Mitt Romney

I think the biggest pro for Romney is that unlike the other Republican candidates he can work well with the other party. The Universal healthcare plan in Massachusetts he worked with Ted Kennedy on. I don't see either branch of Congress switching sides this election so from a Republican point of view, it would be wise to elect someone who can try and bridge the gap between the parties and not have 4 years of stalemates.

Of course working on universal healthcare and with Ted Kennedy are two big cons for the Republican base which is why Romney has disassociated himself from it.

my2hands wrote:

Obama?

And Obama has what government experience? Seriously in his three years in the Senate what has he done besides launch a presidential campaign?

Has there been any bills he pushed through? Has he reached out to work with the other party? He's missed over 80% of votes in the Senate since September. I'm so glad we still pay his salary while he campaigns for a better job.

What evidence do you have that Obama would do anything to unite the two parties?

Romney is a fairly liberal republican who accomplished his agenda in an overwhelmingly liberal state. That to me is evidence that if he were president that maybe the two sides would actually start trying to work together.

Solat13 wrote:

Romney is a fairly liberal republican who accomplished his agenda in an overwhelmingly liberal state. That to me is evidence that if he were president that maybe the two sides would actually start trying to work together.

I think this is what concerns me. He WAS a fairly liberal republican (socially liberal) when he 'ran' an overwhelmingly liberal state. Now that he is running for president in the republican party, he changed his tune on, at least three issues that I can think of right now, abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. I can appreciate the 'well, after some thought, I was wrong on these issues' argument, but it seems his timing is suspicious. In the debates I've seen, he hasn't really stood out to me and, actually has fallen short, imo. I felt almost bad for him when McCain schooled him on the waterboarding issue during the YouTube debate.

On a positive side, he has really good hair.

jlew24asu wrote:

I just dont see where you are getting this from. balancing the budget can be possible without sweeping it under the rug....whatever that means.

Having taken advanced AND government\Non Profit Accounting courses, (don't make me drag out the books. please. not the books!)

i can tell you that what the government currently calls "accounting" is really anything but.

Thier rules are set up such that anything they WANT to classify as a liability on their books gets put there ... but their overly-lax rules let them pick and choose trillions of dollars to EXCLUDE FROM THE BOOKS ... and include IN FOOT NOTE ONLY ...

I get so sick of the "Yeah, but its in a foot note!" argument.

Look at it this way.
Accounting is an EQUATION. If a piece is missing from the equation, there is a problem ... a SOLVENCY problem.

What if Einstein had written

" E=MC^2 "
as
" E=M " *

*Please note, in the above equation i have written Energy equals Mass. Understand that Mass is actually multiplied by the squared speed of light, but i did not included this in the equation, because i didn't find it to be that important. If you are interested, i explain it more in this footnote.

:rolleyes:

That is how the government treats the accounting equation, Assets = Liabilities.

They throw 2\3rds of the right side of the equation in to a footnote or two and call it good accouting. It does not follow GAAP, and it is not solvent. Period.

I remember my jaw dropping the day i learned that in class. I remember the teacher saying something like, "Well that's just the way they do it. It certainly is a contentious issue in some circles." ... Jee. You think?

And that is the tip of the government accounting scandal iceburg.

Grrr.

ledvedderman wrote:

4 years less than Hillary Clinton, but then again he had 7 years in the Illinois Senate which means he has more government experience than her. Being First Lady doesn't count for anything. Now he has the same experience as John Edwards does in the US Senate. Being out of the Senate for 4 years doesn't give Edwards more experience like he would like you to believe.



He co-sponsored legislation w/ Senator Feingold to ban gifts from lobbyists, co-sponsored legislation w/ Sen. McCain on a climate change bill to eliminate green house emissions by 2/3, and was the sponsor of the SCHIP that was vetoes by the President.




I guess Independents voting in a Democratic primary and Republicans switching over to vote Democrat shows how he can get the support of the other side of the aisle. He has also co-sponsored legislation w/ John McCain and Chuck Hagel. Meeting in the middle with two of the most well known Republicans shows that he can work with both side. I also have personal experience and remember him working very will with Republicans in the Illinois Senate.

Never said that Hillary or Edwards had experience.

I knew about the Feingold bill, but the climate change bill was more of a Lieberman and McCain bill that several senators besides Obama joined in as co-sponsors.

Personally I like Obama much more than Hillary, but this is a Romney thread and I was merely discussing Obama because my2hands brought him up. Maybe because I have spent a bunch of time in Mass when Romney was governor makes me think he would be a better choice, but right now I don't like any of the candidates on either side who are running very much.