So remember when most here wanted Romney to say what he was for?

[binz]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

Holy Cow! We're resurrected Reagan! When will he make his first appearance?

Nice dodge of the point. Let's talk about Romney and his record, since he's presumably the guy running against Obama...

haha, you act as if I'm the first guy to bring up Ronald Reagan. His name is routinely used like a prop by those who want to evoke conservatism personified. He is seen as the model of conservatism. His conservative credentials are said to be beyond reproach. And I agree with those assessements.

So comparing his record as governor in a liberal state to that of Mitt's record as governor in a liberal state is perfectly reasonable.

But I can understand why you are deflecting. It doesn't really support your ironclad thesis that Mitt is a bed wetting liberal who will turn directly left if he wins the WH.

[binz]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

I'm not the one deflecting, Koi.

Do you want to talk about Reagan, or do you want to talk about Romney? Because the rest of us are talking about Romney.

just right over your head huh donk? I expect more of you. Surprised you can't see the relevancy.

you would have certainly been shouting from the rooftops that Reagan was a dirty hollywood liberal that didn't deserve the nomination. You would have pointed to his "liberal" past as governor.

And you would have been so very wrong. Much like you will likely be wrong in this case.

[OneVoice]

I hate to tell you this, but at this point, 6 mos out from election, there is as much validity to one projection of a Romney presidency as another. Only time will tell if he governs as a 'conservative' of the Reagan vein, or as a RINO psuedo moderate liberal etch a sketch wielder.

Personally, I hope for the best, but my expectations are not real high right now. Yes I'll vote for him as the ABO, but as I continue to say... he's going to have to actually EARN my confidence and trust. In my gut I suspect he'll do some good for the economy, but ultimately will achieve little more than slowing the rate of American decline. I'm afraid its going to take something truly catastrophic for Americans to unite once more as we have only a couple of times in our history, and get the wildly bloated ox and cart out of the ditch, away from the cliff, and back on the cart path to true prosperity.

[Patriot210]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

This is correct. I'm not sure where Mr. Attack Ad during the primary was ever questioned about "having some fight" though. Sounds like another straw man to me. Attack ads are easy, responding to Obama after the fact is easy. You have writers and handlers that put all that together for you. The tell-tale will be at the debates. We have two shrewd liars going head to head, each with an established record of telling people what he thinks they want to hear. Should be interesting.

I didn't write that he "has some fight". I wrote that he "has some fight at the PRESIDENTIAL level". That was directly in question by multiple conservatives who are participating in this thread.

Back when the primary was considered competitive, I read (in FOLP) various combinations of the following points:

1.) The economy is not going to be an issue for Romney, as it is recovering so well - without being conservative he won't have many campaign issues to run on
2.) Romney won't have as much money as President Obama, he won't do well unless he can outspend his opponents
3.) Gingrich and Santorum aren't President Obama nor do they have his attack/campaign machine
4.) The MSM is in the tank for President Obama, Romney will have trouble overcoming that

At the time, I thought that points 2-4 might have some merit and would have to be proven out. Competing in a primary (or two) is different than being the media focal point, on the Republican side, and going toe to toe with President Obama.

That aside, while I think Romney is doing well in the opening weeks (in general), he's had some misses. One of those misses seems to be a lack of comprehension that he needs to be very careful in and around Obamacare/Romneycare, when it comes to conservatives.

[Patriot210]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

Yeah I was talking about the PRESIDENTIAL level as well.

So let's talk about the points you heard, which really sound like an accumulation of various posters' opinions.

1) This is a valid concern/point. The big differentiator between Romney and Obama is the economy. If it's bad, that's grat news for Romney. If it's good, it takes a lot of wind out of his sails and forces him to take on Obama on other issues - some of which their is little to differentiate.
2) I don't believe I heard it that way. I heard that he's up against a very prolific fundraising machine and that money creates advantage.Slightly different than what you reported. I don't know if anyone doubted Romney's fundraising capacity.
3) True, mostly. It's still early, Both Romney and Obama have a long row to hoe - both from the attack and defense sides.
4) Most definitely true. You, me, and 90% of FOL can take something from Romney's response and say "Hey, this kid's got MOXY!". But as pointed out, oh, about 10 million times, the general voting public is far less aware politically and are approaching "Idiocracy" in their ability to discern a political point from who got kicked off Master Chef last night. This is probably the biggest wall Romney will have to climb. The media will be 24x7 anti-Romney, from overt to subtle.

All that to say, Romney's real best friend at the moment is the economy. But gas prices are dropping (and you know Obama will take credit, possibly claiming that God has now endowed him with the ability to pee oil). Peggy and John Q have a long history of voting their pocketbook first and foremost. The scary thing is that it seems that "nanny state" is pulling up to be a close second these days

Yes, going back to my OP that you quoted, when I was referring to Romney having "proven to me" that he was competitive (I called it "having some fight"), I was thinking of generral concerns about his potential effectiveness as a presidential candidate. In here, and out in the real world, I've read or heard quite a lot of good takes that detailed various concerns regarding a potential Romney candidacy. I am seeing some of those concerns alleviated and I am seeing some of those concerns re-affirmed.

I agree with many of your points. The only thing I will add are clarifications, where I was not clear.

On my point 2, the context I had read was along the lines of "sure, Romney can beat up on Gingrich, since he outspent him 10:1...Romney won't be able to outspend President Obama 10:1". I don't think anyone doubted that Romney would rake in cash. It was in doubt that if he was equally matched or slightly outmatched, cash wise, he would be effective. Right now, I'd say he is slightly outmatched, cash wise, but using his resources well. That is not to say that concern, at the time, wasn't valid.

Regarding the economy (my point #1), I never had any doubt that President Obama would be nearly undefeatable, if we had a truly recovering economy, coupled with his adoption of Bush policies that gave him Foreign Policy wins. My only contention was that I didn't see a strongly or even moderately recovering economy, even in Q4 '11 or Q1 '12. All I was seeing was the Christmas bump with a bunch of low paying temp jobs. I was watching labor participation and real inflation, back then, among some other secondary trends. Sadly, the sputtering economy we have today was in the "model", so to speak.

Back to your conclusion, we agree that the economy is Romney's biggest "ally" in this race. The price of gas is coming down a bit but it will bump against a weak dollar. It isn't just gas and gold...I work with all manner of metals, ceramics, and polymer (both formed and resin). Looking at my raw materials or the foods my allergies force me to eat, all of my costs (both in my work and my home life) have sky rocketed. They have come up dramatically and I doubt they will come down much, prior to the election.

[fegary]

Originally Posted by Nelson

The bottom line, as much as many on FOL don't want to see it, is that you either vote for Romney, or you help Obama get reelected. Not voting is almost as helpful to Obama as casting a vote for him, or tossing away your vote on a nonsense candidate. The single option for ending the Obama Presidency is electing President Romney.

You still act ignorant of the electoral college... The true nonsense candidate is Obama. There should be multiple options for ending the shameful Obama presidency--which should have never occurred.

[Nelson]

I'm fully aware of the functions of the electoral college. I'm also fully aware that with the exception of Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in 1968, it has been an entire century since a third party candidate won any substantial number of electors (The Wilson-Taft-Teddy Roosevelt election in 1912). And neither Thurmond nor Wallace denied the winning candidate a majority in the electoral college.

Either Romney will win, or Obama will, anyone who really believes elsewise needs to tune up their tinfoil hat.

[fegary]

Originally Posted by Nelson

I'm fully aware of the functions of the electoral college.

Yet your comments frequently indicate otherwise...