Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 19 Oct '12 22:13 / 1 edit
    Romney a couple of months ago said he would repeal the Dream Act. Playing to his fringe right base. Quite the opposite, in the last debate the other night he said such illegal immigrant kids should have a path to citizenship. Playing to the Latino American vote.

    Which is it? What does Romney believe at his core on the issue of illegal immigrants brought here as toddlers and raised here? Does he have a core? Is he an empty suit?
  2. 19 Oct '12 22:19 / 1 edit
    From the rare moderate Republican:

    In the past decade we passed an important threshold that is changing Presidential politics. The GOP base is now so hysterical that no one can win both the Republican nomination and the White House by straightforward methods. Romney’s campaign has clearly learned from McCain’s failed approach to that problem. McCain adopted an awkward, inconsistent effort to challenge the party’s paranoid fringe and carve out a sane space in which to campaign. Romney on the other hand has taken a unique tack, adopting a strategy of open, unmitigated self-contradiction.

    Romney is inviting voters to disregard his statements – all of them – and create their own personalized vision of who he is. This strategy lets Romney be a moderate, an extremist, a social conservative, a reformer, even a liberal, based on who is listening. It seems to be working, even on me.

    In a room full of millionaires he derides half the country as parasites. He defends the comments for a while and then effortlessly abandons them. He plays the part of pragmatic blue state Republican while tipping his hat to birthers and toying with Fast and Furious conspiracy theories.

    Mitt Romney . . . is pro-life, pro-choice, and nearly everything in between. He is not quite Mexican-American, but he wishes he was. He claims that the most important priority of his Administration will be to balance the budget – with trillions of dollars in budget-busting tax cuts. Nothing he says to anyone adds up.

    There is a strange genius to this approach. The Romney campaign is running on the strength of the Fantastic Plastic Mitt, the man who I as a voter can personally shape in my mind to fit whatever I think a President should be.


    http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2012/10/your-own-personal-romney/
  3. 19 Oct '12 22:21 / 2 edits
    The success of that strategy was brought home to me in a conversation with a friend. I caught myself arguing that Romney was the candidate most likely to finally break up the big banks and end the ‘too big to fail’ concept. Granted, I was influenced by George Will’s article, but I didn’t realize how idiotic that sounded until I heard it come out of my own mouth.

    I am nibbling at the bait. I am constructing my own personal Mitt Romney so that I don’t have to face the bitter humiliation of voting for Obama. The Romney strategy requires voters to make a gamble. Borrowing a phrase from Forrest Gump, Mitt Romney is like a box of chocolates. He is deliberately concealing his plans within a blizzard of deliberate contradictions, leaving us to guess what we’ll get.

    If this strategy works, people like me will assume that President Romney will govern as a pragmatic conservative, willing to compromise where necessary to achieve aims more or less consistent with conservative goals from the Reagan years. At the same time, fundamentalists will assume that he will outlaw stem cell research and back a personhood amendment. Libertarians will assume he will privatize Social Security and shutter the EPA. In other words, if the strategy works, conservatives, liberals, moderates, independents, Catholics, Protestants – you name it – we will all channel our frustration with Obama into the construction of Our Own Personal Romney.

    So, should I invent a Romney of my own and vote for him? I've explained elsewhere that I think the Obama Administration has been a unique failure. Four more years are unlikely to be much better, in fact, there’s good reason to think they could be worse. On the other hand, I have no way to know what razor blades are hiding in Mitt’s box of chocolates. How much of my own personal Mitt Romney will there be in a Romney Administration? I can only find out by taking a bite.

    (Emphasis added).
  4. 19 Oct '12 22:37
    It’s clear now that the Romney of Denver [first debate] was no more real than Paul Ryan pretending to wash those already clean dishes for a photo op in a soup kitchen. The Romney at Hofstra [second debate] was the man who gives off enough of a toff’s sense of entitlement that you wouldn't want to hang out with him, even if he demanded it. He’s the plutocrat with a plan, and if you don’t like it, go on down to Human Resources and pick up your lousy severance.


    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/the-other-missing-man/
  5. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Oct '12 23:37
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Romney a couple of months ago said he would repeal the Dream Act. Playing to his fringe right base. Quite the opposite, in the last debate the other night he said such illegal immigrant kids should have a path to citizenship. Playing to the Latino American vote.

