Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[WhoWee]

I don't think very many Democrats and independents consider Romney to be a "moderate"; certainly not as far right as the more fashionable Republican candidates, but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans.

Why are you describing the independents/Dems in a religious framework - Mitt isn't running a religion-oriented campaign. Mitt is running primarily on his executive level experience.

 

[Number Nine]

Why are you describing the independents/Dems in a religious framework - Mitt isn't running a religion-oriented campaign. Mitt is running primarily on his executive level experience.

I'm not describing him in a religious framework. That's not what I said.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not describing him in a religious framework. That's not what I said.

You didn't describe Mitt that way - you described the voters that way - "but not a moderate from the perspective of less "conservative Christian"-inclined Americans."

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Some mother, Mrs. Churo, told Romney that her daughter, serving in Afghanistan, wants to know why we are still there after having killed Bin Laden. The mother says the daughter is confused about why she is still there. I take it that the daughter thought the mission in Afganistan had been to take out Bin Laden which was not the case, and that when we did take him out and didn't leave, it dawned on her that the mission was a different one, but in the ensuing year she hadn't been able to ferret out what that mission was. Apparently, now she has given up trying. Quoting the mother quoting the daughter "There is no mission here. We have no definition of a mission."

Romney took a dim view of this. "If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security."

The way I see it, the President must have called Romney and told him what the mission was adding "but don't tell Churo." Then tried to get some sleep. Most likely it didn't sit well with Romney that he was keeping this information under his hat and couldn't sleep himself. That's why he figured the President couldn't sleep either. So it was a bleary-eyed Romney that slipped up and told the mother what the mission is. Hopefully, the mother will now tell her daughter and everybody can get some sleep.

 

[WhoWee]

Some mother, Mrs. Churo, told Romney that her daughter, serving in Afghanistan, wants to know why we are still there after having killed Bin Laden. The mother says the daughter is confused about why she is still there. I take it that the daughter thought the mission in Afganistan had been to take out Bin Laden which was not the case, and that when we did take him out and didn't leave, it dawned on her that the mission was a different one, but in the ensuing year she hadn't been able to ferret out what that mission was. Apparently, now she has given up trying. Quoting the mother quoting the daughter "There is no mission here. We have no definition of a mission."

Romney took a dim view of this. "If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security."

The way I see it, the President must have called Romney and told him what the mission was adding "but don't tell Churo." Then tried to get some sleep. Most likely it didn't sit well with Romney that he was keeping this information under his hat and couldn't sleep himself. That's why he figured the President couldn't sleep either. So it was a bleary-eyed Romney that slipped up and told the mother what the mission is. Hopefully, the mother will now tell her daughter and everybody can get some sleep.

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

Perhaps all he wanted was a reason to say something bad about Obama. Again, Romney knows why we are there. Why doesn't the soldier? Did Obama do something to prevent her from knowing what Romney knows?

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps all he wanted was a reason to say something bad about Obama. Again, Romney knows why we are there. Why doesn't the soldier? Did Obama do something to prevent her from knowing what Romney knows?

I'm reading the quote you posted

""If your daughter is not familiar with the mission that she's on, how in the world can the commander in chief sleep at night, knowing that we have soldiers in harm's way that don't know exactly, precisely, what it is that they're doing there". "

and I don't see any indication that Mitt meant Obama did anything to prevent her from knowing anything - it also doesn't specify that Romney knows anything special - it infers (IMO) that President Obama has not communicated adequately with/to the troops. The comment (IMO) implies that President Obama doesn't have a strategic plan.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The comment (IMO) implies that President Obama doesn't have a strategic plan.

It doesn't mention strategic plan anywhere, just mission. And I still can't find out how Romney was able to find out what the mission is and the soldier wasn't. What could Obama have possibly done so that Romney knew and the soldier didn't know. After years of wondering too.

Edit. It might help to ask Romney how he found out what the mission is. If he could recall where he heard it, it might help us understand.

 

[Gokul43201]

Perhaps Mitt believes the soldier(s) should know why they are in harm's way - is that unreasonable?

If Mitt Romney were shown transcripts of speeches (yes, naturally they must be secret transcripts that only I - and Google - know of) given by the President to the troops (including a couple after Bin Laden's killing), where the Commander describes the mission to the troops, how would he reconcile that with his opinion on the President's amazing knack for slumber?

PS: This reminds me of a bit of trivia that I'll pose as a question: In 2006, Zogby polled about a 1000 members of the military that were stationed in Iraq at the time. What fraction of the respondents said that the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks? Choices: (1) less that 5% (2) 5% to 20% (3) 20% to 50% (4) more than 50%

 

[mheslep]

Point taken about misconceptions, confirmation bias among the public. To insure the point was general, and not a narrower political point, let me add my own: A Zogby 2007 poll of the US public found what fraction of Democrats believed Pres. Bush either let 911 happen or made it happen: 1)<5, 2)5-20, 3)20-41, 4)more than 42%?

