In some ways I feel like the Republicans have missed a great opportunity to insert their ideologies into workable solutions for the country. Obama seemed totally open to playing ball with them at many points.
Instead, it seems like Repub's were more concerned with throwing their eggs on Obama's face rather than using them to bake the cake. What a waste.
They had an even better opportunity through most of the first decade of the millennium, although I wouldn't call much of what was accomplished workable solutions.Originally Posted by mtnlaurel
"They" are the problem. As long as its we vs. they and us vs. them not much else is going to get done. I really believe the President tried to compromise. Those efforts have mostly failed partly because of partisan politics and partly because he is not a strong or experienced enough leader to pull it together.
Fiscal conservatives I know lean Republican because they believe that we won't have a chance to solve social problems if we're broke and think the Reps will put a higher priority on those fiscal issues overall. For a lot of us its that simple. The biggest opportunity so far missed by the Republican party comes from alienating that more moderate part of the base by cowing to more extreme groups. That ideological shift by the party helped give rise to a large and so far unorganized block of independents. I don't think he could win, but don't rule out Ron Paul as a third party candidate rattling the cage.
Another factor is that mainstream media prefers to chase the Republican flavor of the day, hyping him/her, and driving up his/her numbers. Mitt has made speeches and put out position papers that are not covered because Cain's women and Perry's gaffes and Newt's snarks are more sound bite for the buck.
But then, it is difficult to learn anything of depth and worth from Yahoo headlines and tv news.
+1, Iris lily. I was just thinking the other day 'when did presidential races get covered like horse races'? who's in front, who's lagging behind, who stumbled out of the gate? There's almost no thoughtful coverage or comparison of their positions, which leaves the average voter to spend time searching this him/herself. No wonder voters weary of the whole thing.
I think the debates are a waste of time. Sure they can be enlightening, as in the audience cheering for the death of someone who failed to buy insurance, or booing a gay soldier, but they really are a contest of sound bites. I much prefer the Sunday morning talk shows where each candidate gets to talk more about their positions and their opinions on current events. I know it's hard to have debates with more substance with a lot of candidates, but it would sure be more helpful. For instance, I don't think Ron Paul really wants someone with a catastrophic injury to die simply because they didn't have the forethought to buy health insurance, or Michelle Bachmann is probably smarter than she comes off as, but how will we know with these sound bite debate formats.
If you like what Obama is doing with the country but don't want to vote for a black guy, then Romney might be a good choice. Other than that, I don't see any reason for anyone to choose Romney over Obama. They would both move the country in the same direction, so if you think that's a good idea, why change conductors?
The problem is, you're describing liberals and they won't vote for Romney no matter what. Independants and Conservatives, being individualistic, tend not to allow race to color their decisions.
As to the OP's question "Why don't they like Romney?", I'll defer to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy:
To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
I would choose Obama over Romney (I've had one for a president and the other for a governor). That said I don't see a huge difference between the actions of the two. Just the rhetoric.
BTW, the colors you paint labels could be construed as offensive.
I'm not sure what that sentence means, but if you're talking about the use of race as a basis for political activity, I'd agree. Totally offensive!!
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote