Let me start by saying I am by no means an expert in all things politics. But I know enough to see the obvious flaws in most of the GOP candidates. And, perhaps this is my ignorance showing, but I haven’t seen why a lot of people are so opposed to Mitt Romney.
Some things I gathered as to reasons why: (possibly)
he’s a flip-flopper (I don’t have specific examples but it’s been said enough)
he’s a Mormon
he holds a lot of the same views as the other candidates in the field
What am I missing here? He flip-flops, but isn’t that pretty common? Is being a Mormon really that big of a deal-breaker, and why?
It just seems to me like he gets a pretty bad wrap but I’m not quite sure why?
He’s a pretty transparent sell-out, so I think a lot of conservatives don’t trust him. They think he’s a RINO.
But I also think religious conservatives are the most likely group to think “no way am I voting for a Mormon for president,” and they’re a big, noisy constituency Romney has to face in primaries/caucuses.
Among his other sins (the Mormon flip-flopping thing), Mitt Romney is also associated with President Obama’s health care plan via his similar plan as governor.
A huge voting block is the gun rights crowd. Mitt Romney has said/done more anti-gun things than Obama by far, including signing a bill to permanently ban many firearms. Couple this with his health care system in Mass and I want to know why on Earth 51%+ would vote for him over Obama? Given the choice between a kick in the nuts or a kick in the throat I’m going to choose to not choose at all.
I’m a right wing conservative. If I wouldn’t vote for McCain in 2008, why the hell would I vote for Romney in 2012?
Romney’s also about as exciting as cottage cheese. Some Republicans have realized that it’s hard to unseat a sitting president with a boring candidate, as Kerry and Dole proved.
The current scuttlebut in the right-wing misinformation and lies bubble is that Obama is playing it cool, so he gets reelected, and then, boy-howdy, is he gonna fuck those gun-rights sideways.
Romney is not going to motivate the right wing voters enough. A candidate is supposed to excite the potential voters. I don’t see any excitement for Romney whatsoever. He’s another Dole. Well, no, I think Dole was more exciting.
There’s flip-flopping and then there’s flip-flopping. You’re right that a lot of politicians have reneged on previous positions, or emphasized and shaded things differently for different elections. But not many politicians have, for example, gone from being pro-choice to pro-life. And Mitt Romney has a half-dozen of those kind of very serious “flip-flops,” most of which are not explained by a new view of the facts, or other rational reason besides political advantage. Indeed, he often simply denies the existence of the change, which is preposterous given how much he has lived in the public eye for the last decade.
So it’s hard to know whether the Mitt Romney running for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is the “real” one, or the governor of Massachusetts, or the right-wing blowhard.
Conservatives are going to worry that Romney doesn’t mean it when he says he’s a conservative. Moderates and liberals are going to worry that he does mean it.
You didn’t read my post, did you? What part of said/done do you not understand? My post made Romney out to be far, far more anti-gun (via his **actual **actions vs. Obamas words) than Obama. Yet your post implies I made Obama out to be more anti-gun than Romney. Please re-read my post.
He’s another Dole and another McCain. Both talked out of both sides of their mouth on several issues dear to conservative voters.
The problem with Romney is that he’s so generic. He doesn’t run on his record at all. He hasn’t made any bold policy proposals. I don’t know of any issues where Romney (in his current incarnation) deviates substantially from the party line. He hasn’t given any interesting speeches or anything. There’s basically nothing there. Gary Hart had 100 times more “beef”.
I don’t really get why that’s a problem. The theme of the opposition to the PPACA is that the feds can’t make people buy health insurance. There’s no question that states can make people do that, so Romneycare and Obamacare aren’t really linked in terms of the reason people oppose it.
Look, there are like a million threads where we can debate whether Obama is bad for gun rights people. Let’s keep it out of this one, since it’s totally irrelevant.
Really? I think people oppose both Romneycare and Obamacare for the same reason: they don’t want government (either state or federal) involved in any way in healthcare. (I don’t agree with them, but that’s neither here nor there.)
The federal issue is simply the most convenient way to attack healthcare reform. If their local state decided to pass a Romneycare clone, they’d have a shitfit and find some other way to attack it. I think you are gravely mistaken on conservative beliefs here.
That’s the argument Romney is making. But most conservatives (especially the party base) don’t think the government should require people to buy health insurance on any level. Of course, at the time Romney was governor of Massachusetts, that health care program was the conservative plan. The bottom line is that Romney’s record indicates he’s pretty moderate - he was the governor of Massachusetts, after all - and he is trying to run as a much more conservative candidate than that. The same thing sunk him in 2008, and if anything the party has moved further to the right since then, but he’s up against an extremely weak field. So his record says he’s not very conservative and his candidacy says he’ll pretty much say anything to get elected, even beyond the degree to which that’s expected for politicians.