Romney

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Romney is having a good debate. Gingrich is getting eaten alive.

[calicoug]

Article VI restrains only the government from applying a religious test. Individuals are free to do what they want in that regard. My view is that Americans ought to follow the spirit of Article VI because it is (or ought to be) "the American Way," and because doing so is just good policy. BTW, it is interesting to read up on the policy goals underlying Article VI, which arise from the religious tests applied in England. The Founders were big on preserving freedom of conscience, and religious tests can be pretty hard on that freedom.

Ok- good, I was concerned you were suggesting Article VI bound individuals too. I don't necessarily disagree that following the spirit of Article VI is good policy, but would you then agree that following the spirit of the First Amendment is too with respect to establishment of a religion? If so, would you agree that laws should be passed based on secular merits only and candidates supported without regard to their religious belief?

[Moliere]

I'm coming around to Romney. I'm a Huntsman guy and really wish he could get the nomination but more and more I think Romney is more Huntsman than he is Bachmann (in terms of moderate vs. conservative). I truly think Romney is playing the "no really, I'm really, really conservative" card to get the nomination and if he wins the election he would be a very moderate (politically speaking) president.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Romney is a big-time flip-flopper who is currently pretending where he stands on issues, but I'm okay with that because I like the moderate Romney much better, and I think the moderate Romney would be the one sitting in the oval office.

[byu71]

I'm coming around to Romney. I'm a Huntsman guy and really wish he could get the nomination but more and more I think Romney is more Huntsman than he is Bachmann (in terms of moderate vs. conservative). I truly think Romney is playing the "no really, I'm really, really conservative" card to get the nomination and if he wins the election he would be a very moderate (politically speaking) president.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Romney is a big-time flip-flopper who is currently pretending where he stands on issues, but I'm okay with that because I like the moderate Romney much better, and I think the moderate Romney would be the one sitting in the oval office.

I have said it many times. He is the republican version of Bill Clinton (sans the moral stuff). That is why I hope he makes it.

[Goatnapper'96]

I'm coming around to Romney. I'm a Huntsman guy and really wish he could get the nomination but more and more I think Romney is more Huntsman than he is Bachmann (in terms of moderate vs. conservative). I truly think Romney is playing the "no really, I'm really, really conservative" card to get the nomination and if he wins the election he would be a very moderate (politically speaking) president.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I believe Romney is a big-time flip-flopper who is currently pretending where he stands on issues, but I'm okay with that because I like the moderate Romney much better, and I think the moderate Romney would be the one sitting in the oval office.

The Gingrich rise had more of an impact on Romney than the others. At times I thought the campaign was getting a bit disjointed and flustered, but I think they have regrouped and Newt has seen his high water mark. The WSJ has an essay from Newt's Notes praising Romney's health care reform in Mass - that is going to hurt Newt and coupled with his faux pas in the Commonwealth his campaign indicates what Newt is: a right wing wanker. The Romney moment is starting to gain steam. I think Romney is a conservative, but he is more of a pragmatist than an idealogue. Our country has had idealogues for the past 11 years, I think a pragmatist will be very popular to the independent voters. Romney really leaves not a great deal of ammunition for Obama's scorched earth campaign plan.

[Moliere]

The Gingrich rise had more of an impact on Romney than the others. At times I thought the campaign was getting a bit disjointed and flustered, but I think they have regrouped and Newt has seen his high water mark. The WSJ has an essay from Newt's Notes praising Romney's health care reform in Mass - that is going to hurt Newt and coupled with his faux pas in the Commonwealth his campaign indicates what Newt is: a right wing wanker. The Romney moment is starting to gain steam. I think Romney is a conservative, but he is more of a pragmatist than an idealogue. Our country has had idealogues for the past 11 years, I think a pragmatist will be very popular to the independent voters. Romney really leaves not a great deal of ammunition for Obama's scorched earth campaign plan.

I 100% agree with the bolded part above, which is why I'm starting to like him.

Obama will hit mostly on his record of laying off people to increase shareholder value, but honestly that's somewhat of an indefensible position.....well outside of the media and talking points its indefensible. The companies he turned around where headed towards insolvency so if you don't make changes and get rid of some workers, then at some point everyone gets laid off or they choose to work for free.

[Goatnapper'96]

I 100% agree with the bolded part above, which is why I'm starting to like him.

