T Nation

Mitt, Winning Friends & Influencing Allies

I thought he was a shoo in come election time, but if this is anything to go by much shooting in the foot remains to be done.

His biggest problem is that he is about as lovable as a shoe box. Romney is not in control of this situation. This is obama’s to lose. If obama loses I am going to laugh hard, because Romney is just not threat. It would be tantamount to obama getting fired. Obama talks pretty and people fall for that shit. Romney may be able to keep up with substance, but he doesn’t have a pretty mouth and that’s going to kill him in the end.

I give obama a 60% chance at re-election. He has fucked up a lot, but people in this country has short memories. All he has to do is promise everybody a smart phone and they will vote for him… However, the conservative base may just be invigorated enough to unseat him if his based is not stirred up, so there’s a chance.

You’re right about one thing, Mitt has very little margin for error. Shit like the above he cannot afford.

I do not know which one is the hottest

I mentioned this on another thread.

First; I think that Conservatives hate the President MUCH more then they like Romney…and has been stated, are a base that is fired up and ready to vote in record numbers.

Add the Political organization and power of the TeaPublicans, and you have ADVANTAGE=ROMNEY.

Romney. If he doesn’t use a Teleprompter (which they ALL use, by the way…)…he better start. And he best stay “On Script”. Romney seems to ALWAYS stick his foot in his mouth when he tries to be humorous; tries to ad lib; tries to be a “regular guy”; or tries to be “warm and fuzzy”. It just doesn’t work for him.

Mufasa

I think the term conservative has been bastardized. It is not a social term , it is a fiscal term and Obama may be more fiscally conservative than Romney

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Romney. If he doesn’t use a Teleprompter (which they ALL use, by the way…)…he better start. And he best stay “On Script”. Romney seems to ALWAYS stick his foot in his mouth when he tries to be humorous; tries to ad lib; tries to be a “regular guy”; or tries to be “warm and fuzzy”. It just doesn’t work for him.

Mufasa [/quote]

Nonsense Mufasa!

Romney is very good on his feet far better than Obama who cannot stray far from his teleprompter. His comment in London will mean zip by election day…absolutely nothing!

At this point in the campaign they all make mistakes. In 08’ Obama talked about rural types in PA “clinging to their guns and bibles.” And recently he told American small business people that “you didn’t build your business.”

Romney’s London comment pales in the face of whoppers like Obama’s.

But we can all look to many more gaffes on the part of both candidates before election day rolls along. If you want to see Romney’s mistakes repeated you only have to tune into MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or many of the other liberal media. And if you want to hear Obama’s repeated tune into FOX and talk radio.

By the way if anyone here thinks that they are smarter, or have better linguistic abilities than either man they are most likely smoking what Pittbull smokes…

This is utterly inconsequential to an American election. Even if it happened the last day of October. At least he said what he honestly saw.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This is utterly inconsequential to an American election. Even if it happened the last day of October. At least he said what he honestly saw.[/quote]

That’s one of the things the media doesn’t like. You see, if Romney sugar coats things he is casted as a slippery politician. Yet, if he speaks his mind he is tactless and not ready to lead. The liberal media will get him one way or the other!

Romney could be a child molester and Zeb would justify it

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Romney could be a child molester and Zeb would justify it [/quote]

Because I put forth the argument that both candidates have made and will make errors? And did so by giving examples?

