I'm feeling" argument. While that's true if you want to get down to it, but saying a person, who's never gone through it, can never understand it... just baffles me.
In this case, it isn't like Romney was pushing the "bootstrap" thing on everyone. o.O
whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
Honestly, no. My dislike for him has little to do with being a weathy businessman (other than the fact that he's squandered his wealth, rather than doing "good" with it; but that's an entirely different conversation). Private weath is not the reason why I dislike Romney. My dislike comes from the fact that he tries to pass off his condescending self-righteousness as understanding what it's like to be poor (see: 47% speech or his use of social safety net "entitlements" in the pejorative).
whembly wrote:But that really didn't bother me so much as folks were dinging Romney for being too rich/successful. He still had to work for his wealth and I don't know about you... but for all of Romney's faults, him being rich and how he acquired his wealth to me is a good thing.
1. Romney did not have to "work" for his wealth; he inherited it.
That just jumps out at me that you really dislike the guy because his parents was rich. Don't you know discrimination is a bad thing?
He gave away his inheritance when his dad died (because he was already rich).
Honestly, no. My dislike for him has little to do with being a weathy businessman (other than the fact that he's squandered his wealth, rather than doing "good" with it; but that's an entirely different conversation). Private weath is not the reason why I dislike Romney. My dislike comes from the fact that he tries to pass off his condescending self-righteousness as understanding what it's like to be poor (see: 47% speech or his use of social safety net "entitlements" in the pejorative).
Fair enough man... the opposition did a number on him during the campaign and a few foot-in-the-mouth episodes.
I'd suspect that if you knew him as the Governor of Massachusetts (and let's face it, that's how he'd be as Prez)... you'd actually like him.
It's not the wealth that's the problem, but more his attitude. An article from cracked sums up why some people have problems with wealthy people not because of envy, but because of the rich persons attitude towards that wealth
What is are Religous cult leader upset,( sorry, Mormons you are still a cult.)that he not president.Well he should join the Illumanatis then he would have won.
I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
Me neither... but, then again, the anti-mormon bias was institutionalized. gak... I think my own state (Missouri) had laws where it was allowed to shoot mormons on sight. o.O
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.
That, and killing your peeps tend to rub you the wrong way.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.
So you have one practice that isn't even followed by the majority of the church? Cause all the mormons I know have explained that the polygamists have been excommunicated, and are considered extremist nut bars. I mean it'd be far more reasonable to condemn a much larger world religion for it's polygamist practices...
KalashnikovMarine wrote:I've never gotten the massive amount of bias against mormons besides the whole door to door jesus sales thing. No crazier then any one else who believes in an invisible best friend in the sky.
Well, the polygamy communes are a pretty terrible functioning practice that's worthy of dislike.
Not to mention, part of their belief system is "We are better then you." My friend is mormon, and his family left Utah because of that mentality. My cousin converted and now has the mentality of that. Its a generalization ofcourse, but there are other things aswell. Such as, when i went to a babtising for my nieces, there where several men surronding them hoping they get married and have plenty of children.....when they where less then 1 year old.
