DC:Massive opposition research file on Romney hits Internet, likely from 2008 McCain campaign

[Tulane Skins Fan]

He's the GOP's answer to Wooden Al Gore sans the haircut with a moon roof. Romney is so incredibly plastic it's hard to believe sometimes. As you said, he's just absolutely cringe inducing.

As someone that has periodically changed my mind about a lot of things over the years, I greatly admire the ability/courage to reassess long-held beliefs and change course if necessary. With that said, I can only accept it as open mindedness in a politician up to a point. Once those changes of heart start happening every few years, conveniently timed to coincide with the mood of the electorate, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

It depends why you are changing your mind. Anyone can change their mind based on new information learned, for example. But, just changing your mind because once you ran in Massachusetts and now you're running through the whole country is not particulary gratifying.

[TimmySmith]

Just to note for the umpteenth time the beauties of partisanship: when Kerry was the Dem candidate, "flip-flopping" was a most grievous trait of his in the eyes of his GOP adversaries...now that same, more proven and pervasive trait, seems to be acceptable in their continually top-ranked candidate. Integrity uber alles.

Much like Dan Quayle's alleged pot use as a VP candidate vs. Obama's admitted cocaine use.

[Predicto]

As someone that has periodically changed my mind about a lot of things over the years, I greatly admire the ability/courage to reassess long-held beliefs and change course if necessary. With that said, I can only accept it as open mindedness in a politician up to a point. Once those changes of heart start happening every few years, conveniently timed to coincide with the mood of the electorate, it doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Oh, absolutely. Politicians should be openminded.

However, if I could ever find an example of Romney saying something, anything, that wasn't EXACTLY what his current audience wanted to hear, I would be shocked.

I refuse to believe that one person can go from being pro-choice to pro-life, pro-immigration amnesty to against, pro gun control to against, believe in global climate change then don't, pro gays in the military then against, pro same-sex marriage then against, pro embryonic stem cell research then against, support your own version of healthcare reform then oppose the same thing, support campain finance limits then oppose them, and so on.

This is not openmindedness. This is flat-out "I don't care about anything else other than getting some votes."

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 04:03 PM ----------

Much like Dan Quayle's alleged pot use as a VP candidate vs. Obama's admitted cocaine use.

Maybe my memory is faulty, but I don't remember the Democrats going after Dan Quayle for pot use. Or Newt Gingrich, or Sarah Palin, or Arnold Schwartznegger, or any of the rest of them.

I DO, however, remember the Democrats being upset that the drug dealer in prison who wanted to talk about the subject of Dan Quayle's drug use was put into solitary confinement right before the election so that reporters could not talk to him. That is a little bit different of an issue.

Is that what you are talking about?

[JMS]

The only thing I really take from this is that Romney has flip flopped on a lot of issues. Which we all knew already.

Again I disagree with that... There is a lot more depth here..

In only becoming a republican in 1993 and saying he never supported Ronald Reagan, isn't he really saying he was against everything the current base aspires too?

I think this document has a lot of glancing blows.. But there is also some solid shots to the body contained within. Like a company he was on the board of directors for being found guilty of medicare fraud and being fined 100 million dollars during his tenure.

These things go well beyond flip flopping on a few issues...

Coarse also contained in this document is more than just a few flip flops. Again none of this makes him a solid lock on being a bad President. It's troubling information on the eve of an election which will be decided more on the basis of troubling information rather than the positive attributes of either D or R candidate.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 05:18 PM ----------

Much like Dan Quayle's alleged pot use as a VP candidate vs. Obama's admitted cocaine use.

I think most dem's at the time had a bigger problem that Dan Quayle thought they spoke Latin in Latin America. Dan Quayle likely wasn't an idiot, but he had a huge propensity for saying and doing stupid stupid things... Judgeing a second grade spelling contest and mispelling the word Potato.. ( No 'a' in Potato??)...

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Again I disagree with that... There is a lot more depth here..

In only becoming a republican in 1993 and saying he never supported Ronald Reagan, isn't he really saying he was against everything the current base aspires too?

I think this document has a lot of glancing blows.. But there is also some solid shots to the body contained within. Like a company he was on the board of directors for being found guilty of medicare fraud and being fined 100 million dollars during his tenure.

