Tell us why Romney will be a great president.

[nathanm]

You know what I'd like to see from either candidate? Seriously call on Congress to outlaw all gifts to Congresspeople, like you go to prison for a $5 latte outlaw. Doesn't matter if it was completely innocent. If a Congressperson takes a gift, they go to jail. In exchange, we should pay for all of their expenses, no matter what they are, so long as they are published on the Interwebs so we have complete oversight and can vote out anyone who takes advantage of our generosity.

If Romney can convince Congress to put such a system into place before the election, I will vote for him, barring Obama doing something like pushing for, and getting, redistricting rules that require them be drawn with the shortest splitline method. It would show both a level of self-sacrifice, in that he is of the donor class, and it would show enough leadership to make me think he might be able to make Congress take useful steps toward fixing the fundamental brokenness in our political system.

Otherwise, I'm basically voting on the Supreme Court. The Roberts Court has been so political that even the Supreme Court is losing respect with the public. I don't have any reason to believe that Romney's choice of appointees would be much different than Bush's.

[guido911]

That's not going to happen no matter what gets posted here.

And that's my point. Getting into discussion with entrenched partisans (such as many of us are) trying to lay out a case why we favor our own borders on going full r-tard. I liken it to another thread where I commented how persons on the other side should not be suggesting who their opposite should should run because the other side will never vote opposite their ultimate views anyway. Asking me about my take is a real waste of time, as I am staunchly pro-life and Romney is as close to my views on that issue and who I can vote for.

Overall, I'd rather discuss issues rather than break out the ruler for a pecker measuring contest.

[RecycleMichael]

Well done, Rm.

Thanks. Guido and gaspar can post hundreds of reasons why they hate Obama and yet they can't write a single sentence on why they love Romney.

If it wasn't so funny it would be sad.

[RecycleMichael]

...I am staunchly pro-life and Romney is as close to my views on that issue and who I can vote for.

In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.

As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.

That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.

At the Massachusetts GOP convention in April 2002, Romney articulated views entirely consistent with the pledges he had been giving the pro-choice groups. "Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours," Romney said. "Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." In much the same manner as he had done in the 1994 Senate debates, Romney repeated his pro-choice views later that year in the October 2002 gubernatorial debates, even invoking his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp

[Hoss]

In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights. So let's end an argument that does not exist and stop these cynical and divisive attacks that are made only for political gain.

As he had with Planned Parenthood, Romney answered "Yes" to questions asking whether he supported Roe v. Wade and opposed attempts to restrict abortion. After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.

That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.

At the Massachusetts GOP convention in April 2002, Romney articulated views entirely consistent with the pledges he had been giving the pro-choice groups. "Believing in people is protecting their freedom to make their own life choices, even if their choice is different from yours," Romney said. "Accordingly, I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That right is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's." In much the same manner as he had done in the 1994 Senate debates, Romney repeated his pro-choice views later that year in the October 2002 gubernatorial debates, even invoking his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in Michigan in 1970.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp

OK, there's an issue.

Flip-flopping.  To the extreme.  And not just this point.

But I'll remove myself from the discussion until more can answer.

[guido911]

I wrote that Romney was close to my views, not perfect by any means. I'll take him over what we have, the pro-choice present, who thinks babies are punishment.

With that said, I'm out of this thread too. It's a waste of time for the right leaners to make their case for president to the left leaners, just like it is vice versa. We on the right think Obama sucks for reasons laid out over the past three plus years (and those RM laid out about 4 years ago  ), and you on the left think Romney sucks for the reasons you have stated.

Now, on to the issues.

[RecycleMichael]

Is that it guido? You can't write any other reason why Romney is your guy besides he currently is closer to a view with you on abortion?

Romney isn't pro-choice or anti-choice...he is multiple-choice.

[AquaMan]

I should also be offering thanks to Guido. 

He can't discuss issues because the one deal breaking issue is the one that Romney has moved all over the board with and yet he supports him based on that one issue and one issue alone. Why bother with discussion of any other issues? Then you revert back to form to support the trap RM laid for you anti-Obama guys...."Obama thinks babies are punishment".

Well done G.

[AquaMan]

Guido, your argument that it is a waste of time to lay out the arguments for Romney to left leaners is also bunk. You think only left leaners are reading these posts? Independents, moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are also asking this question. They are watching and many are  wondering why Romney is being throttled. Make a case for the guy if you can. If you can't then, yes, bow out.

Conan challenged me to discuss Obamas' blunders, his failed presidency, lack of leadership, and general destruction of the economy. I refused to play that game. Had he asked me the same question RM asked of you guys I'd have at least offered a couple of my reasons for supporting him.

[nathanm]

I wrote that Romney was close to my views, not perfect by any means. I'll take him over what we have, the pro-choice present, who thinks babies are punishment.

