Romney

[Goatnapper'96]

Yeah, i know. My point was that people laughing hysterically at unfunny things sounds more like a laugh track than a studio audience. I can get past the hate if it provides a funny punch line. In this instance, it sure didn't.

Who gets more "ha-ha good one sir" laughs, Thomas S. Monson or Bill Maher?

[NorthwestUteFan]

Bill thinks that heal the sick for free sounds like Obama care?

You mean to say that one of the two biggest regulatory bills* in the history of the country, which was simultaneously one of the largest single incident of permanent corporate welfare**, isn't about healing the sick for free?

I am sure viking could add to this, but Brasil has a 'free clinic' system to handle all of the sore throat/runny nose type of problems. Granted most of the 'medical professionals' have only a modicum of training (similar to our CNAs), or perhaps an Associates Degree (similar to our LPNs), with a few who are more highly trained (sim to RN), some PA-C types, and a doc or two a the top. But at least it filters out most of the minor office visits.

*the other being Dodd-Frank

**the pharma companies, 5 or so biggest insurance companies, and largest hospital companies, and medical-related companies (esp. GE) were given one of the biggest gifts in history in this bill.

[oxcoug]

Eric Schmidt of Google - a noteworthy Obama supporter - just said here in the Newseum that "Romney is someone I've known well and was an able and qualified governor."

Views like those from guys like Schmidt are what will make Romney very dangerous to Obama in the center and with independents.

[RobinFinderson]

Eric Schmidt of Google - a noteworthy Obama supporter - just said here in the Newseum that "Romney is someone I've known well and was an able and qualified governor."

Views like those from guys like Schmidt are what will make Romney very dangerous to Obama in the center and with independents.

It may turn out that this is simply a Republican cycle, which will be good for Romney (assuming the GOP effort to look under every possible stone for a non-Mormon candidate doesn't yield up a different guy). But it won't be easy. For one, I don't think the GOP has real solutions for the jobs problem. Our immediate jobs problem needs some immediate spending. As far as spending goes, the most the GOP seems willing to do is put a cake out in the yard, and hope that business shows up before it rains. That is a gamble, and I'm not sure why the electorate is going to support a gamble over the more leftist idea of direct government spending. This question doesn't come up in GOP debates, but it will in the GE.

There is also the fact that the majority of Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the top 1%. The GOP pretends this isn't the case, and doesn't talk about it in debates, but it will come up in the GE, and it breaks to Dems.

Then there is the fact, demonstrated by the lack of Romney enthusiasm, that he is sort of the candidate of last resort. The GOP may decide that he is the best bet, but the endorsement won't come with a ton of enthusiasm.

[Goatnapper'96]

It may turn out that this is simply a Republican cycle, which will be good for Romney (assuming the GOP effort to look under every possible stone for a non-Mormon candidate doesn't yield up a different guy). But it won't be easy. For one, I don't think the GOP has real solutions for the jobs problem. Our immediate jobs problem needs some immediate spending. As far as spending goes, the most the GOP seems willing to do is put a cake out in the yard, and hope that business shows up before it rains. That is a gamble, and I'm not sure why the electorate is going to support a gamble over the more leftist idea of direct government spending. This question doesn't come up in GOP debates, but it will in the GE.

There is also the fact that the majority of Americans, including Republicans, support raising taxes on the top 1%. The GOP pretends this isn't the case, and doesn't talk about it in debates, but it will come up in the GE, and it breaks to Dems.

Then there is the fact, demonstrated by the lack of Romney enthusiasm, that he is sort of the candidate of last resort. The GOP may decide that he is the best bet, but the endorsement won't come with a ton of enthusiasm.

The GOP doesn't need a solution to the jobs program, it only has to remind folks how miserable the economy created jobs during Obama's tenure as President and reinforce it with clips from him promising 8% unemployment.

You are a really smart cat RF. I mean that honestly, but sometimes I wonder if you are blinded by your partisanship more than I think. Barring an unforseen change to the economy Obama's only possible approach is a scorched earth full on assault on Romney. It would be beyond stupid to even let the words "jobs" slip from his lips. There is nothing that happened under his watch to cause anyone, other than the very small percentage of hard core liberals, in the electorate that he can be trusted or has a clue on the economy. I know you believe in government spending but the mentality out there is that he did a lot of that already (see deficit growth, public fights over raising deficit levels, his stimulus with promises of 8% unemployment at max) and it did not work. I am a conservative who can accept stimulus spending in order to snap out of a recession but President Obama had that chance and you and I both know he bent over and let liberal special interests do him rudely. He left that one shot he had up to Congress and it became an orgy of porkfest that would make a hard core Burning Man such as yourself blush. He ain't gonna get a redo on his watch. Chalk it up to his lack of experience but the electorate does not trust the man enough, for moderate district/state Dems it would be toxic to go along with him.

[RobinFinderson]

The GOP doesn't need a solution to the jobs program, it only has to remind folks how miserable the economy created jobs during Obama's tenure as President and reinforce it with clips from him promising 8% unemployment.