These things go well beyond flip flopping on a few issues...

Coarse also contained in this document is more than just a few flip flops. Again none of this makes him a solid lock on being a bad President. It's troubling information on the eve of an election which will be decided more on the basis of troubling information rather than the positive attributes of either D or R candidate.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 05:18 PM ----------

I think most dem's at the time had a bigger problem that Dan Quayle thought they spoke Latin in Latin America. Dan Quayle likely wasn't an idiot, but he had a huge propensity for saying and doing stupid stupid things... Judgeing a second grade spelling contest and mispelling the word Potato.. ( No 'a' in Potato??)...

He spelled it potatoe.

[JMS]

The first one is a pragmatist. The second one is a panderer.

Bill Clinton ran as a liberal and then betrayed the liberals much like Obama has done; and pushed to the center for political reasons...

Bill Clinton was strongly supported by unions and he championed NAFTA.

Bill Clinton was strongly supported by the nations low income and yet he championed reforming social programs to cut off people from assistance after two years.

Bill Clinton regularly stood up to liberal Democrats like Jesse Jackson of the day flattly telling them where are you going to go? You going to vote republican? Sit down and shut up!

Bill Clinton coined the strategy if you aren't upsetting the folks on the fringe of your own party, you aren't doing a very good job.

He was a political beast. He also has two sucessful presidential campagnes under his belt. The critisms of Bill before he won his first election don't seem to be all that different from Mitt now on the eve of his first sucessful nomination for President.

I will give you Bill seemed to do a lot of his manuvering after he was elected, not prior to the elections like Mitt.

You know another famous flip flopper... Winston Churchill. Went from the conservative party, to the labor party and back to the conservative party... Winston used to say... anybody can flip flop once...it takes real political talent to flip flop twice...... Coarse Mitt's on his fourth giration on abortion and he's not even in office yet.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 05:30 PM ----------

He spelled it potatoe.

Wasn't his quote.. you need an 'e' in that?

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

How exactly has Obama betrayed liberals JMS? I see that often, and I noticed as the campaign and election went on, nobody was really listening to what Obama was actually saying. Projecting like crazy. By the time I attended the Inauguration, I was so deflated because I was just listening to people talk, realizing that in no way was Obama saying what they were claiming he said, and knew that they'd eventually be bitter--from nobody's fault but their own.

[Jumbo]

I'm a little irritated, and I can't swear that spending an hour and a half with the drooling miscreants of Century-Link's Tech Support (enough to make me a temp sexist) hasn't played a role in how much I decided to write on this---the harshness is not atypical (nor against the rules for the PM-happy peanut gallery among you) given the context.

Much like Dan Quayle's alleged pot use as a VP candidate vs. Obama's admitted cocaine use.

Yes, obviously, (though I wouldn't have criticized either for that, personally) but fwiw I don't remember that being as big an issue as the flip-flop thing or for even the same reasons. The Quayle thing was more funny and not scathing as I remember since he was so "straight" and the flip-flop thing was more about fundamental character. I think you may conflate in you own frequent biased manner. But I may be wrong.

But to your "reply" since you using my post, I'm going to use it as part of my noting again the crap-level going on again in numerous political threads. There's certainly no lack of automaton tit-for-tat-ers that have to parade their own partisanship via the endlessly repetitive numb-brain dance of "often when I see something negative said about my side I'll simply ignore any merit of it (because it is against my side after all) and respond with something saying the same thing about the the other side."

In case you never noticed (since you're doing exactly that using my post in misplaced fashion) I don't call just any one side on stupidity. I call out any side when merited. And I often hold posters specifically and directly accountable if their content gives reasonable evidence that positions them as one of the partisans who frequently contribute simplistic partisan crap of such type, even when I know they have a halfway decent head on their shoulders. And that's because sometimes they actually show it in their comments (like you do).

Near the top of that "stupid crap" list IMO (as I have stated many many times on here) is this thing you're doing in that response. It's childish in manner and of low-intellect effort in construction.

It would have usage if it were framed something like: "Hey, Aldo, you always attack the Republicans for being "sell-outs" to special interests, but look at Obama's admin in many of the same areas you choose to review" and then attach specific examples.