Obama will hit mostly on his record of laying off people to increase shareholder value, but honestly that's somewhat of an indefensible position.....well outside of the media and talking points its indefensible. The companies he turned around where headed towards insolvency so if you don't make changes and get rid of some workers, then at some point everyone gets laid off or they choose to work for free.

Economic/financial effeceincy and development appeals to most of the independent voters. President Obama has done a great job of shoring up his base this past year. However, he has essentially had to preside like he was campaigning in a primary. His swing to idealistic roots will hurt him with those who decide campaigns. Left wingers whose inherint mistrust of business like to hear the red meat about the layoffs, but most people believe that economic development improves everybody's standard of living and life. The President doesn't have much to stand on in this regard. I tend to think many voters understand what he inherited and many will even believe things are finally improving (seeing how the European crisis develops this year) but they also are going to believe Mitt understands economics much better. Obama's best strategy is scorched earth and Mitt doesn't play into that as well as the other Republican candidates.

[LA Ute]

Ok- good, I was concerned you were suggesting Article VI bound individuals too. I don't necessarily disagree that following the spirit of Article VI is good policy, but would you then agree that following the spirit of the First Amendment is too with respect to establishment of a religion? If so, would you agree that laws should be passed based on secular merits only and candidates supported without regard to their religious belief?

Good question, sorry I took so long to respond. I've been supporting candidates all my adult life w/o regard to their religion - that's kind of a Mormon's lot in life, if he/she lives outside the Jello Belt. As for laws being passed based on secular merits only, that's more complex. My religion forms a lot of what I consider to be my political-cultural conscience, and I would not support at the ballot box a law I considered based on false or incorrect principles. I see that as an individual choice, however, not a talking point to campaign on.

[calicoug]

Good question, sorry I took so long to respond. I've been supporting candidates all my adult life w/o regard to their religion - that's kind of a Mormon's lot in life, if he/she lives outside the Jello Belt. As for laws being passed based on secular merits only, that's more complex. My religion forms a lot of what I consider to be my political-cultural conscience, and I would not support at the ballot box a law I considered based on false or incorrect principles. I see that as an individual choice, however, not a talking point to campaign on.

So what do you see as the difference between saying you shouldn't examine a candidate based on religious views, but you can consider religious views when deciding how a law should be structured? It seems anomalous, given that the candidate whose religious views you won't question ultimately will be deciding the laws which will be enacted (and may take religious views into consideration in the process).

To be consistent, I would have to think you would also oppose injecting religion into ballot and other issues.

[Moliere]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/us...s.html?_r=1&hp

“That is a lot of milk,” Mr. Romney said.

[LA Ute]

So what do you see as the difference between saying you shouldn't examine a candidate based on religious views, but you can consider religious views when deciding how a law should be structured? It seems anomalous, given that the candidate whose religious views you won't question ultimately will be deciding the laws which will be enacted (and may take religious views into consideration in the process).

To be consistent, I would have to think you would also oppose injecting religion into ballot and other issues.

The question is relevance. A candidate's religion is almost never relevant to his qualifications for office. Regarding legislation or policy, religious principles might be relevant. Personally, I don't put those at the top of my list, but that's up to each voter to decide.

[calicoug]

The question is relevance. A candidate's religion is almost never relevant to his qualifications for office. Regarding legislation or policy, religious principles might be relevant. Personally, I don't put those at the top of my list, but that's up to each voter to decide.

I don't understand the distinction. If I am going to vote for someone, and I know that they will (appropriately) use their religious views to decide outcomes on legislation, then don't I have to also consider their religious views when deciding whether or not to vote for them? It seems silly to suggest I have to ignore their religious views while expecting that they will not ignore their religious views when governing.

[LA Ute]

I don't understand the distinction. If I am going to vote for someone, and I know that they will (appropriately) use their religious views to decide outcomes on legislation, then don't I have to also consider their religious views when deciding whether or not to vote for them? It seems silly to suggest I have to ignore their religious views while expecting that they will not ignore their religious views when governing.

So you seem to be saying that a candidate's religious views ought to be considered when deciding whether or not to vote for the candidate. If so, which views? All? Some?

[Indy Coug]

Huge plummet for Gingrich in Iowa. Romney leads Paul.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im.../topstate3.pdf

[Pelado]

Huge plummet for Gingrich in Iowa. Romney leads Paul.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/im.../topstate3.pdf

Looks like Romney was by far the largest beneficiary of Gingrich's fall.