You are a really smart cat RF. I mean that honestly, but sometimes I wonder if you are blinded by your partisanship more than I think. Barring an unforseen change to the economy Obama's only possible approach is a scorched earth full on assault on Romney. It would be beyond stupid to even let the words "jobs" slip from his lips. There is nothing that happened under his watch to cause anyone, other than the very small percentage of hard core liberals, in the electorate that he can be trusted or has a clue on the economy. I know you believe in government spending but the mentality out there is that he did a lot of that already (see deficit growth, public fights over raising deficit levels, his stimulus with promises of 8% unemployment at max) and it did not work. I am a conservative who can accept stimulus spending in order to snap out of a recession but President Obama had that chance and you and I both know he bent over and let liberal special interests do him rudely. He left that one shot he had up to Congress and it became an orgy of porkfest that would make a hard core Burning Man such as yourself blush. He ain't gonna get a redo on his watch. Chalk it up to his lack of experience but the electorate does not trust the man enough, for moderate district/state Dems it would be toxic to go along with him.

'Nap, you are just saying that the GOP candidate simply needs to show up and punch his ticket to the oval office. I will grant you that it looks to be a tough year for Obama, but I think it is going to be a lot harder than showing up and punching a ticket.

[Goatnapper'96]

'Nap, you are just saying that the GOP candidate simply needs to show up and punch his ticket to the oval office. I will grant you that it looks to be a tough year for Obama, but I think it is going to be a lot harder than showing up and punching a ticket.

The point is Robin that the GOP nominee doesn't have to defend his poor record - or at least the poor results during his tenure as President whether or not the President has much control. Of course the GOP will have a plan to present. However, as Obama presents his plan he will have defend why things have failed to improve under his watch and why his promises of 2008 have gone unfulfilled. While the GOP plan will likely be consistent with Republican rhetoric over the past 3 years, the GOP nominee was not President and there is not a clear gap between his promises of Shangri-La and reality. Obama does not have that luxury this election cycle. It makes no political sense for Obama to try and make this an election about the two different methods of improving the US unemployment rate as his solutions can be evaluated. - and while you might believe in their theoretical underpinnings you are a partisan and in the minority. It isn't the Liberals he has to convince it is the Independents. I don't think he will be able to pull off a Harry Truman run against a Do-Nothing Congress. President Obama had already lost his credibility with the Independents before he rolled out this jobs plan so the collective opinion was his methods failed. I believe he will fire up his base by doubling down on leftist ideology with how to deal with a slow economy, but I am really skeptical it will win him the general election. My point is he needs to not talk about jobs or health reform and go scorched earth that the GOP nominee is going to tie womens' tubes and baptize your kids into a Christian faith that prevents modern medicine while your kids are at school.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/08/us...t.html?_r=1&hp

[LA Ute]

This is a good piece:

Why evangelicals must stand up to anti-Mormon bigotry

Professor Reynolds is a new co-blogger on our Article 6 Blog site.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

That Daily Show bit on Romney was pretty funny. I go back and forth on the guy that goes back and forth even more than the next politician. It's unfortunate that Jeb's last name is Bush, Christie is chubby, Rubio is so new and Paul Ryan is just a congressman. I like Herman Cain but I don't like how he handled that muslim question a few months back.

Romney certainly is the fallback. I think the guy will be conservative enough fiscally and that's really all that matters.

[LA Ute]

The Cult of Anti-Mormonism:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[YOhio]

Jacob Weisberg likes Romney now.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...rvative_s.html

[SeattleUte]

Jacob Weisberg likes Romney now.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...rvative_s.html

He hasn't changed his view of Mormonism. He now realizes Romney is assimilated. It's an old story for Mormonism--Mormonism itself is assimilating, but at a slower pace than its stars. There's a tension; Mormonism wants to be respected, and this draws it to the secular mainstream. But its draw to a majority of adherants is its role as a bulwark against secularism. Still, gradual assimilation is inexorable.

But Romney has moved on; he is not a Mormon candidate, and never was one.

[San Juan Sun]

But Romney has moved on; he is not a Mormon candidate, and never was one.

That's right. He is a candidate who is a member of the Church of Jesus Chris of Latter Day Saints. You are surprisingly well correlated SU.

[YOhio]

He hasn't changed his view of Mormonism. He now realizes Romney is assimilated. It's an old story for Mormonism--Mormonism itself is assimilating, but at a slower pace than its stars. There's a tension; Mormonism wants to be respected, and this draws it to the secular mainstream. But its draw to a majority of adherants is its role as a bulwark against secularism. Still, gradual assimilation is inexorable.

But Romney has moved on; he is not a Mormon candidate, and never was one.

Watching you convince yourself into voting for Romney has been fun to watch. During the last election he was as pernicious as can be. A few months ago he was no different than Obama. Now he's simply not a Mormon candidate. As a Romney fan, I hope others in your situation come around to this line of thinking, however faulty it may be.