Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Romney's Legacy

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Romney's Legacy
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On this day when Mitt Romney is lunching with President Obama to discuss mutual interests, let me express the opinion that the United States will elect a Mormon Republican as President within the next fifty years or so. Even if Romney lost, he got a lot of votes - and neutral observers described him as the least qualified candidate ever except for Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, plus the fact he was confronting an incumbent.

Republicans will for the twenty years be expressing the opinion that any Mormon candidate is doomed, which does not seem to me true. Right now they want to minimize Romney's influence, since their 2016 candidate may well be someone Romney personally dislikes for tepid support of his candidacy. Beyond that Romney's candidacy elevated the public perception of Mormons, which is hardly pleasing to evangelicals or Roman Catholics. So such criticism resembles that leveled after Al Smith's defeat in 1928, which did not prevent JFK from being elected in 1960. Smith got a lot of votes too.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that people are concluding "Mormons can't win" from this contest... is this just something you're afraid of or is it really being discussed out there?
Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romney's Mormonism ended up being a non-issue, as far as I can see. On the other hand, snobby rich guys will face an uphill battle for decades to come. [Razz]
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, he besmirched the ground he levitates on.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wish it had been Huntsman who came in second in the primaries in 2008 and won the nomination in 2012. Unfortunately he was considered too similar to Romney and failed to get much support. I think if Romney had not been in the picture many would have given him a second look (and he might have done even better than Romney--particularly in the general election). After Romney's loss there's no way people will reconsider him.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For one quote from the New York Times:
quote:
David Neff, editor in chief of Christianity Today, said that while evangelical Christians have no problem with Mormon politicians like Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Orrin D. Hatch of Utah, a Mormon president would "mainstream a religion they'd like to keep marginalized." ...
No, I had not looked for such declarations before making my comment, but I know enough about the opinions of evangelicals to be sure they were there.

[ November 29, 2012, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Did we lose all the Ornery conservatives due to the election result (except for noel)? Awful quiet around here.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mormons make up 2% of the population in the US so I see no reason in particular that one would be elected president in the next 50 years.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...or do you mean the next 50 elections, assuming it's a randomized process?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Assuming that Mormons make up exactly 2 percent of the population, and all else being equal, there's about a 22% chance of a Mormon being elected at least once in the next 12 elections (in the next 52 years).

Whereas there's about a 64% chance of a Mormon being elected at least once in the next 50 elections.

Of course, all else is not equal...

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by threads:
Mormons make up 2% of the population in the US so I see no reason in particular that one would be elected president in the next 50 years.

True but the notion that a Mormon can't be elected appears to be wrong as well.
Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to clarify, I said a Mormon might well be elected in fifty years or so. That might be 25 years, or it might be a century. And the number of Mormons in the United States has at least tripled in the last fifty years. While I do not expect that rate of increase to continue, the LDS Church remains one of the more rapidly growing denominations.

In a historical note, Ted Kennedy was elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time fifty years ago. That election had a big October surprise: the Cuban Missile Crisis. And later when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, Kennedy worked with him to pass what is nicknamed Romneycare, which could probably be as justly called Teddycare. Otherwise Romney set a record by the veto of as I remember 700 bills passed by the Massachusetts legislature, most of which were then passed over his veto. During his time in office, the legislature drove the chariot of state in Massachusetts, and Romney mostly served as a speed bump. But Romneycare marked an exception, and a very unusual one for a Republican governor, and that may reflect the fact Romney was a Mormon. I think it safe to say Mormon Republicans are more concerned with health, and with public health, than is usually true of Republicans in general. Since I am not Mormon, I do not know a lot of Mormon history, but I think that attitude goes back to Joseph Smith and has been prevalent in Utah since the state was settled.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and neutral observers described him as the least qualified candidate ever except for Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, plus the fact he was confronting an incumbent.
"Neutral observers" said that someone who served as governor and led a multitude of successful enterprises was less qualified than a guy barely out of the state senate? I don't see how one comes to that conclusion without being incredibly biased.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
quote:
and neutral observers described him as the least qualified candidate ever except for Woodrow Wilson and Warren G. Harding, plus the fact he was confronting an incumbent.
"Neutral observers" said that someone who served as governor and led a multitude of successful enterprises was less qualified than a guy barely out of the state senate? I don't see how one comes to that conclusion without being incredibly biased.
I don't see how one ignores that the incumbant had 4 years of experience actually being president unless one is incredibly biased.

Romney was running against the 2012 Obama not the 2008 Obama.

[ December 04, 2012, 06:30 AM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking, read the original quote to which I was responding please.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that Romney's resume does not place him among the least qualified ever to be president.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I recently read that Romney vetoed over 800 bills as Governor of Massachusetts, most of which the legislature overrode, some of them unanimously. Ignoring that that hardly shows a willingness on his part to work in a bipartisan manner, it also calls into question whether his autocratic CEO-style is really suited to the task of head of government. We can quibble over whether or not he was "qualified", but Obama clearly has the better personality and perspective to take on that job.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think he would have made a good president. I do think that his resume does not rank him as the least qualified candidate ever to be president.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
Viking, read the original quote to which I was responding please.

Yes it occured to me later that I had missed your point, sort of.

The reality remains that by 2012 Obama had better qualifications to be president than Romney by far.

