Mad_Machine76
Mad_Machine76's JournalThankfully, most people don't get into the minutiuae that political junkies like us
get into here. Otherwise, people would be perpetually disappointed with everybody and probably refuse to elect anybody POTUS period because nobody would be deemed "perfect" or "pure" enough. Most people want to know that he's on the side of the 99% and wants to help them and it's pretty clear that he is. It's equally clear that Romney is NOT.
BTW, The Republicans have repeatedly telegraphed/telegraphing what they plan to do if they win the WH and/or Congress in 2012. Do we want to completely lose SCOTUS? Do we want the CFPB gutted/removed? Do we want to go back to the way health insurance coverage was like before ACA? Do we want Planned Parenthood defunded?
Last I looked
Bush started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and dumped both of them on Obama, who vowed to end both of them during the 2008 campaign but made it clear that it would not be immediately, which I thought was reasonable. Our military involvement in Libya was in support of NAT and limited to air support. We never put any boots on the ground. What other wars are you referring to? Moreover, we are out of Iraq now and will be out of Afghanistan in 2014. Bush let both wars drag on for 7-8 years (Afghanistan) and 5-6 (Iraq) with no willingness to consider any timetables for ending either of them (well, at least until the very end in regards to Iraq).
I never really thought I would have such a visceral aversion to the guy
I thought that he would run as a moderate milquetoast but the distortions, innuendos, and outright lies he has been spewing recently about President Obama get my blood boiling, almost as much as Rush Limbaugh, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity, et. al do. What makes me even madder is that he can just run around the country and say pretty much anything he wants to and, at least so far, isn't being called on any of his BS. Of course, none of the Repubs are ever really called on much of their BS but more than a few people have to be hearing this stuff and scratching their heads, especially as the rhetoric gets worse. It will be nice for Obama to eventually be able to finally call him out on this stuff during the GE but it would be nicer if him and/or his surrogates (he does have some, doesn't he?) were out there on a regular basis shooting some of this crap down more.
The key to defeating Romney in the GE is by sowing "uncertainty" about him.
We don't want moderates or indies (or even conservative Dems) to feel "okay" with voting for Romney- thinking that he is not really that much different than Obama but might be able to "manage" the economy better and that he will likely govern more as a centrist (like Obama). We DO want them to be concerned about whether Mitt will govern hard right or be in thrall to the teabaggers/birther/extremists within the GOP. OTOH we don't want to make conservatives/teabaggers to feel "comfortable" or, worse, "enthusiastic" (though there's little chance of it) with Mitt either. We DO want conservatives/teabaggers to continually second-guess just how reliably Mitt will champion their causes if elected, who he will appoint to SCOTUS, etc.
This SHOULD be pretty easy to do given that he's been, literally, all over the map politically during his entire political career- going from tacking far left on abortion and gay rights in 1994 all the way to trying to be a Tea Party groupie in this election. I tend to believe that, if we were to peel him to the core, he is actually a pretty moderate guy- more likely to govern like he did in Massachusetts- and that his hard-right turn in the GOP primary has been just because he needs to go there in order to win. However, he has flip-flopped (speaking of a lack of "leadership" 
) so much just within the course of this campaign thus far that any average person would have a hard time trying to figure out how Mitt might govern as POTUS on any given day and that is something that we should NOT want in a POTUS. Additionally, I have a hard time envisioning President Romney poking the Tea Party in the eye and/or not being cowed by them.
Mitt is the living embodiment of the 1%
No matter how he dresses, no matter how many rifles he brandishes, no matter how much he tries to accuse Obama of being "out of touch" with the 99% (which is, in itself, a sign of Mitt being "out of touch" himself), I have a hard time believing that a majority of people (mostly the 99%) are going to accept him as POTUS unless he's able to somehow convince them that he will be better for them than another 4 years of Obama. I'm still waiting to see the evidence for that. It sounds like he might be a good "manager" but his "management" has mostly involved throwing people out of work (and him and the 1% getting rich off of it) and he is basically disavowing the one "good" policy he championed as Massachusetts Governor.
Romney would be a "good" nominee for Obama to run against for other reasons IMHO
His Mormonism (which should be off the table on our side in terms of an "issue"
might be a problem among GOP voters (i.e. fundies) but I think that the larger problem for him and the GOP is that, given that this election will turn largely on the economy and which candidate can best manage/repair it. As such, I think that Mitt will come off looking like the living embodiment of the 1% while Obama comes off MUCH more credibly as part of the 99% Plus, there is that uncertainty about where Romney stands, specifically is he going to be able to credibly place himself far enough to the right to keep the conservatives/teabaggers but not so far to the right to keep the indies and "moderates"? IMHO Romney will have a MUCH more difficult job convincing people that he deserves to be elected POTUS than Obama does convincing people that he should be allowed to keep his job as POTUS for another four years. The only other candidate that could conceivably do better against Obama is Huntsman but it's all but certain that he won't win the nomination for a number of reasons. Aside from their fevered delusions, all of the other GOPers are simply non-starters against Obama.
