Opinion of the Candidate - Mitt Romney

[RJ]

I was neutral on Romney from the start and I'd have to say all things considered I am now.

I find him probably the least offensive Republican candidate to appear in the nomination process this time around. Let's face it---of all those who held the frontrunner status in the process one of them was a gimmick, another was just a fool, another was an adulteror who went after an adulteror and another couldn't make a statement without shouting. Given these alternatives I'd say the GOP picked the best of the worst.

I've often thought that if Obama doesn't win this time around I could possibly accept Romney as the next president(although I'm not at all convinced that's going to happen.) It isn't Romney that bothers me as much as his useless party.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I didn't say Hillary was more exciting than Reagan. I said the most exciting candidate since Reagan. And I honestly believe that. Obama was only exciting to the fools who couldn't see through him.

I'll agree that Bush41 and Romney are similar, but I think there are key differences. For one, Bush was the complete oppositing of an outsider. Yeah, he had experience in oil, but he spent a lot of time in Washington. Romney hasn't. And I think Romney's business experience is a lot more tailored to the presidency than Bush's was. Romney turned around failing businesses. America is becoming a failing country. I think Romney brings a fresh perspective that we haven't seen in a long time.

As for his leadership? I think being a venture capitalist is one of the biggest examples of going against conventional wisdom there is. These are high-risk investments. And there's a reason Romney's time there was so successful. I don't know the specifics, but I really don't care about them. His successes speak for themselves.

[RogueBeaver]

He's serviceable, able to run an aggressive campaign and promises to govern as a conservative should he be elected. Good enough for me.

[Donerail]

Neocon. Automatic negative.

[Purch]

As an independent I personally supported Hillary over any other candidate in 08. One of the posters in this thread asked why and I'd respond by saying that I believe Obama ran a campaign on unrealistic ideals. Believing that he could change the partisanship of Washington was unrealistic whiles Hillary was very clear that there's always partisanship in Washington and rather than trying to get rid of it you had to be strict and firm similar to how Bill governed. She'd listen to republicans from day one and make them understand that she' not going to intimidated by their "tough politics". I always felt that during his first two years when Obama passed legislation through the democrats and there was a huge disconnect between him and the minority republicans in congress because he didn't need their approval, so then the Repubs got elected in 2010 there was no room for compromise. From what I've realized the most successful presidents make a strong connection with the minority party in congress because you never know if they'll be the majority halfway through your term.

I've told people many times that there's people I consider political Heavyweights that have a certain assertiveness that would allow them to get pass partisanship in Washington people like Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. In terms of people who could possibly be running Hilary Clinton and Chris Christie strike me as the kind of politicians I see who'd be connected with the other party and be willing to compromise whiles being tough enough to overcome tough politics.

When you say that Hilary would govern similar to Obama you're speaking in terms of policy, but proposing policy means nothing if you're not the kind of person who can overcome and discourage extreme partisanship in Washington.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

He doesn't know much about governing but knows how to create personal wealth.

[WhyteRain]

Romney would be an amazing candidate. For the democrats.

At first I thought you meant that Romney's a weak GOP nominee (and I would agree), but then I realize you mean that the Democrats should nominate someone like Romney.  Is that right?

If so, it comes close to what I've said for years:  Romney would make a fine president, if New England were its own country.

[morgieb]

Somewhat negative. While I reckon he'd make a better president than most Democrats give him credit for, he seems the definition of a HP.

[memphis]

Valueless cipher

[Cobbler]

Somewhat positive -Almost neutral
On paper, I like Romney's record. I liked how he was as moderate Republican governor, his business experience, the Olympics, etc. He seems like a competent and smart manager who was pragmatic. He has a large grasp on financial and economic issues.
However, I have been disappointed by his tack to the right during the campaigns for President, and I had hoped that more of "old Mitt" would come out in the general, but so far I'm not seeing it.

Overall, I think he'd be a good president however.

[Lincoln Republican]

The Republican FDR.

Like FDR, he will assume the Presidency at a time of great economic upheaval from a predecessor who led the nation to the brink of economic ruin.

He will restore confidence once again in the economic future of America, because he has the experience and the ability to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Republican FDR.

Like FDR, he will assume the Presidency at a time of great economic upheaval from a predecessor who led the nation to the brink of economic ruin.

He will restore confidence once again in the economic future of America, because he has the experience and the ability to do so.

If Romney is the Republican FDR, that means that he will be a great talker who will copy Obama's policies, only do them to the nth degree.  However, that can't be, as first Romney would have to become a great talker.

[Vote UKIP!]

Somewhat positive. He's gotten better as a candidate, and I can support him in the general.

[LastVoter]

The Republican FDR.

Like FDR, he will assume the Presidency at a time of great economic upheaval from a predecessor who led the nation to the brink of economic ruin.

He will restore confidence once again in the economic future of America, because he has the experience and the ability to do so.

Except Romney won't increase public spending unlike FDR, so there won't be confidence in the future.

[President von Cat]

I do not have a very high opinion of Mitt Romney.

I don't think he's a bad guy actually, I picture him to act a lot like Henry Francis from Mad Men behind closed doors - dignified in a quiet, humble way. However, I'm originally from Massachusetts and was thoroughly unimpressed with his tenor there.

We've already seen what Romney does when he brings his private sector experience to government, and the results are pretty bad. Horrible job creation and a deficit. The fact that he is able to run as Mr Economic Fix It with no real scrutiny of his record is just appalling.

[Panhandle Progressive]

I'm not a fan. He reminds me of a waffling used car salesman. If you looked up flip flopper in the dictionary a pic of Mitt would be next to the definition. Hell, John Kerry looks like a amateur compared to Mitt.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm not a fan. He reminds me of a waffling used car dealer. If you looked up flip flopper in the dictionary a pic of Mitt would be next to the definition. Hell, John Kerry looks like a amateur compared to Mitt.

John Kerry was a man of unconditional principle when compared to Mitt Romney.

[Eraserhead]

Couldn't be any lower. Really.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The Republican FDR.

Like FDR, he will assume the Presidency at a time of great economic upheaval from a predecessor who led the nation to the brink of economic ruin.

He will restore confidence once again in the economic future of America, because he has the experience and the ability to do so.

Since you're never letting us forget that historical analogies are not your strongest suit, let me remind you that FDR's predecessor, Hoover, took office at the height of prosperity. Obama on the other hand, took office after the greatest crisis since Hoover times already started. And it started under no one else than Republican two-term President.

Also, for your info, once FDR took office, he didn't just wave with a magic stick to make crisis go away. Recovery took some time.

And, frankly, I was hoping for more entertaining comparison, like Jean-Baptiste Colbert or, maybe Enguerrand de Marigny. That shall be your homework. Dismissed.

[k-onmmunist]

He's a positionless corporate spokesman with no principles and more money than sense. What's not to hate?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Personally? I think he's probably a nice guy, strong business acumen and intelligent.

Politically? He's gutless, unprincipled (or to the hacks 'flexible') and out of touch.

So... I'll so somewhat negative.

[old timey villain]

Politically? I think he's a shameless opportunist who will say anything and do anything to get elected.

Personally? I think he's a shameless opportunist who will say anything and do anything to get people to do what he wants.

I'm sure he loves his family and is a great father. But big whoop. Someone has to be a horrible specimen of a human being not to love their own family.