 

[WhoWee]

It doesn't mention strategic plan anywhere, just mission. And I still can't find out how Romney was able to find out what the mission is and the soldier wasn't. What could Obama have possibly done so that Romney knew and the soldier didn't know. After years of wondering too.

Edit. It might help to ask Romney how he found out what the mission is. If he could recall where he heard it, it might help us understand.

Where does it say that Mitt claims to know the President's plan?

 

[Gokul43201]

Where does it say that Mitt claims to know the President's plan?

It says so about halfway down Jimmy's post. Also, here, for instance: The former Massachusetts governor said he found the president's failure to make the mission clear one of the "most disturbing and hard to explain" elements of Obama's tenure. Though American troops may have a hard time finding clarity in their mission, Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57390114-503544/romney-to-mother-of-army-daughter-how-can-obama-sleep-at-night/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This morning my wife asked me how I could sleep at night knowing that WhoWee didn't get the point. And here's the kicker. Then she said that she did get the point.

 

[WhoWee]

This morning my wife asked me how I could sleep at night knowing that WhoWee didn't get the point. And here's the kicker. Then she said that she did get the point.

Ok - to be fair though, you only had one quotation mark - didn't think it was a direct quote.

( Actually, it was soldier, not soldiers, but he's proabably right, there's more than one. But here's the kicker. Romney knows what the mission is. Romney said, he fully understood its purpose to be helping Afghan forces to achieve sovereignty and security." )

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Sorry to be so rough. The funny thing is, I support Romney and expect to vote for him in the general election. But this is the silly season and if he acts silly, I'll say so.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see why this issue is so difficult. All that happened is that a soldier's mom said something stupid (under emotional strain, but still) and like any good politician should, Romney used it to take a cheap shot at Obama. So can we turn the page now from this silly tangent, please?

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me the longer silly stuff like this is the only negative against Mitt Romney - and it's discussed as being silly - Mitt wins.

On another note - label IMO - a friend in Ohio told me Santorum isn't on the ballot in his Congressional District - not sure which one? He indicated Romney, Gingrich and Paul are on the ballot.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't see why this issue is so difficult. All that happened is that a soldier's mom said something stupid (under emotional strain, but still) and like any good politician should, Romney used it to take a cheap shot at Obama. So can we turn the page now from this silly tangent, please?

Yes sir!

 

[MarcoD]

PS: This reminds me of a bit of trivia that I'll pose as a question: In 2006, Zogby polled about a 1000 members of the military that were stationed in Iraq at the time. What fraction of the respondents said that the U.S. mission in Iraq was mainly to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks? Choices: (1) less that 5% (2) 5% to 20% (3) 20% to 50% (4) more than 50%

I don't think it's really constructive to post polls without the end result. I suggest you use the spoiler feature.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think it's really constructive to post polls without the end result. I suggest you use the spoiler feature.

The number is easily googled (I think).

In any case, the correct answer is:

Spoiler

85% of the respondents

To mheslep: I was actually trying to make a more specific (sociological, not political) point, but I'll accept your point as worthy of consideration as well, and agree with Russ to stop beating a dead horse (which perhaps wouldn't have needed so much beating if everyone agreed that it was indeed dead).

 

[MarcoD]

Removed dumb comment. This made me laugh:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/64632_10150700571251083_598386082_11592523_228991957_n.jpg

 

[lisab]

I am not sure it is fake, but if it is real, it is the best freudian slip in history.

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/64632_10150700571251083_598386082_11592523_228991957_n.jpg

! I'm going to check if it's a fake...but I agree, that's really funny!

Edit:
This site says it's altered, but it still is funny!

http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/...romney-photoshop-keeping-the-internet-honest/

 

[WhoWee]

Again, I think this silly stuff ultimately helps Mitt.

 

[MarcoD]

Ah, it's nonsense. He's got a nice family there. Who cares.

 

[jduster]

Why I Am Supporting Mitt Romney

I'm non-religious, and the idea of voting Republican, irks me a little, but Romney is the only candidate I can find myself supporting.

Newt and Santorum will tolerate the spread of extreme fundamentalist Christianity domestically.

Ron Paul and Barack Obama will tolerate the spread of extreme fundamentalist Islam abroad.

Romney has made it clear that he is religiously tolerant (and being from a minority religion, he will have to be), supporting separation of church and state while opposing radical islam abroad.

I don't think Obama has done a good enough job recovering the economy, curtailing the national deficit and holding down gas prices.

Newt, Paul and Santorum are unelectable and even if they were, I'd prefer Obama over them.

Those other 4 candidates have spent a large chunk of their life on government payroll and never had a real job, while Romney built a career for himself.

Romney has the most experience of any presidential candidate since Eisenhower or the founding fathers. Law/MBA from Harvard. Successful CEO of multi-billion dollar corporation. Successful management of the 2002 Olympics. Successful Governor of MA with an overwhelming opposition Congress. A strong well-organized campaign (since 2008) with a circle of experts (including my favorite modern economist, Greg Mankiw).