Would Rubio really help Romney attract Hispanic (i.e. Cuban) voters?
I've seen a lot of discussion about whether or not Romney might ultimately choose somebody like Rubio for VP in a bid to attract Hispanic (i.e. Cuban) voters, particularly in Florida but I'm wondering how effective it might end up being. I concede that that might ploy might certainly help in Florida with the Cuban voters though these voters have traditionally swung towards Republicans so, in a tight squeeze, that might help Romney over the top However, it is equally likely IMHO that it might just wind up being as misguided of a strategy as putting Sarah Palin on the ticket in 2008 to attempt to attract women voters. Rubio is certainly no Sarah Palin in terms of intelligence and/or knowledge and voters in Florida did send him to the Senate in 2010 but will the "excitement" of seeing a Hispanic nominated as VP overshadow the actual policies of the Republican Party in regards to the Hispanic community, as well the racist tendencies of much of the Republican base? Will the Republican base respond favorably to Rubio? Will the birthers go crazy over the recently disclosed fact that his parents weren't actually citizens when he was born? 
Thoughts? Opinions? I could definitely see Romney and the GOP establishment trying this but I'm not sure it will work for them like they think it will.
I think that 2012 will be better than 2004 but not as good as 2008- somewhere in between IMHO
The economy- as well as the ramped up hatred of anything Obama by the right-wing- will almost certainly ensure that Obama won't win by the same margins that he did in 2008 IMHO. OTOH the GOP field is very lackluster, there seems to be a significant portion of the GOP base that either doesn't like Romney and still wants an alternative to him or isn't terribly enthusiastic about him. People also have been turned off by the Republican Tea Party antics in the House and in many statehouses/state legislatures and may not be willing to put one in the WH (or somebody perceived as beholden to the Tea Party- as any GOPer would undoubtedly be). Additionally, Obama has not had any serious disasters- foreign or domestic, he has had some pretty significant foreign policy successes, and, like it or not, he had a lot of legislative accomplishments during his first two years in office. What is Romney running on bringing to this country that is superior to what Obama is doing and justifies Obama's removal from office and Romney's installation in the oval office? It seems to me that the GOP's only argument against Obama is that he's been a "disaster" for this country but are most people- aside from Fox News viewers- really buying that? I hear people disappointed about Obama because of one policy decision or another and people have more "sober" and realistic assessments of him than in 2008 but I've never heard anybody but the wingers and die-hard Republicans describe him as being a "disaster" for this country. I believe that as long as we do our best to GOTV we should ultimately be o.k.
I think that it still has at least SOME efficacy
at least in the sense that most people hear it and just assume that it's something "bad" or foreign. Most people aren't knowledgeable enough to know that we have a somewhat "socialist" country already and that many of the public services we enjoy (a decreasing amount, however) are government-ran and managed and paid for by our taxes. I wonder how many people would be outraged and upset if more of them knew exactly how nice things are for most people in countries like Canada and most European countries in terms of health care, education, childcare, etc. Instead, unfortunately, we just get Fox News and other corporate media pundits smearing Europeans as a bunch of evil socialists and, in particular, their horrific free/low-cost health care system (even smart people I know have a raft of misconceptions and perceptions about health care in other countries). Heck, in terms of health care alone, if you listen to Rick Santorum, you'd think that European countries were literally sentencing people to die via real-life "Death Panels" if they happened to have certain diseases/genetic conditions or that you have to wait years for life-saving operations (or dying before getting them). Of course, most of it isn't true but we're Americans and a lot of us just seem to prefer getting constantly screwed over rather than wanting something more/better for ourselves and our children.
Sometimes I wonder if we have our own "Max" somewhere holding back social progress yet ensuring that we are none the wiser while they do it (Doctor Who fans should know what I'm talking about
You're missing the point
Republican pols can say pretty much whatever the hell they want and they never have to explain themselves and all of the stories from Politifact and Factcheck.org about how what they're saying is false (or even "Pants-on-Fire" false) aren't going to matter to anybody sane and rational enough to reject (or at least question) such claims in the first place and, well, let's face it the people whom comprise the Republican base are neither of these.
Profile Information
Name: Mara Alis ButlerGender: Female
Hometown: Indianapolis, Indiana
Home country: USA
Current location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Member since: Sat Feb 28, 2004, 01:13 AM
Number of posts: 24,438