But if one poster widely identified as a conservative says "Edwards was vermin to do his wife like that" and another poster widely identified as a liberal replies with "So was Newt" it's just retarded and needlessly divisive. An intelligent and productive way to challenge any suspected selective lens of the original critic would be to say "Yes, Edwards seems like slime there, but that behavior is sadly visible in various leaders of any party and should be condemned by all of us, whether it's Newt doing it or Edwards" (assuming you think that way about that matter).

If people (and much of this is general, not dumping on Timmy) can't tell the difference between something like that and "What about Newt?" and what each serves in terms of advancing useful communication, than they are being stupid about some things (at minimum) and need to stfu more or go somewhere else.

Back to my original comment, note I didn't defend Kerry or flip-flopping. And what I attacked was the stupid and the hypocritical partisanship--something to many posts are often replete with, though the offenders show it doesn't totally own them all the time, thankfully.

Just for the record, I was very harsh on Kerry. I am harsh on willful, loud, and excessive stupidity and hypocrisy, and how often those traits permeate many partisans. There are posters equally culpable from every demographic, and a number of them can tell you I don't hesitate to have the same type of exchange with them no matter what "side" they favor, if I feel it's merited.

And get off my lawn.

[Predicto]

Bill Clinton ran as a liberal and then betrayed the liberals much like Obama has done; and pushed to the center for political reasons...

Bill Clinton was strongly supported by unions and he championed NAFTA.

Bill Clinton was strongly supported by the nations low income and yet he championed reforming social programs to cut off people from assistance after two years.

Bill Clinton regularly stood up to liberal Democrats like Jesse Jackson of the day flattly telling them where are you going to go? You going to vote republican? Sit down and shut up!

Bill Clinton coined the strategy if you aren't upsetting the folks on the fringe of your own party, you aren't doing a very good job.

He was a political beast. He also has two sucessful presidential campagnes under his belt. The critisms of Bill before he won his first election don't seem to be all that different from Mitt now on the eve of his first sucessful nomination for President.

You completely missed my point. Your response has almost nothing at all to do with what I said.

[The Sisko]

How exactly has Obama betrayed liberals JMS? I see that often, and I noticed as the campaign and election went on, nobody was really listening to what Obama was actually saying. Projecting like crazy. By the time I attended the Inauguration, I was so deflated because I was just listening to people talk, realizing that in no way was Obama saying what they were claiming he said, and knew that they'd eventually be bitter--from nobody's fault but their own.

Did you ever see this? NSFW! So totally spot on.

[SnyderShrugged]

I know its OT, but whats the deal with the ABC Bombshell campaign interview" headline with the siren on drudge? Thats usually a sign of some major scandal type news historically.

---------- Post added January-18th-2012 at 07:02 PM ----------

Oh, its actually juicy....see drudge

Marianne Gingrich has said she could end her ex-husband's career with a single interview.

Earlier this week, she sat before ABCNEWS cameras, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned... MORE... Developing...

NEWT EX UNLOADS ON CAMERA; NET DEBATES 'ETHICS' OF AIRING BEFORE PRIMARY

[Kilmer17]

Just to note for the umpteenth time the beauties of partisanship: when Kerry was the Dem candidate, "flip-flopping" was a most grievous trait of his in the eyes of his GOP adversaries...now that same, more proven and pervasive trait, seems to be acceptable in their continually top-ranked candidate. Integrity uber alles.

And the same folks who said Kerry's "changes" were a result of reflection and education are now claiming that Romneys are a disqualifying trait.

I like open toed flip flops the best for me the flip flopper, but Ive been told that's a bit liberal of me.

[Jumbo]

And the same folks who said Kerry's "changes" were a result of reflection and education are now claiming that Romneys are a disqualifying trait.

I like open toed flip flops the best for me the flip flopper, but Ive been told that's a bit liberal of me.

One (only one) response that comes to mind is to note that since the most recent and widespread criticisms in the media of Romney on this trait have been coming from a great number of republicans, and some of the most active and vigorous arising from his GOP opposition for candidacy.You're saying that these same republicans and GOP leaders were among those claiming "Kerry's changes were a result of education and reflection" back then. That's new to me.