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:This is utterly inconsequential to an American election. Even if it happened the last day of October. At least he said what he honestly saw.[/quote]That’s one of the things the media doesn’t like. You see, if Romney sugar coats things he is casted as a slippery politician. Yet, if he speaks his mind he is tactless and not ready to lead. The liberal media will get him one way or the other![/quote]I certainly don’t know everything, but I’ve been through enough election cycles now to have a feel for what will carry weight in the minds of voters. This won’t. I would even go so far as to say that Obama’s mistreatment of Israel will get more traction in the opposite direction.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:This is utterly inconsequential to an American election. Even if it happened the last day of October. At least he said what he honestly saw.[/quote]That’s one of the things the media doesn’t like. You see, if Romney sugar coats things he is casted as a slippery politician. Yet, if he speaks his mind he is tactless and not ready to lead. The liberal media will get him one way or the other![/quote]I certainly don’t know everything, but I’ve been through enough election cycles now to have a feel for what will carry weight in the minds of voters. This won’t. I would even go so far as to say that Obama’s mistreatment of Israel will get more traction in the opposite direction.
[/quote]

Of course this won’t carry any weight in the election. And I agree with Zeb that both candidates will make flubs. The reason why I posted it ,is more that I would have expected this particular situation to be so stage managed and away from the glare of US media in real terms, that it would be really difficult to cock it up. if that makes sense. But so much for that.

It’s not that I believe he will be a worse president than Obama either. It just once again goes to the paucity of quality in the political arena. And this isn’t only an American problem, it’s a worldwide problem in most democracies I keep in touch with. I struggle to think of a single pol worldwide that is worth the air he breathes.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:This is utterly inconsequential to an American election. Even if it happened the last day of October. At least he said what he honestly saw.[/quote]That’s one of the things the media doesn’t like. You see, if Romney sugar coats things he is casted as a slippery politician. Yet, if he speaks his mind he is tactless and not ready to lead. The liberal media will get him one way or the other![/quote]I certainly don’t know everything, but I’ve been through enough election cycles now to have a feel for what will carry weight in the minds of voters. This won’t. I would even go so far as to say that Obama’s mistreatment of Israel will get more traction in the opposite direction.
[/quote]

"U.S. President Barack Obama currently has the support of 64% of Jewish registered voters, according to the Gallup polling agency. This is 10% less than the percentage of Jews who voted for Obama in 2008, and is similar to the percentage of Jews who voted for Michael Dukakis when he contended for the presidency against George Bush in 1988. Republican Mitt Romney enjoys 29% support among Jews.
Gallup notes the 10-point drop is “five points worse than his decline among all registered voters compared with 2008.”

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It just once again goes to the paucity of quality in the political arena. And this isn’t only an American problem, it’s a worldwide problem in most democracies I keep in touch with. I struggle to think of a single pol worldwide that is worth the air he breathes. [/quote]

Total nonsense.

Familiarity breeds contempt. And there’s nothing like negative advertising to cause us to get more “familiar” with both candidates.

Anyone who spends so much time in the public light is bound to make mistakes and look foolish on ocassion. This has nothing to do with either Obama’s or Romney’s intelligence. As I said earlier if you or (anyone else) think(s) that you would do better you’re living a lie.

As for qualifications you want someone who has a better resume than Mitt Romney? Great find him, I’m sure he’s out there but in the mean time we have a really good republican candidate in Mitt Romney. But he’s been trashed so much by the media and his republican opponents people like you think that he’s “not worth the air he breaths.” Oh come on…really?

–Romney ran the Olympics so he’s qualified to talk about security for the Olympics.

–Former Governor so he has political executive experience

–Made about 300 million in the business sector this gives him executive business experience. This shows he understands not only how to succeed but how the economy works as well.

I’m not at all saying there are not better qualified people to run the country, I’m sure that there are. But all negative advertising aside he’s a good man for the job!

…But he (Romney) has been trashed so much by the media and his republican opponents…"

I think this point needs emphasis, Zeb.

SO FAR, Romney was trashed with much more vitriol by his Primary Opponents than by the President…

So far…

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…But he (Romney) has been trashed so much by the media and his republican opponents…"

I think this point needs emphasis, Zeb.

SO FAR, Romney was trashed with much more vitriol by his Primary Opponents than by the President…

So far…

Mufasa[/quote]

I agree with you but keep in mind that the primary season was fairly lengthy and that there were many more people going after him.

