Mitt Romney Universe

[ModerateCoward]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/a-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html?_r=4

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

Biased, unbalanced, inaccurate reporting by a biased media outlet.

[Democratic Hawk]

Biased, unbalanced, inaccurate reporting by a biased media outlet.

What's the matter? Valueless cipher not getting a John McCain style-2008 free pass?

[Mehmentum]

This article is an FF.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force

Amazing play on words.

Also this:

Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.

[Politico]

What are they talking about? Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign was the ultimate example of the power of triangulation. Romney has core beliefs, of course, but he believes in triangulation. And it will serve him well in November because the people in the middle, the ones who decide who wins and who loses, love triangulation (SEE: BILL CLINTON, 1996).

Sorry, but Obama is not going to paint Romney as some sort of woman-hating social conservative. If Team Obama thinks it is going to be that easy, I feel sorry for them. They have no idea what is in store for them. Axelrod is poised to go from hero to zero, especially if he doubles-down on this populist garbage. Maybe Axelrod can cry into his beer with Shrum next year?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Sorry, but Obama is not going to paint Romney as some sort of woman-hating social conservative. If Team Obama thinks it is going to be that easy, I feel sorry for them. They have no idea what is in store for them. Axelrod is poised to go from hero to zero, especially if he doubles-down on this populist garbage. Maybe Axelrod can cry into his beer with Shrum next year?

Of course, you're right. Romney can't be a woman-hating social conservative when he doesn't actually believe in a thing.

Biased, unbalanced, inaccurate reporting by a biased media outlet.

It's an editorial.

[Erc]

This article is an FF.

A bit of context. Before Mitt Romney, those seeking the presidency operated under the laws of so-called classical politics, laws still followed by traditional campaigners like Newt Gingrich. Under these Newtonian principles, a candidate’s position on an issue tends to stay at rest until an outside force

Amazing play on words.

Also this:

Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.

That's some serious baryon number violation right there.

[cope1989]

What are they talking about? Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign was the ultimate example of the power of triangulation. Romney has core beliefs, of course, but he believes in triangulation. And it will serve him well in November because the people in the middle, the ones who decide who wins and who loses, love triangulation (SEE: BILL CLINTON, 1996).

Sorry, but Obama is not going to paint Romney as some sort of woman-hating social conservative. If Team Obama thinks it is going to be that easy, I feel sorry for them. They have no idea what is in store for them. Axelrod is poised to go from hero to zero, especially if he doubles-down on this populist garbage. Maybe Axelrod can cry into his beer with Shrum next year?

LOL No, actually it'll be pretty easy for Obama's people to paint Romney any way they want. He's an empty suit, a blank slate, who stands for everything and stands for nothing. Any criticism on him can stick because he has literally said anything and everything to get votes.

[cope1989]

Can I also say that Romney has had a pretty spectacularly failworthy political career thus far? Business wise- he's been incredibly successful, but just look at his political score card.

1994: Kennedy is probably at his most vulnerable. A slew of scandals have dragged his image to a new low and since this is also the Republican revolution, he's very very vulnerable. Mittens manages to turn a slight lead in the polls into a 17 point loss thanks to his pathetic performance in the debates with Kennedy.

2002: Romney wins the Governorship in Massachusetts. I guess this is his crowning achievement in his political career, but it's a big whoop-de-doo for me. A 3 or 4 point victory is nice I guess, but it's nothing compared to how other Republican Govs of Massachusetts performed, like Weld in 1994.

2006: Romney decides not to run again, and it's not like he really planned on trying to get reelected anyway- that crummy job was just a spring board to the White House , duh. But he couldn't have run for reelection even if he wanted to, as his approval rating was mired in the 30's and he would surely have been defeated in an epically embarrassing election. Look at Deval Patrick's 20 point victory and add on maybe 5 points.

It seems to me like Romney is constantly overrated in the political world. His followers see him as the perfect politician- smart, good looking, family man, "electable"- one who will save them from whatever liberal demon is terrorizing them, and he just doesn't quite live up to their expectations.

On the other hand, Obama is constantly underrated. He has been viewed as the underdog in almost every election or political fight he has been in, whether it was the 2004 senate race, the 2008 primaries, healthcare, or what have you. But he always seems to surprise his critics and adversaries, by getting that field goal at the last second.

