Glenn Beck sez...

[vraiblonde]

...that I should vote for Romney. He likes him and Ron Paul: Paul on the economy and Romney for everything else.

So what am I missing, because I do not like Mitt Romney?

I'll give it to Paul because there are a lot of issues I agree with him on, but his stance on foreign policy is a deal-breaker, not to mention his unrealistic domestic solutions that he will never get past Congress. Plus, his leadership skills leave a lot to be desired. If he won't even chastise his supporters for sending hate mail, how will he influence Congress as President?

But Romney? He talks pretty and looks good, but his record doesn't match up with his "conservative" rhetoric. His foreign policy position is in line with mine, but he's flip-flopped on practically every other issue, so why should I trust that what he says about Iraq and Al Qaeda is really where he stands?

Talk me into Romney, you fans.

[SamSpade]

He gives me the willies. And Chris Wallace nailed him pretty good this past Sunday. He pretty much said "what's so great about what you accomplished in Massachusetts? So did most other governors during the same time frame".

But stuff I've read about him at least suggest, he has the on paper credentials to be President. Valedictorian at BYU and top 5% at Harvard Law. Despite the dismissals - rather impressive work with the Olympic committee. And not a bad showing against Ted Kennedy in '94. He does have charisma, speaks well, and unlike Al Gore, he actually IS intelligent, instead of just pretending to be (Bush, to his credit, never pretends to be an intellectual).

He has changed his mind on a few issues - the most prominent one being abortion. So did Reagan. If you change your mind on a subject once, I don't call that "flip-flopping", unless like John Kerry, you actually see it as some kind of virtue. It means you can change your mind. Oddly enough, the not changing the mind thing is something Bush's critics detest highly.

I haven't actually heard one stance on an issue I give a crap about from him that I disagree with. I'm still not clear on his stance over gay marriage, but I don't really care. I'm not going to hinge my vote based on a non-issue like that.

The real test to me is something he still doesn't pass yet - the "can I trust this guy" test. Huckabee nailed it some time back - he said that people see him as someone they might work with, and Romney as someone they might work FOR. He seems like the rich guy's son. He's got the fake sincerity thing going that most politicians do. (Bush, to his credit, does have the real sincerity thing, although it gets very little mileage. I still think one of the best pictures of the last five years was that one where he hugs that girl from Ohio who'd lost someone in the war. You'd think he lost his own brother).

Unfortunately, the field is narrowing, and I am afraid that the guy I like - Giuliani - is going to give up. If it's a choice between the likes of Hillary, Obama, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, he would be my choice. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

[QUOTE=vraiblonde;2642176

Talk me into Romney, you fans.[/QUOTE]


...that's up to you. You keep saying all the policy tests point to Romney being your guy. You have to reconcile how you answer the questions v. whatever it is that makes you not comfortable with him.

His career in business is as a money guy, leveraged buyouts and so forth. That is NOT the kind of person I want to run a nation of small business people.

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by SamSpade

He gives me the willies. And Chris Wallace nailed him pretty good this past Sunday. He pretty much said "what's so great about what you accomplished in Massachusetts? So did most other governors during the same time frame".

But stuff I've read about him at least suggest, he has the on paper credentials to be President. Valedictorian at BYU and top 5% at Harvard Law. Despite the dismissals - rather impressive work with the Olympic committee. And not a bad showing against Ted Kennedy in '94. He does have charisma, speaks well, and unlike Al Gore, he actually IS intelligent, instead of just pretending to be (Bush, to his credit, never pretends to be an intellectual).

He has changed his mind on a few issues - the most prominent one being abortion. So did Reagan. If you change your mind on a subject once, I don't call that "flip-flopping", unless like John Kerry, you actually see it as some kind of virtue. It means you can change your mind. Oddly enough, the not changing the mind thing is something Bush's critics detest highly.

I haven't actually heard one stance on an issue I give a crap about from him that I disagree with. I'm still not clear on his stance over gay marriage, but I don't really care. I'm not going to hinge my vote based on a non-issue like that.

The real test to me is something he still doesn't pass yet - the "can I trust this guy" test. Huckabee nailed it some time back - he said that people see him as someone they might work with, and Romney as someone they might work FOR. He seems like the rich guy's son. He's got the fake sincerity thing going that most politicians do. (Bush, to his credit, does have the real sincerity thing, although it gets very little mileage. I still think one of the best pictures of the last five years was that one where he hugs that girl from Ohio who'd lost someone in the war. You'd think he lost his own brother).

Unfortunately, the field is narrowing, and I am afraid that the guy I like - Giuliani - is going to give up. If it's a choice between the likes of Hillary, Obama, Romney, McCain and Huckabee, he would be my choice. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.

I'm not settling this time. No more lesser of the two evils for me.

I'm voting for Ron Paul. If he's not in the general, I'm writing in for Ron Paul. I'm not settling for anybody that I don't agree with.

Foriegn policy is the only thing I even slightly disagree with Ron Paul on. However, I disagree with all the other candidates on a lot more issues. I'd rather vote for someone with unrealistic good ideas than someone with realistic bad ideas.

My other choices, in this order, are: Rudy (though I don't like him), Huckabee, McCain, Romney, Obama, a pile of whale vomit, Edwards, Hash Brown, Kucinich, dog chiat, Shrillary.

[vraiblonde]

It would be amusing to see Ron Paul try to pull troops out of Iraq, and watch the Democrats in Congress dance and squirm because they know that would be a disaster.

[Larry Gude (Premo)]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

It would be amusing to see Ron Paul try to pull troops out of Iraq, and watch the Democrats in Congress dance and squirm because they know that would be a disaster.

...your amusement yet. Lotta people saying they'll vote for Paul rather than someone they have bigger issues with.

President Paul to Joint chiefs; "I order you to withdraw all US military personnel from Iraq to be completed and all units and equipment back CONUS in 30 days from now."

And then...?

Maybe he would order people to check their messages as well? Maybe he would order them to return calls? Who knows? It might make peace break out all over.