I will only add that so far Obama’s entire campaign has been about trashing Mitt Romney and not much about what he (Obama) has done to deserve reelection. That should tell those who are on the fence that even the Presidents own team knows that the only way he can win is to trash his opponent.

If you enjoy the history of political advertising contrast Obama’s campaign ads with the “Morning In America” video that Ronald Reagan ran on for his second term.

This is the type of ad you run when you’ve actually accomplished your goals and have something to tout:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
It just once again goes to the paucity of quality in the political arena. And this isn’t only an American problem, it’s a worldwide problem in most democracies I keep in touch with. I struggle to think of a single pol worldwide that is worth the air he breathes. [/quote]

Total nonsense.

Familiarity breeds contempt. And there’s nothing like negative advertising to cause us to get more “familiar” with both candidates.

Anyone who spends so much time in the public light is bound to make mistakes and look foolish on ocassion. This has nothing to do with either Obama’s or Romney’s intelligence. As I said earlier if you or (anyone else) think(s) that you would do better you’re living a lie.

As for qualifications you want someone who has a better resume than Mitt Romney? Great find him, I’m sure he’s out there but in the mean time we have a really good republican candidate in Mitt Romney. But he’s been trashed so much by the media and his republican opponents people like you think that he’s “not worth the air he breaths.” Oh come on…really?

–Romney ran the Olympics so he’s qualified to talk about security for the Olympics.

–Former Governor so he has political executive experience

–Made about 300 million in the business sector this gives him executive business experience. This shows he understands not only how to succeed but how the economy works as well.

I’m not at all saying there are not better qualified people to run the country, I’m sure that there are. But all negative advertising aside he’s a good man for the job!
[/quote]

Don’t get me wrong, I think he would probably be better than Obama. While I believe Obama was handed a poison chalice by the economic events that preceded his election, he has looked very out of his depth at times. Other times not. What I found personally (with my very limited knowledge in the area) to be his undoing was that abortion of a health care bill.

As for Mitt, i understand what you’re saying and I don’t disagree that he has substantially more experience than Obama (prior to his current four years, since there’s no experience like doing an actual job) had. Hell, maybe even more than he currently has. But there is an air of elitist detachment to him that I just battle to see past and find even mildly engaging. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, and as far as being a Mormon go, while I think it’s as much a ‘religion’ in the old school term as scientology, I personally know tons of Mormons through my family and have found them all to be to be solid and empathetic human beings. I have no issue with that side.
As for the Olympic gaffe, it’s not that he wasn’t more qualified than most to comment, even if the Winter Oly in Salt Lake is a far cry from Summer Games in London. I was more really surprised by the out of the blue low pressure nature of the gaffe is all. Hence my comment in the OP.

If I have to think back to the last election, with the benefit of hindsight I think McCain would have made a better president than Obama and currently than both the current picks. Just my opinion.

As for Rommney’s business acumen, from what I understand, he started with the silver spoon (not his fault) and continued from there, in a quite a narrow field of endeavor. I’m not sure how that relates to what he will do in the WH as far as being business friendly goes. But that’s a tough one to gauge if you don’t live in the US.

My .02c

Edit: I still fail to see how they are the best you guys can muster over there, on both sides. All partisan dickwagging aside. Also just an opinion. Maybe I’m wrong…

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As for Rommney’s business acumen, from what I understand, he started with the silver spoon (not his fault) and continued from there, in a quite a narrow field of endeavor. I’m not sure how that relates to what he will do in the WH as far as being business friendly goes. But that’s a tough one to gauge if you don’t live in the US[/quote]

You are mistaken my friend. Romney inhereted a modest amount of money from his father’s estate along with his siblings. He then immediately donated every penny to his alma mater! Not many people know this so don’t feel bad.