Here's response 'B' :pfft:

Well, that's well and good, if obviously a rather sweeping generalization of over-simplification and a dismissive nature (even if unintended). But beyond the agreed-to root message in your comment that hypocrisy is a pervasive problem, you'll see my current warm-n-fuzzy attitude on this kind of observation as a reply to an indictment of someone's behaviors located just four posts above.

[JMS]

That is somewhat true about Clinton. However, Clinton could pull it off much better because he was very charismatic and knew how to relate to people (or at least seem to). Mitt Romney has all the charisma of a piece of wood with a hastily drawn face on it (to be honest I think the piece of wood with a face would give me much LESS of an uncanny valley feeling than Mitt does), and his ability to relate to people on a personal level (or, again, at least seem to) has been shown to be at best mediocre and at worst absolutely cringe worthy.

I don't know about that... I think at the bottom of the Charismaa scale is Al Gore. I don't think a lack of charisma is one Romney's chief faults. After all, It's easy to have charisma when your positiion changes depending upon whom you are addressing.

I also think it's unfair to compare Clinton as we know him today wiith Mitt. Clinton is a "sucessful" two term president who grew considerable while in office. Mitt needs to be compared to Clinton who ran againist Bush Sr, back in 1992. Of coarse comparisons to Bill who faced off against Newt and his countless other political moves while in office are not entirely fair.. But again Bill Clinton was likely the most gifted politician to become President since FDR. It's just FDR used his gifts to move his agenda and Bill had more physical and base goals for his gifts.

---------- Post added January-19th-2012 at 11:27 AM ----------

You completely missed my point. Your response has almost nothing at all to do with what I said.

I'm sorry if I did not address your point. I thought you were trying to say Clinton was a pragmatist and not a politician...

Myabe I'm kidding myself, but I see a huge difference between

1) someone who takes a moderate position (or no position) on an issue, and tries to downplay the issue in his campaigning, and

2) someone who takes a strong, partisan position on an issue and emphasizes it in his campaigning, and then takes the opposite strong partisan position on the same issue when his audience changes, and does it literally dozens of times, encompassing almost every major issue of the day.

The first one is a pragmatist. The second one is a panderer.

I was attempting to make the case that Clinton wasn't a pragmatist, but was almost entirely a politician pandering for political reasons; just like Mitt is.

Sorry agaiin if my point was not clear or on topic of your above post.

[JMS]

How exactly has Obama betrayed liberals JMS? I see that often, and I noticed as the campaign and election went on, nobody was really listening to what Obama was actually saying. Projecting like crazy. By the time I attended the Inauguration, I was so deflated because I was just listening to people talk, realizing that in no way was Obama saying what they were claiming he said, and knew that they'd eventually be bitter--from nobody's fault but their own.

Last time I responded to a tangential question like this I got a two week vacation from the board.. Thanks Pete........So I will respond only once and if you want to discuss it further start a new thread.

But here is my answer.

First off Obama opennly screwed liberals with his cabinent postinigs. More republicans recieved cabnent posts nominattions than liberals. Across the board Obama took moderates and conservatives.

Obama campagned very hard on some issues which he disagreed with Bush on, and then once achieving office addopted Bush's policy...

1. As a candidate, Obama defined and separated himself from his challengers by highlighting his opposition to the war in Iraq from the start. He promised to begin to end the war on his first day in office., ultimately he maintained the troop withdrawl schedule negotiated by the Bush administratioon after failing to get Iraq to compromise on an EXTENTION!!.. which killed liberals.
   
2. Patriot Act.. Obama, who promptly angered the left after winning the Democratic primary by announcing he backed a compromise that would allow warrantless wiretapping on U.S. soil to continue.
   
3. Gitmo, Campagne Obama called it an outrage, President Obama has failed too close it.
   
4. Military Tribunals for Terror Suspects; again before the election was an outrage.. President Obama has brought these tribunals back.
   
5. Continuing the Bush policy off Renditions.
   
6. Ordering military action in Libya without seeking Congressional authorisation
   
7. Letting Sudan off the hook for the Darfur genocide
   
8. Pledging to restore America’s standing in the world but ultimately continued to lowering it.
   
9. Killing the NASA manned space program/ ( This liberal is pissed at him for that anyway..)
   
10. Giving away the liberal posistions on healthcare (universal coverage, public option, single payer ) before the debate even got started. Failing even to state the case for the liberal position before retreatinig from it... Campagne Obama was in favor of several key components of the lefts healthcare plan... none made it into Obama care which was crafted by Mitt Romney, and Richard Nixon and first defeated in the early 1970's by liberals lead by Senator Ted Kennedy.
    