Yes, yes, I know, I know. I believe in evolution and conventional wisdom says we should all support Obama's re-election campaign. I think conventional wisdom is wrong.

Maybe we should go for experience and accomplishment and merit over rhetoric.

 

[Evo]

We're keepng it one thread per candidate.

 

[jduster]

We're keepng it one thread per candidate.

I didn't know there was a Mitt Romney page. Thanks for moving it.

 

[Evo]

Newt and Santorum will tolerate the spread of extreme fundamentalist Christianity domestically. (This one is pretty well known, so I'll cut you some slack)

Ron Paul and Barack Obama will tolerate the spread of extreme fundamentalist Islam abroad.

Romney has made it clear that he is religiously tolerant (and being from a minority religion, he will have to be), supporting separation of church and state while opposing radical islam abroad.

Newt, Paul and Santorum are unelectable.

Those other 4 candidates have spent a large chunk of their life on government payroll and never had a real job, while Romney built a career for himself.

Romney has the most experience of any presidential candidate since Eisenhower or the founding fathers. Law/MBA from Harvard. Successful CEO of multi-billion dollar corporation. Successful management of the 2002 Olympics. Successful Governor of MA with an overwhelming opposition Congress. A strong well-organized campaign (since 2008) with a circle of experts (including my favorite modern economist, Greg Mankiw).

I'm afraid that you will have to cite mainstream sources to back up each statement you've claimed as fact. If you haven't read the P&WA rules for posting, I suggest that you do so now.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

"the spread of extreme fundamentalist Islam abroad."

are you equating "fundamentalist Islam" with terrorism? Not all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are fundamentalist Muslims. Therefore, I don't see why allowing the spread of fundamentalist Islam can be considered a bad thing.

There are fundamentalist Christians who are terrorists, does this mean we should curb the spread of fundamentalist Christianity?

 

[Hobin]

There are fundamentalist Christians who are terrorists, does this mean we should curb the spread of fundamentalist Christianity?

Yes, I think so. Fundamentalism, by it's very definition, is a bad thing. (Unless you're using a rather esoteric definition of the term.) Obviously, we should also keep in mind that the medicine must not be worse than the cure.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Yes, I think so. Fundamentalism, by it's very definition, is a bad thing. (Unless you're using a rather esoteric definition of the term.) Obviously, we should also keep in mind that the medicine must not be worse than the cure.

Fundamentalism would be considered "bad" for people who do not agree with it but are being controlled by people who do agree with it.

But the "badness" of Fundamentalism is entirely relative to your point of view.

Therefore I feel that if Romney wants to "stop the spread of fundamentalist Islam", then that is the same thing as religious oppression, is it not?

 

[Hobin]

But the "badness" of Fundamentalism is entirely relative to your point of view.

No, it's not. Even fundamentalists who know the definition of 'fundamentalism' think fundamentalism is bad. They just don't think they're fundamentalists. Fundamentalism means adhering to dogma without being receptive to reason. No one thinks being unreasonable is a good thing (especially when you say it like that) - people simply don't realize that's what they are.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

No, it's not. Even fundamentalists who know the definition of 'fundamentalism' think fundamentalism is bad. They just don't think they're fundamentalists. Fundamentalism means adhering to dogma without being receptive to reason. No one thinks being unreasonable is a good thing (especially when you say it like that) - people simply don't realize that's what they are.

Are you saying that all "fundamentalists" consider themselves to not be fundamentalists? And that if the idea of fundamentalism were to be explained to them, they would disagree that they are fundamentalists?

 

[Hobin]

Are you saying that all "fundamentalists" consider themselves to not be fundamentalists? And that if the idea of fundamentalism were to be explained to them, they would disagree that they are fundamentalists?

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

It is of course possible that these people are using a definition a fundamentalism that doesn't have a negative association. For example, a definition of fundamentalism widely used by religious people who are being accused of fundamentalism is "staying close to the fundamentals", or something similar - in other words, without invoking the problematic aspect of irrationality. However, this is not the meaning of the word fundamentalism as it is commonly used. And, as we all know, the meaning of a word is determined by how most people use it.

In essence, these people are simply using an incorrect definition of the word fundamentalism.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

What is the definition of fundamentalism that you are using? I am using the one on wikipedia.

I can understand that, to a person who values reason, fundamentalism would be considered to be a bad thing. However, to a person who values the ideals of fundamentalism, fundamentalism would not be a bad thing. The values of fundamentalism that I am talking about come from the wikipedia page on fundamentalism.

Are you of the opinion that the view of reason is correct and the view of fundamentalism is correct, regardless of whether you personally value reason or fundamentalism?

In other words, are you saying that you believe in an absolute morality?

In my opinion, believing in absolutism in this sense leads to conflict with people who have differing opinions on the specifics of the standards of whatever absolute morality they believe in. This is why I do not think that a person like Romney, who apparently opposes fundamentalist Islam, is a good choice for a president, because he would end up conflicting with those people instead of possibly ending up with a good compromise.

If someone is going around saying "Fundamentalists are bad!" then how can we have peace when there are fundamentalists out there?