[quote]
Edit: I still fail to see how they are the best you guys can muster over there, on both sides. All partisan dickwagging aside. Also just an opinion. Maybe I’m wrong…[/quote]

You called him an elitist but few realize that the founding fathers were wealthy, highly educated men who were far removed from the common man. The fact is the common man has no idea how to lead or succeed at that level.

The main stream liberal media would have you believe that Romney is the only man to ever run for the Presidency who was wealthy. However, with very few exceptions just about every President has been wealthy and highly educated.

Mitt Romney would he a gigantic step forward after Barack Obama.

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< Don’t get me wrong, I think he would probably be better than Obama. While I believe Obama was handed a poison chalice by the economic events that preceded his election, he has looked very out of his depth at times. Other times not. What I found personally (with my very limited knowledge in the area) to be his undoing was that abortion of a health care bill.

As for Mitt, i understand what you’re saying and I don’t disagree that he has substantially more experience than Obama (prior to his current four years, since there’s no experience like doing an actual job) had. Hell, maybe even more than he currently has. But there is an air of elitist detachment to him that I just battle to see past and find even mildly engaging. I don’t think he’s a bad guy, and as far as being a Mormon go, while I think it’s as much a ‘religion’ in the old school term as scientology, I personally know tons of Mormons through my family and have found them all to be to be solid and empathetic human beings. I have no issue with that side.
As for the Olympic gaffe, it’s not that he wasn’t more qualified than most to comment, even if the Winter Oly in Salt Lake is a far cry from Summer Games in London. I was more really surprised by the out of the blue low pressure nature of the gaffe is all. Hence my comment in the OP.

If I have to think back to the last election, with the benefit of hindsight I think McCain would have made a better president than Obama and currently than both the current picks. Just my opinion.

As for Rommney’s business acumen, from what I understand, he started with the silver spoon (not his fault) and continued from there, in a quite a narrow field of endeavor. I’m not sure how that relates to what he will do in the WH as far as being business friendly goes. But that’s a tough one to gauge if you don’t live in the US.

My .02c

Edit: I still fail to see how they are the best you guys can muster over there, on both sides. All partisan dickwagging aside. Also just an opinion. Maybe I’m wrong…[/quote]
Not bad dude. Overall, not bad at all. As an aside and for the record I have said many times here that committed Mormons are patriotic to the core and historically are first in line to fight when this country has needed defending. Serious Mormons, of which Romney is not one, are politically right down the Reagan line. I think it would be a tossup for would be more nauseating to watch. Romney or McCain.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

As for Rommney’s business acumen, from what I understand, he started with the silver spoon (not his fault) and continued from there, in a quite a narrow field of endeavor. I’m not sure how that relates to what he will do in the WH as far as being business friendly goes. But that’s a tough one to gauge if you don’t live in the US[/quote]

You are mistaken my friend. Romney inhereted a modest amount of money from his father’s estate along with his siblings. He then immediately donated every penny to his alma mater! Not many people know this so don’t feel bad.

[quote]
Edit: I still fail to see how they are the best you guys can muster over there, on both sides. All partisan dickwagging aside. Also just an opinion. Maybe I’m wrong…[/quote]

You called him an elitist but few realize that the founding fathers were wealthy, highly educated men who were far removed from the common man. The fact is the common man has no idea how to lead or succeed at that level.

The main stream liberal media would have you believe that Romney is the only man to ever run for the Presidency who was wealthy. However, with very few exceptions just about every President has been wealthy and highly educated.

Mitt Romney would he a gigantic step forward after Barack Obama.[/quote]

I’m aware of the position of the founding fathers, that was a time when no one BUT wealthy, educated men could have done what they did. And I’m also aware that many of the US presidents were from very wealthy backgrounds. i don’t know what it is about Romney that I can’t get past.

I had also heard about his donating the inheritance to the alma mater, props to him. But we also all know that making cash and raising capital is fairly easy if you are part of a moneyed circle. Just like us mere mortals will raise capital from people that know us quite easily if we have a decent reputation, just the numbers differ. Also not his fault.