Originally Posted By andyll Actually Romney outsourced big bird to China: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i_YaZmujaO4&noredirect=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...direct=1</a>
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Let’s be honest. The last couple weeks, Romney has done a pretty good job outmaneuvering the Obama campaign. Prior to the debate, Romney seemed as fragile as a China doll. Now, to conservatives, he seems more confident and forceful, the way they like their candidates. Thus, now that the base is secured, he is tilting toward the center. So tactically, he has done well the last couple weeks. Granted, most of what he says is patently untrue,but presentation goes a long way. I love this Eddie Izzard bit: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwpuJoIvMyA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...uJoIvMyA</a> Not to mention that a large segment of conservative voters view facts through an ideological prism, and care little for accuracy. If a democrat says something, it’s automatically a lie based upon that virtue alone.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Let’s be honest. The last couple weeks, Romney has done a pretty good job outmaneuvering the Obama campaign.<< Yep. What amazes me is that this election hinges on people who can be swayed by Romney taking all-new, moderate positions this late in the game. Somehow, the people jumping onto the Romney bandwagon have no idea about his previous statements about being a "severe conservative" and all the rest of the primaries. They were 100% right about the Etch-a-Sketch, apparently.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yep. What amazes me is that this election hinges on people who can be swayed by Romney taking all-new, moderate positions this late in the game.> Pending tonight's respective performances, of course... What amazes me is that an off night - a bad 90 minutes, essentially - could have changed things so much. And as I pointed out in another thread, since that debate, Romney has actually had a double-headed strategy; having moderate things come out of HIS mouth in high-profile situations, and then having his campaign mouthpieces "clarify" (aka walk back) the statements, often just hours later. So that to the broader populace he seems more moderate; while the right wing fanatics who listen to the noise machine can be mollified that he "really" believes the more extreme positions he's been taking for the past 18 months. It's basically an attempt to have things both ways... which is very, very Romney.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< What amazes me is that an off night - a bad 90 minutes, essentially - could have changed things so much. >>> I'm sure that Richard Nixon felt the same way in 1960.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>So that to the broader populace he seems more moderate<< Shame on the broader populace if they're fooled by that tactic. But then again, he might actually BE more moderate should he win. He was no "severe conservative" as Massachusetts governor, and he knows that the far right hoo-haw doesn't appeal to a majority of the country. But since Romney is a candidate willing to say anything to any audience, no one really knows what, if anything, he stands for. He is a blank slate in many ways, and people can project whatever they want. You can easily find a quote somewhere to match up with your own philosophy by Romney, since he's taken every possible position on most things. I think he'd swear that he was once a fire engine if he were speaking to a group of fire fighters. To me, this is reason enough not to elect him. But then, I'm not a rabid Obama hater and I can't pretend to understand what goes on in their heads.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But then again, he might actually BE more moderate should he win. He was no "severe conservative" as Massachusetts governor, and he knows that the far right hoo-haw doesn't appeal to a majority of the country.> See, I don't think he'd be able to govern as a moderate. First of all, he's NOT a moderate on fiscal policy/taxes. One of the few things I think qualifies as a core belief for him is that if you cut taxes on the wealthy, you'll create jobs. Of course, our own history (especially recent history) should show him that's not so, but he seems to believe it nonetheless. And so he'd really make those cuts, leading either to the middle class making it up or (more likely) no one making it up and the deficit exploding like we've never even seen before. But even if many of his other positions were moderate, I don't believe he'd be able to govern that way, especially on social issues. Why? Because the tea party has accurately sussed that he has no spine, and they can make him jump if they want. During the primaries we saw it again and again. And all they'd need to make that keep happening is holding the threat of a 2016 primary challenge over his head. It's unusual, of course, to challenge a sitting president in the primaries. But not unprecedented (Kennedy in 1980). And the tea party have shown a willingness, even eagerness, to "primary" (as a verb) anyone not sufficiently conservative for their taste. Even Richard Lugar and Bob Bennett. (And the don't get much more conservative than Bennett.) Because Romney has no spine, he blows the way the wind blows on most things. In MA, the winds are all from the left, which is why he was mostly a moderate as governor. But as president, the winds would all be from the far right, and I don't believe the tea party would hesitate to hold a primary challenge over his head if he wasn't "sufficiently conservative," especially on social issues. And he'd cave.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Maybe. But then again, if the Tea Party was that powerful on a national scale, why did Romney get the nomination over all the other truly rabid right wingers? Romney is spineless, yes, but he's also pragmatic enough to know which way the wind blows. Like a wind sock, that's the way he'd go, even if the Tea Party didn't like it. If he's elected, he'll be thinking about re-election. And in general, the mood of the country is not in line with most of the Tea arty agenda. Certainly not the majority.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Maybe. But then again, if the Tea Party was that powerful on a national scale, why did Romney get the nomination over all the other truly rabid right wingers?> Because a). he had the best organization, by far; b). Republicans always nominate the "next in line" or whoever came in second the time before. The one time in recent years they didn't go with this metaphorical primogeniture is when they went with LITERAL primogeniture and nominated the eldest son of the previous Republican president; and c). It was the weakest field from either party in our lifetimes. Bachmann imploded. Perry imploded. Cain imploded. Gingrich imploded. If any of them hadn't been so fatally flawed, they might have won. By the time Santorum gained traction, it was too late. <Romney is spineless, yes, but he's also pragmatic enough to know which way the wind blows.> But I see that as the problem. The winds (or the "squeaky wheel" if you will) WILL be the tea party. <If he's elected, he'll be thinking about re-election.> He's got to win the GOP nomination first. And I don't think they'd hesitate to primary him and force him to the right. Just the threat of it could keep him in line before the actual process starts in a couple of years. <And in general, the mood of the country is not in line with most of the Tea arty agenda. Certainly not the majority.> Caving to the tea party for two years and then lurching back to the center 5 weeks before the election COULD work for him this time; if it does, he might figure it could again.
