Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Fifty years, which covers the elections in my lifetime. I was born in 1958 and Eisenhower was President. 1960, Kennedy v. Nixon. 1964, Johnson v. Goldwater 1968, Nixon v. Humphrey 1972, Nixon v. McGovern 1976, Ford v. Carter 1980, Carter v. Reagan 1984, Reagan v. Mondale 1988, Bush v. Dukakis 1992, Bush v. Clinton 1996, Clinton v. Dole 2000, Gore v. Bush 2004, Bush v. Kerry 2008, McCain v. Obama 2012, Obama v. Romney That's 21 men who have been their party's nominee since 1960. Each and every one of them flawed in some significant way. With the exception of one of them, each and every one took a stand on the issues of the day and with few, small exceptions, didn't waver. Each and every one played fast and loose with the exact truth in order to garner votes. The public was used to it and adjusted for that. Until now. Since 1968, when I was 10 and old enough to pay attention to the political process, I supported GOP candidates. The 1968 Democratic Convention was in Chicago, where I lived, and so our teachers made us pay attention to the election. We were in a controversial war, the draft was on, and the result mattered. I got hooked on politics and even volunteered in our local elections. It was during this time that I determined the GOP was better suited to govern our country, despite growing up in a heavily Democratic Chicago environment. In junior high in 1971, I wrote a review of a book called "Boss" by Chicago newspaper icon Mike Royko for a class in school. "Boss" portrayed Mayor Richard Daley in an extremely negative light, but told the truth about cronyism and machine politics. I got an A, and unbeknownst to me, my teacher sent my review on to Royko, who called me to talk about it and subsequently mentioned it in his column in the Chicago Daily News. My school got a lot of free copies of "Boss" as a result. I didn't fully grasp it at the time, but having Royko call me would be like having Vin Scully calling a Dodger fan to tell him to hang in there. Royko asked me my politics, and I told him I was a Republican. Royko, despite his criticism of Daley, was a liberal through and through. He told me one day, when I was older, I'd come around. He was right. In 2008, when McCain caved in to the worst elements of the GOP and picked Palin, I knew then I'd be voting for Obama. I had no idea who the GOP was anymore. I thought choosing Palin to be a heartbeat away was rock bottom. Then they chose Romney. His failings and flip flops are well documented in other threads. He has turned out to be a panderer of the worst kind, telling a group of cats he hates dogs and then telling dogs he hates cats. He repeats lies such as Chrysler and China and his base eats it up because it was Romney who said it. He has zero foreign policy expertise and no concept in global interelationship dynamics. I firmly believe that if he were to become President his ineptitude could lead to North America being attacked. I'm convinced he'll tell Israel one thing, Iraq another, China something different and mislead Russia completely, leading to a catastrophe of nuclear proportions. He lies, he lies some more, and all the while, he firmly believes it's fine to do so if it justifies his desired end result. He has no allegiance other than to money and his perceived power and influence. But in reality, he'd sell any portion of it to gain more traction. I don't trust him. I don't see how anybody could. He doesn't believe in what you and I want, because we know what we want. Mitt doesn't really know what he wants until someone tells him and then changes his mind for him two stops later. Mitt Romney just simply blows in the wind. So yeah, that's why I give Romney supporters a hard time. They've fallen for his lies and half truths. They can't tell you what he stands for because not even Romney knows. This time around, it's not abut honest differences like the past 50 years. This time around, people are either voting for the truth or they're voting for a lie, Romney's lie.
Originally Posted By DyGDisney Wow, your personal history is quite compelling. I've always had hopes that one of my children would take an interest in politics; so far no luck. My youngest wants to be a journalist and has already won several awards for her writing. I invision her becomming the next Nicholas Kristof --- only maybe not quite putting herself in as much danger as he does, but I'm afraid that's wishful thinking. I don't know enough to agree or disagree that he is the worst candidate in 50 years, but I am convinced that he would be a disaster for our country when it comes to international affairs.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Kerry is an argument you could make as he was all over the place in regards to the issues, although the Bush campaign ran an effective smear campaign. Suffice to say, Kerry was the worst Democratic candidate in quite awhile.
Originally Posted By dshyates Kerry was the worst Drm in my lifetime. For many of the same reasons as Romney.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 So yeah, that's why I give Romney supporters a hard time. They've fallen for his lies and half truths. They can't tell you what he stands for because not even Romney knows. This time around, it's not abut honest differences like the past 50 years. This time around, people are either voting for the truth or they're voting for a lie, Romney's lie. << Republicans support for Romney right now are like the guy at the club at 130am,they are looking for a nice women to go home with but none are available, and they are desperate even though the good ones have long left with other guys, but there is an ugly one in the corner with a ton of flaws, but she is a female and she is available, so you pop a few beers back say "Screw It" and make your move... Only to wake up the next morning with a ton of regret.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The GOP could have walked away with this election, but they've spent the last twenty years perp walking any moderate in their party to the exit.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Looking at the other insane candidates in the GOP this year, Republicans need to find a better singles bar.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I don't trust him. I don't see how anybody could. He doesn't believe in what you and I want, because we know what we want. Mitt doesn't really know what he wants until someone tells him and then changes his mind for him two stops later. Mitt Romney just simply blows in the wind.<<" Exactly. It's kind of funny watching republicans try to get enthusiastic about him. They can't. Look at what the other candidates said about hymn in the primaries. It's all true. I said a couple years ago on LP that if he thought it would give him a better chance to win the White House Mitt Romney would eat his own foot on television. I've never seen a man so desperate to win the presidency -- you can see that he aches for it, and that scares the hell out of me.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck I think Romney's lust for the office is more about feeding his massive ego, rather than sincerely helping the American public.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I think Romney sincerely wants to serve his country. He believes he is wise enough to do it. There may be a big ego involved, but I don't think any modern presidential candidate is without one.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I think Romney sincerely wants to serve his country.>> Did Romney "sincerely" want to serve Massachusetts? If yes, can you give me specific examples to back up your claim?
Originally Posted By utahjosh I cannot. Proving someone's sincerity in doing as task is pretty much impossible - one would project whatever you'd like on them, and cherry-pick actions to defend your claims.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Proving someone's sincerity in doing as task is pretty much impossible - one would project whatever you'd like on them, and cherry-pick actions to defend your claims.>> And this doesn't apply to your perception that Romney "sincerely" wants to serve his country, how?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox All I'm asking, is what is it about Romney and his previous actions in public office, that makes you believe that he "sincerely" wants to serve his country?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think Romney sincerely wants to serve his country.<< "To Serve Man" is a COOKBOOK!!!!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Since Romney got out of going to Vietnam by going to France on his Mormon mission, we cannot look to military service as evidence. We can only look to public service that Romney has done, which would be his one-term stint as Massachusetts Governor. And as Governor, Romney was one of the least cooperative with the state legislature that Massachusetts has ever seen. If Romney truly wanted to serve Massachusetts and the people who elected him *and* the members of the state legislature, then he would have worked more closely with the state legislators in a cooperative fashion to get things done. Instead, Romney was the proverbial road block who vetoed 844 bills that hit his desk, 707 of which were overturned by the legislators, some even unanimously. When every single state legislator, both Democrat and Republican, votes to overturn some of your vetoes as Governor, you've got an attitude problem with regard to what you view as role as Governor. Having 707 vetoes overturned out of 844 doesn't seem like someone who "sincerely" wanted to serve the greater good of Massachusetts. For this reason, I cannot accept your belief, Josh, that Romney "sincerely" wants to serve his country. Mitt Romney, as far as I can tell, only wants to serve himself.
