Originally Posted By snappyfun <a href="http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0310/Romney_tops_bestseller_list.html?showall" target="_blank">http://www.politico.com/blogs/...?showall</a> "Mitt Romney's new book, "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness," will debut on top of the New York Times bestseller list due out March 21." I still don't trust this guy, but then maybe I’m wrong about him . Can anyone here make a case for him, I’m open?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 He's a dead ringer for this guy. So there's that. <a href="http://www.areavoices.com/wordcandy/images/GuySmiley.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.areavoices.com/word...iley.jpg</a>
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I still don't trust this guy, but then maybe I’m wrong about him. << And that's it in a nutshell, isn't it? Right wingers are disinclined to vote for him, but they'll still grasp at any straw that validates their world view. "Hey - look who's on the best seller list"! Romney was a pro gay rights, pro abortion, pro government health care politician while he was governor of a blue state. The minute he announced his candidacy for the republican nomination, he instantly became an anti gay rights, anti abortion, anti health care politician. He'll say anything to anybody about his "true convictions" - based upon what they want to hear. And surprisingly, this often works with republicans. I fully expect Romney to be the GOP nominee in 2012 - it's "his turn". The only thing that would prevent it would be if the evangelicals flex their hatred muscles - in which case it may well be Huckabee - they won't settle for anyone else.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>He'll say anything to anybody about his "true convictions" - based upon what they want to hear. And surprisingly, this often works with republicans. << I'm not defending Romney because he'll indeed say anything to be president (remember the great lifelong hunter incident?), but really you can say that about most politicians. Sadly, we voters of any political stripe will often see what we want to see in a candidate and give people in our own party a surprising amount of leeway. More and more, I'm putting the blame for the type of politician we wind up with on the voters. If we're dumb enough to keep on sending the same characters, and the same type of character, into office, it becomes a simple case of supply and demand. People are "sick of Washington politics" and then they vote in their 35 year senator for another term.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I'm not defending Romney because he'll indeed say anything to be president (remember the great lifelong hunter incident?), but really you can say that about most politicians. > True enough, with most. But even among pols, there's the question of DEGREE. And "nth" comes to mind when thinking about Romney's willingness to reinvent his "core convictions."
Originally Posted By snappyfun >>I fully expect Romney to be the GOP nominee in 2012 << How can that be you just got done sayig he is to far left for those crazy GOP people?
Originally Posted By snappyfun >>People are "sick of Washington politics" and then they vote in their 35 year senator for another term.<< So true but this might be a new year, you see what happend to Ted's seat.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Newsflash: Ted died. And the woman the Democrats ran had the worst campaign ever.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***So true but this might be a new year, you see what happend to Ted's seat.*** ***Newsflash: Ted died.*** This must be in the noise machine info bullitins or something. I've yet to hear ANY right wingers refer to the seat as "the Massachusetts seat" or "the Vacant seat"...it is always and consistently "Ted's Seat", or "Teddy's" or "The Kennedy Seat", as though things have changed so much that they defeated the liberal lion himself. Far from it. It was a botched campaign (oh, and by the way maybe you didn't get the memo Snappy but your right winger friends are no longer very happy about Scott Brown winning "Ted's Seat" since he's a total RINO...you heard, right?).
Originally Posted By Labuda ">>I fully expect Romney to be the GOP nominee in 2012 << How can that be you just got done sayig he is to far left for those crazy GOP people?" Well, we learned with Sarah Palin that members of the GOP will vote for any moron that runs, regardless what they say. Who's to think that GOPers will remember the liberal Romney when he's spending so much time being conservative Romney for the cameras? Heck, most members of the GOP are dumb enough to think Bush is a Texan.
Originally Posted By snappyfun my friend Mr X, he may be a rino but he ran on stopping uncle Teds health care bill and won big in the most left wing state in the country, so look out a land slide is coming in november.
Originally Posted By ecdc So...I'll actually say something in defense of Romney, believe it or not. I'd never, ever vote for the guy, but out of just about any Republican with any shot in 2012 or 2016, he'd be my pick. He's proven he can manage and lead, and I suspect he's fairly moderate at his core. It does disturb me just how willingly he will change his views on a dime to get elected. I mean, like 2oony said, all candidates are flexible, but there's honor among thieves and this guy will say ANYTHING. I think he's capable of governing and I don't think he's too big an ideologue. I tend to think he'd be fairly pragmatic. It's far better than you can say about other Republican candidates - Gingrich, and [shudder] Palin.
Originally Posted By snappyfun gingrich, is disliked by most conservatives, they think he is a rino, so funny you think he's so right wing.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Which tells you something about how far to the right the GOP has been hijacked these days.
Originally Posted By snappyfun Or it says how out of touch the radical left is and why less then 20 percent of americans identifie themselves as liberals.
Originally Posted By alexbook ^--FWIW, Gallup found in January that the percentage of liberals was 21%, which is not less than 20%. That's versus 40% conservatives and 36% moderates. The percentages of both liberals and conservatives have risen slightly but consistently over the last 18 years, while the percentage of moderates has steadily dropped. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/124958/Conservatives-Finish-2009-No-1-Ideological-Group.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.gallup.com/poll/124...oup.aspx</a>
Originally Posted By snappyfun true Alex Gallup has libs at 21 percent, and that really is alot more then 19 percent. Also I hope you know Gallop is not the only pollster out there.
Originally Posted By alexbook Sure, there are other pollsters. Which one did you get your number from? The more important point, though, is that the percentage of liberals is actually *up* from what it was a few years ago. If the "radical left" is so "out of touch," why are its numbers increasing?
Originally Posted By alexbook There's a pretty graph at the page I linked to. Year: Liberal, Moderate, Conservatie 1992: 17%, 43%, 36% 1993: 18%, 40%, 39% 1994: 17%, 42%, 38% 1995: 16%, 39%, 36% 1996: 16%, 40%, 38% 1997: 19%, 40%, 37% 1998: 19%, 40%, 37% 1999: 19%, 40%, 38% 2000: 19%, 40%, 38% 2001: 20%, 40%, 38% 2002: 19%, 39%, 38% 2003: 20%, 38%, 40% 2004: 19%, 38%, 40% 2005: 20%, 39%, 38% 2006: 21%, 38%, 37% 2007: 22%, 37%, 37% 2008: 22%, 37%, 37% 2009: 21%, 36%, 40%