    Which is it? What does Romney believe at his core on the issue of illegal immigrants brought here as toddlers and raised here? Does he have a core? Is he an empty suit?
    I don't see the contradiction. You could believe that a path to citizenship is a good idea but that the Dream Act presents the wrong path. Romney presented military service as one example of such a path to citizenship, which implies something more narrow than allowed under the Dream Act.
  6. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    20 Oct '12 23:51
    Originally posted by moon1969
    Romney a couple of months ago said he would repeal the Dream Act. Playing to his fringe right base. Quite the opposite, in the last debate the other night he said such illegal immigrant kids should have a path to citizenship. Playing to the Latino American vote.

    Which is it? What does Romney believe at his core on the issue of illegal immigrants brought here as toddlers and raised here? Does he have a core? Is he an empty suit?
    Romney is a gas giant. The clouds change shape from hour to hour, and no matter how far down you plumb you'll never find a solid surface.
  7. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    20 Oct '12 23:53
    Originally posted by sh76
    I don't see the contradiction. You could believe that a path to citizenship is a good idea but that the Dream Act presents the wrong path. Romney presented military service as one example of such a path to citizenship, which implies something more narrow than allowed under the Dream Act.
    Let the "brownies" fight in the trenches for the Empire while the elite sip fine wine in their mansions? It's been done.
  8. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    21 Oct '12 00:50
    Maybe the mistake is to forget that a Romney president will be largely dependent on his advisors and the people he gives the jobs to. I could make an argument that, as a decent Chief Executive, he could work reasonably well with a variety of different teams and get results. Sounds sensible. So then you have to ask who will get the jobs, whose advice will prevail, what will the administration do, under his benign and chairmanlike supervision.

    For example, we can assume that the Neo Conservative hawks will be back in charge of foreign policy, restoring (if it was ever abandoned ) the military aggression, the willingness to provoke a war with Iran (John Bolton, one of his advisors, advocates "preemptive military action" ), the torture and illegal detention of prisoners, the arming of lunatics, the subversion of left leaning governments, the undermining of the United Nations in the selfish interests of American corporate interests....

    You can assume that new appointments to the Supreme court will entrench its partisan, Republican bias, perhaps for many years into the future. One of the first things to go will be the current restrictions from the 1965 Voting Rights Act to prevent discriminatory polling rules to reduce the number of Black, Latino and generally Democrat votes in future elections.

    You can assume that the wealthy will not be pressed to pay the level of taxation required to sustain welfare programmes or health programmes let alone make any improvements, while military budgets are protected if not (as promised by Romney) increased. You cannot assume, however, that he will make an intelligent, coherent effort to resolve the hideously unbalanced budget or be quite as alarmed as Obama at the consequences of running out of funds for key programmes.

    You can assume he will not veto the Republican Congress when it guts the affordable Care Act and promotes its unhinged objectives in other areas. They will have a free run under Romney. There will be no effective strategy to confront climate change and its consequences.

    You already know most of what will happen and it will not matter how moderate a facade Romney as a person manages to drape over his head in this phase of his campaign.

    There is a limit to what any president can achieve in the American constitution apart from starting wars. But there may be no limit to the damage Romney can cause just by being a stupid, wavering, inconsistent, unprincipled tool of the Republican Party - a front man for people who would never get the job, just as Bush was for people like Cheney. Like a lot of Chief Executives, he wants the top job and he expects other people to do the work.
  9. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    25 Oct '12 05:48
    Originally posted by moon1969
    The success of that strategy was brought home to me in a conversation with a friend. I caught myself arguing that Romney was the candidate most likely to finally break up the big banks and end the ‘too big to fail’ concept. Granted, I was influenced by George Will’s article, but I didn’t realize how idiotic that sounded until I heard it come out of ...[text shortened]... a Romney Administration? I can only find out by taking a bite.

    (Emphasis added).[/b]
    Actually, let's look at what Romney has done. Four years of balanced budgets, a rescue of the Olympics, passage of a universal health care bill, and unmitigated spare publican success in a state whose Legislature is 7/8 Democrat.

    I think he'll do quite nicely.
  10. 25 Oct '12 23:31
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Actually, let's look at what Romney has done. Four years of balanced budgets, a rescue of the Olympics, passage of a universal health care bill, and unmitigated spare publican success in a state whose Legislature is 7/8 Democrat.

    I think he'll do quite nicely.
    What does it mean at the national level that he passed universal healthcare in his state.