11. Continuing the Bush Tax cuts after saying it would be the first thing he would repeal.
    
12. Failing to take on big oil after campagning very hard on reforming them too.
    
13. Failing to meaningfully reform the finacial institutions after their cataclysmic failure in 2008, another campagne speaking poiint.
    
14. Immigration Reform, no movement, no plan, continued bush policy of status quo.
    
15. Failure to set debt limits
    
16. Obama filled all of his nationoal securitty positiionss with people who supported the war ini Iraq. and prety much all his other cabinent offices with moderates and conservatives.
    
17. Unions are upset with him on his handling unemployment and labor issues.
    
18. Obama's trade policy is more of the failed GOP "free trade" catastrophy, it possesses non of the Clinton era, stand up for the Americian working man. We are just doubling down on a failed policy which has seen trade deficits soar, and our own industries contract. "Free trade" in a world where only we subscribe to that policy?...
    
19. His "compromise" with Republicans on the debt ceiling showdown... Basically continued Bush's failed fiscal policy of historically low taxes coupled with out of control misappropriatioons of government spending.
    

Liberals have a lot to be unhappy with Obama about.... But Obama is following the Clinton playbook. Push to the center, alianate your fringe; like Clinton and Carter before him.

The problem with this policy is that the Republicans immediately label any Democrat the most liberal politician in the history of the country, so he takes the hit anyway. This coupled with the fact the GOP plan for election victory is to push to right, empower their "base" as Bush Jr did so sucessfully. Which leaves nobody representing the moderate left in this political arena for going on 40 years... Not since Johnson have we had a liberal President.

Obama ran on change. He has not been much change. He has merely been George Bush witth better diction. But what are we on the left going to do? Put the same folks back in power who gave us Iraq and the worst fiscal disaster since the great depression? No we will hold our noses and vote Obama and remember how much worse it could be just like Bush tought us.

[Kilmer17]

The difference is that Clinton went to the middle after failing to try and govern to the left. He didnt have a choice. And he had good leaders in Congress who understood the need for compromise.

Obama seems to be throing darts at a board to determine his stances and projects.

Further, Clinton began to earn the favor of middle ind voters when he tacked to the middle. Obama is still thought of as too liberal by those same voters. So even if the left isnt happy with him because of the perceived abandoning of liberal principles, he isnt getting the middle bounce that Clinton got.

[JMS]

The difference is that Clinton went to the middle after failing to try and govern to the left. He didnt have a choice. And he had good leaders in Congress who understood the need for compromise.

The truth to that is Clinton did try to reform Healtthcare and failed, which of coarse the GOP at thee time labeled Liberal.

But it's not accurate, because Clinton like Obama never put forward the liberal agenda for healthcare; and Clinton never got the right to "compromise" with him either...... Clinton was labeled a historically liberal President and was fought tooth and nail by Newt Gingrich on every issue.

What sucess Clinton had in his eight years was due to his ability to counter punch and ram policy down Gingriches throat when he over reached. Bill Clinton had a difficult time in attracting GOP votes even when he was proposinig GOP core issues... NAFTA is an exception to that rule.

Further, Clinton began to earn the favor of middle ind voters when he tacked to the middle. .

There is no time in the Clinton era when the right called him a moderate president. Rush Limbaugh had a daily countdown towards the end of the most liberal president in Americian Historry. Clinton convinced the American People directly of the merits of his administratiion, he never got much bipartisan support.

Obama is still thought of as too liberal by those same voters. So even if the left isnt happy with him because of the perceived abandoning of liberal principles, he isnt getting the middle bounce that Clinton got.

I think the GOP has attempted to define Obama as a liberal, or alternatively Socialist/Communist, as they attmpted to do so with Bill Clinton and John Kerry before him. Only time will tell if they are sucessful. I thought they were fairly successful with Clinton even though he won two elections ( with historically small voter support)... and very sucessful with John Kerry.