So if anyone needs a reality check about this election, it's Romney's team and the Republicans who are stuck in their echo chamber and think Obama will be a breeze to defeat. Good fu****n luck, yall.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Agreed, Romney is pretty weak, and only got the nomination because none of the candidates (himself included) could even be considered "B team" material.

[America First]

LOL No, actually it'll be pretty easy for Obama's people to paint Romney any way they want. He's an empty suit, a blank slate, who stands for everything and stands for nothing. Any criticism on him can stick because he has literally said anything and everything to get votes.

Well said, my friend.  Romney is the biggest joke of a candidate ever, and Obama can't wait to go against him.

[America First]

Axelrod is poised to go from hero to zero, especially if he doubles-down on this populist garbage. Maybe Axelrod can cry into his beer with Shrum next year?

That "populist garbage" is all that the Obama camp even needs to touch and they win by double digits against Willard.

[milhouse24]

I think Romney's platform will be "Deficit Reduction" and "Balance the Budget" 

these are 2 platforms that helped Bill Clinton get elected and they should work again.

Now Obama has tried to jump on the Deficit bandwagon, but no one will believe him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Axelrod is poised to go from hero to zero, especially if he doubles-down on this populist garbage. Maybe Axelrod can cry into his beer with Shrum next year?

That "populist garbage" is all that the Obama camp even needs to touch and they win by double digits against Willard.

Obama could always use William Daley's pro-corporatism advice to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[True Federalist]

I think Romney's platform will be "Deficit Reduction" and "Balance the Budget" 

these are 2 platforms that helped Bill Clinton get elected and they should work again.

Now Obama has tried to jump on the Deficit bandwagon, but no one will believe him.

Why would anyone believe Romney?  He has zero credibility on this issue and many others beside.  That's because he always try to shape his message to his audience and hasn't learned he can't keep his audiences from comparing what he says at different times.  He's called for tax cuts and defense spending increases without specifying how he would offset their effect on the budget.  Enacting what Romney has said he would do would increase the deficit, not decrease it.

Tax cuts, increased defense spending, and balancing the budget are all popular, but unless you massively slash Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid, there is no way to get all three done.  Romney hasn't even proposed cuts to the social programs sufficient to keep the government at its current deficit levels if he got the tax cuts and defense spending he said he wanted.  We tried cutting taxes and increasing military spending under Bush and the deficit soared.  Does Romney think the voters are dumb enough to believe that if does it, the deficit will shrink?  (Granted, the voters are sometimes dumb, but not when they've already experienced what is being proposed.)

[ModerateCoward]

I think Romney's platform will be "Deficit Reduction" and "Balance the Budget" 

these are 2 platforms that helped Bill Clinton get elected and they should work again.

Now Obama has tried to jump on the Deficit bandwagon, but no one will believe him.

Why would anyone believe Romney?  He has zero credibility on this issue and many others beside.  That's because he always try to shape his message to his audience and hasn't learned he can't keep his audiences from comparing what he says at different times.  He's called for tax cuts and defense spending increases without specifying how he would offset their effect on the budget.  Enacting what Romney has said he would do would increase the deficit, not decrease it.

Tax cuts, increased defense spending, and balancing the budget are all popular, but unless you massively slash Social Security, Medicare, and/or Medicaid, there is no way to get all three done.  Romney hasn't even proposed cuts to the social programs sufficient to keep the government at its current deficit levels if he got the tax cuts and defense spending he said he wanted.  We tried cutting taxes and increasing military spending under Bush and the deficit soared.  Does Romney think the voters are dumb enough to believe that if does it, the deficit will shrink?  (Granted, the voters are sometimes dumb, but not when they've already experienced what is being proposed.)

Well the voters finally learned in 2008 that war, bomb iran, war product isn't very attractive. They obviously might have forgotten since then, but I am sure enough of them remember. But in 2016 the voters would have mostly forgotten it and the time would be ripe for Republican to try, war, balanced budget, tax cuts platform one more time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Link to get around paywall.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2012%2F04%2F01%2Fopinion%2Fsunday%2Fa-quantum-theory-of-mitt-romney.html&ei=Cg6RT9yOF-vYiAKC9Lz2Ag&usg=AFQjCNFtB0YmfNlIoqRdJZZduP6Z-5sTgg

So, they actually missed something. And that is that by observing Mitt Romney, you can cause his views to change. Mitt Romney will collapse his views into the basis that he thinks you wanted his views in.