I think you are confusing the President for some of the loudest and most annoying folks on your side. The ones who have no problem doing what it takes to convince/cajole/coerce women to carry pregnancies to term while they also do everything they can to make it more difficult for the mother to raise the child by raising her taxes and cutting benefits if she's poor. Combine that with the non-Catholics who fly off the handle at the idea of contraception, the rampant slut shaming, and the rest of the negativity towards women that comes from (some of) the pro-life camp and you might see why some of us get the wrong impression about the actual goals of the pro-lifers.

It's pretty clear that the most effective methods for reducing the number of abortions are improving access to contraceptives, improving education (both sex ed and general education), and lifting people out of poverty. FSM forbid that we spend our energy solving those problems rather than yelling at each other about what bad people we are.

[Ed W]

And that's my point. Getting into discussion with entrenched partisans (such as many of us are) trying to lay out a case why we favor our own borders on going full r-tard.

Guido has a point in that it's futile to discuss the merits of a hypothetical Romney administration or a second Obama administration, because Oklahoma's electoral votes are going to Romney regardless of anything we say here. If the Republicans ran a three-legged one-eyed goat, he'd carry Oklahoma. 

[RecycleMichael]

Guido has a point in that it's futile to discuss the merits of a hypothetical Romney administration or a second Obama administration, because Oklahoma's electoral votes are going to Romney regardless of anything we say here. If the Republicans ran a three-legged one-eyed goat, he'd carry Oklahoma. 

I guess we should just ban all presidential discussion on this forum. We should delete the hundreds of anti Obama youtube videos and cartoons that guido and gaspar have posted. It must be futile for them to have posted them as well.

[GG]

I'll take the bait:

Mitt Romney has a history of turning things around. With the economy still struggling, joblessness plaguing millions of Americans, and American debt continuously increasing, this country needs a change in direction.  Fixing entities that are in trouble happens to be exactly what Mitt Romney has spent much of his life specializing in. As CEO of Bain Capital, Romney oversaw the investment and renovation of several struggling companies.  Furthermore, Romney successfully led the effort to save the 2002 Winter Olympics, which had previously been plagued by a bribery scandal and a huge budget deficit. This is exactly the type of turnaround management that America now requires.

Mitt Romney has executive experience. The presidency is a unique role that can only be compared to the executive position at the state level.  As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to perform executive duties similar to those that will be required of a president.  These duties include submitting a budget, appointing judges and selecting a competent cabinet.  Considering how complex our government has become and the example Obama has set for what happens with an inexperienced president, executive experience is an important trait for the nominee.

Mitt Romney has met a payroll.   A qualification any holder of office should have.

Mitt Romney is not a Tea Party nut job.  

Mitt Romney knows the system for immigration is broken and he wants to streamline it and take away unnecessary regulations that makes it harder for immigrants to come here. He will secure the border and take away all entitlements which entice immigrants to come here illegally.

Supreme Court and Federal Court appointments.  

Mormon Religion, everyone I know that is a Mormon is a decent and honest human being.   I think the teaching principles of the Mormon Religion provide a good moral foundation for those following it's tenents.  

Finally, he is my party's nominee who I have supported from the get-go and I voted for in the Oklahoma Primary.

Let the flaming begin.  

[Ed W]

I guess we should just ban all presidential discussion on this forum. We should delete the hundreds of anti Obama youtube videos and cartoons that guido and gaspar have posted. It must be futile for them to have posted them as well.

I didn't suggest banning such discussion, Michael, only that it's futile to presume we're going to have much effect when discussing politics here.  Sure, the more intellectual arguments may sway some independents, but regardless of that, Oklahoma will vote firmly in the red again later this year.  That's reality.

But argument serves another, more personal, purpose and that is to force all of us to examine our own beliefs in an effort to persuade others.  In this thread, you've challenged people to speak for those positive attributes that would make Mitt Romney a good president, yet the overall picture seems to that sentiment is largely anti-Obama rather than pro-Mitt.  Again, I think that's more an indication of Oklahoma values, and that as we move into the fall those critical independent voters will see the presidential campaign without a truly compelling Republican candidate.  

[nathanm]

Mitt Romney has executive experience. The presidency is a unique role that can only be compared to the executive position at the state level.  As Governor of Massachusetts, Romney had to perform executive duties similar to those that will be required of a president.  These duties include submitting a budget, appointing judges and selecting a competent cabinet.  Considering how complex our government has become and the example Obama has set for what happens with an inexperienced president, executive experience is an important trait for the nominee.

Ok, if executive experience is an important trait, we ought to consider Romney's record in Massachusetts, where he managed to grow his state more slowly than the national average and, like Obama, managed to invest state funds in failed green energy businesses.