I personally think Obama will win re-election or not based upon two themes... The economy and whether he has stronger negatives than the GOP challenger. Both of these themes have sharp edges pointing in both parties directions.

[TimmySmith]

Near the top of that "stupid crap" list IMO (as I have stated many many times on here) is this thing you're doing in that response. It's childish in manner and of low-intellect effort in construction.

Please. You gave an example of Republican hypocrisy, capped with a smug "Integrity uber alles". I rebutted, and you wrote a tome. Sometimes the safety in the numbers of Democrats here makes them feel bipartisan, until the other side calls them out.

[JMS]

Please. You gave an example of Republican hypocrisy, capped with a smug "Integrity uber alles". I rebutted, and you wrote a tome. Sometimes the safety in the numbers of Democrats here makes them feel bipartisan, until the other side calls them out.

Actually I think there are about two regulars besides myself who consider themselves liberals.

Most of the folks on here are conservatives, libertarians, or independant moderates.

Least that's my observation...

[Predicto]

Actually I think there are about two regulars besides myself who consider themselves liberals.

Most of the folks on here are conservatives, libertarians, or independant moderates.

Least that's my observation...

If you are not a doctrinaire conservative and knee-jerk critic of everything Obama does, then you are a liberal Democrat. Sorry, them's the rules nowadays.

[Bang]

The middle is where they should be governing, ragardless of how or why they got there, IMO.

Absolutes don't work. Absolute conservatgiv e ideals, and absolute liberal ideals don't work. A healthy mix of both ideals can, and should.

Regardless of how partisan anyone feels, even they must admit that SOME of the other side's ideas are good, even if the people who preach them haven't been exactly the best in practice.

If only the members of our government would recognize the strength in compromise for the greater good, and recognize that a a lack of willingness to attempt to find compromise is counter-productive.

We're never going to have the exact right answer for any problem. There is no manual on how to handle the future. So we come up with the best answers we can and go from there.. adjusting along the way if necessary.

~Bang

[Kilmer17]

The truth to that is Clinton did try to reform Healtthcare and failed, which of coarse the GOP at thee time labeled Liberal.

But it's not accurate, because Clinton like Obama never put forward the liberal agenda for healthcare; and Clinton never got the right to "compromise" with him either...... Clinton was labeled a historically liberal President and was fought tooth and nail by Newt Gingrich on every issue.

What sucess Clinton had in his eight years was due to his ability to counter punch and ram policy down Gingriches throat when he over reached. Bill Clinton had a difficult time in attracting GOP votes even when he was proposinig GOP core issues... NAFTA is an exception to that rule.

There is no time in the Clinton era when the right called him a moderate president. Rush Limbaugh had a daily countdown towards the end of the most liberal president in Americian Historry. Clinton convinced the American People directly of the merits of his administratiion, he never got much bipartisan support.

Im not talking about the right. Im talking about the middle ind voters.

[JMS]

If you are not a doctrinaire conservative and knee-jerk critic of everything Obama does, then you are a liberal Democrat. Sorry, them's the rules nowadays.

Yeah I can't win... I'm an Obama critic, and a Liberal. But he'll still get my vote... I'm caught in that Clintonesque wedge. I can't go anywere else even though I'd like too.

[Dan T.]

I'm caught in that Clintonesque wedge...

Is that what Monica called it?

[JMS]

Im not talking about the right. Im talking about the middle ind voters.

I guess we should have this discussion after the election... To me it's not clear at all that Obama has lost the middle. Everthing he's done in office is taylored to attract the middle.... The big knock on him is the economy, but it's a topic that the middle still holds the GOP primarily responsible for.

Romney, the likely GOP candidate was a very attractive moderate conservative candidate; but has spent the last eight years running from all his achievements in office while pandering to the far right in order to achieve theh GOP nomination..... Conventiional GOP wisdom says that Romney will still be able to attract moderates, The Leasons of 2008 and John McCain's failed run suggests this belief could be misplaced. John McCain was the most popular politician in the country and darling of independents and Moderates in 2004 as he was a vocal critic of Bush inside the GOP. Only after 4 years of reversing himself on everything that made him popular saw him loose the general election handily and saw his popularity eclipsed by a little known goveror whom he took for his VP.