I new (sic) when his daughter had to go to the hospital that this would be happening but I thought he would have waited until after the 24th our Primary. I knew he also wasn't going to win the nomination straight out but with Gingrich still in as well that we would have a brokered convention and just maybe end up with decent choice. Romney is going to be another John McCain and maybe not even as good as that bad choice was. I have been a conservative Republican since I was a teenager and I'm 65 now. I have never seen the Party so Hell bent to self-destruction as in the last two Presidential campaigns. Actually the GOP hasn't put forth a viable candidate since Reagan. GW Bush winning was a fluke.
Obama will crush Romney in every debate, because any time he goes after something like Obamacare, the president has multiple ready examples of Romney doing the same thing, only years earlier. Going by my instinct that Romney isn't going to be able to openly run on the platform of "Just like Obama, only White and Mormon!", it's going to be an uphill battle for him.
Romney gets destroyed across the board. As for running mates, he pretty much has to take someone unknown, doesn't he? He has a bunch of controversial legislation in his past, millions upon millions of dollars, and his status has been thoroughly trounced by attack ads from his GOP opponents; he needs a competent version of Sarah Palin.
I'm not entirely convinced he's going to get absolutely trounced in a televised debate. He's a smart and wily character, even if I can't stand him. That being said, the debates don't really matter all that much when it comes down to it (providing small and usually illusory bounces one way or he other), regardless of Newt Gingrich's fever dreams about debate being the most important thing in the election.
As for me, I wouldn't be surprised if he went with Susanna Martinez, the current governor of New Mexico. A Republican latina in a Democratic state, he'd make inroads both with women and with latinos. Unfortunately, Martinez doesn't have much more experience than Palin had, so he might not want to go down that route.
If the primary debates were any indication, Romney will likely hold his own against Obama. He may not come out looking as strong, but he'll be solid enough that it won't push the needle much in either direction (that is unless he has some genuine foot-in-mouth Romneybot moments that reinforce the out-of-touch narrative).
It's not that Romney will necessarily do poorly, as much as Obama is going to be really, really strong. He's going to talk about how much he's managed to accomplish despite being roadblocked by the GOP for the last 4 months, and how Romney can't really speak against the ACA since it was based on Romneycare and a plan the GOP had in 1992 (I think) anyway. It doesn't matter how tough you are, when you stand next to Chuck Norris you're a sissy.
I was reading an article in Businessweek about the supposed hypocrisy within the republican party in that they do not approve of a widespread healthcare mandate, but they do support mandates requiring welfare recipients be subjected to drug tests.
Without getting into a huge discussion (if you don't want to), i was just curious if you guys think that this is indeed hypocritical.
I'm in the camp that thinks that since these are two different problems requiring two different solutions that it plausible to believe a mandate would work in one and not the other,
No, massively hypocritical, unnecessarily invasive and just plain mean-spirited. There's no higher rate of drug abuse among welfare recipients to justify singling them out for testing while giving all other recipients of government aid a pass, the constituencies that have tried it have proven this (expensively), and there's the objection that it's an unwarranted search by the state and a constitutional violation. It's nothing but pandering to prejudice among the grey-hairs in order to gain support for politicians who don't have any real policies to recommend them to voters.
Promising to crack down on all those mythical crack-head welfare queens is an easy promise to make, especially when you couple that promise with restrictive voter registration policies that hinder the poor from casting a ballot. The reality doesn't match the rhetoric, but when has that ever slowed down a policy like this?
I personally find it hypocritical as well. It seems strange to be a party that promotes small government that will leave people own, but simultaneously back big business and feels the need to dictate morals to the nation.
I'm always shocked that they find the EPA to invasive to corporate America, but try to dictate what we can do with our bodies.
Right. The policy seems fair enough on its own, but like you said whats not fair is that they let so many other social groups get away with murder by having no regulations even close to the drug test thing.