[ December 04, 2012, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reality remains that by 2012 Obama had better qualifications to be president than Romney by far.
If by "better qualifications" you mean an unmitigated disaster of a first term, then sure; failing at a job doesn't qualify you to hold it again where I'm from, but your mileage may vary. The primary qualification of a good president is leadership ability, and I think our current president is an utter and complete disaster on that front.

All of that aside, what you're describing is an opinion, not a "reality", and there's not much of a point in re-litigating the last election. That wasn't the point of this thread as I understood it, and I'm a bit confused as to why you feel the need to point out this particular "reality". I'm about done on this subject though.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If by "better qualifications" you mean an unmitigated disaster of a first term, then sure;..."

You and a lot of Republicans who think the government -- that is, the Democratic Party government -- is destroying the country are at this point destroying your party. Just looking at the "fiscal cliff" negotiations as one example shows that Republicans simply don't understand how government works. They (and I presume you) would rather destroy the government and the economy along with it in the name of some ill-defined and unsatisfiable principle of purity, a return to some sort of Neverland etched in Republican memory if not visible anywhere in history books.

OTOH, the country has climbed out of a horrible recession, job growth has been improving steadily for 3 years, we ended one war and are winding down another. Except for Congressional Republican intransigence and counterproductive parliamentary manipulations, things are doing fairly well.

Of course, I may have completely misread you, so perhaps you can explain why the last four years were an unmitigated disaster and none of it can be attached to Republicans. A good place to start would be by demonstrating something of significance that Republicans did these past four years that had a demonstrably beneficial impact on the country.

[ December 04, 2012, 08:05 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Paladine:
[QUOTE]The reality remains that by 2012 Obama had better qualifications to be president than Romney by far.

If by "better qualifications" you mean an unmitigated disaster of a first term, then sure; failing at a job doesn't qualify you to hold it again where I'm from, but your mileage may vary. The primary qualification of a good president is leadership ability, and I think our current president is an utter and complete disaster on that front.

All of that aside, what you're describing is an opinion, not a "reality", and there's not much of a point in re-litigating the last election. That wasn't the point of this thread as I understood it, and I'm a bit confused as to why you feel the need to point out this particular "reality". I'm about done on this subject though.
[/QUOTE

Obama and Romney had no substantial difference in policy and Obama has 4 years of experience implementing most of the policies Romney promissed to implement.

Now you can pretend that the strawman radical liberal version of Obama that the Republican party insisted on running against is reality, but it looks like the American people aren't convinced.

If the Republican party wants to win it has to do better than this.

[ December 04, 2012, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
we ended one war and are winding down another.
We also fought another war openly in Libya, a covert one in Yemen, and may be looking at one in Syria.

That just happens to be outside of the accepted narrative for mainstream Republicans who believe Obama is a closet muslim / wussy liberal or the Democrats who believe Obama is a man of peace.

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, but he "led from behind" because he didn't threaten to go to war for a set of reasons based on American interests and then reluctantly invade and bomb the hell out of the country. He did it because circumstances dictated the necessity and advantage, and that's not the Right American Way.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as a clarification, many people during the campaign seemed to think that "leading from behind" meant "following" and mocked the President for it. Actually, the phrase was coined to mean convincing others to do what is best for all of you.

From Nelson Mandela

quote:
I always remember the regent’s axiom: a leader, he said, is like a shepherd. He stays behind the flock, letting the most nimble go out ahead, whereupon the others follow, not realizing that all along they are being directed from behind.

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/04/leading-from-behind-obama-clinton.html#ixzz2ECWZxRAr


Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a bizarre coda** to Romney's candidacy:
quote:
No one wanted to be president less than Mitt Romney, his son said in an interview out Sunday that raises new questions about the candidacy of the losing Republican nominee.

In an interview with the Boston Globe examining what went wrong with the Romney campaign, his eldest son Tagg explains that his father had been a reluctant candidate from the start.

After failing to win the 2008 Republican nomination, Romney told his family he would not run again and had to be persuaded to enter the 2012 White House race by his wife Ann and son Tagg.

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life. He had no desire… to run,” Tagg Romney said. “If he could have found someone else to take his place… he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

Mitt Romney “is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them. He loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention,” his son said.

Romney, a former Massachusetts governor and multi-billionaire businessman, has been widely criticized for blaming his loss in the November 6 election on President Barack Obama’s “gifts” to Latinos, women and the poor.

“What the president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote,” Romney said during a call with campaign donors in mid-November that represented his first public reaction to his election loss.

The Globe story sought to look beyond that narrative and examine what really went wrong.

It focused on the fact that Romney was unhappy that one of his most trusted advisers, Mike Murphy — the architect of his successful 2002 run for governor of Massachusetts — did not join the campaign.

Instead, the campaign settled on Stuart Stevens, who had worked on Romney’s 2008 presidential bid.

The Globe story also highlights the decision to downplay Romney’s biography in favor of going after Obama and the flagging US economy.

Campaign strategists feared that highlighting Romney’s biography would open the Mormon candidate up more to personal attacks that he was wealthy, out-of-touch and belonged to a minority faith.

**I included the entire article because the URL has a paren and won't work with UBB. You can google for content phrases to find it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if it's true this seems like a ****ty thing for his son to trot out to the press. [Frown]

[ December 25, 2012, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1