Skip to comments.Mitt Romney 2012 = John Kerry 2004?
Posted on 04/12/2012 1:47:28 AM PDT by tsowellfan
Political reporters all of whom are history nerds at heart spend countless hours trying to figure out which past election the current elections most reminds them of.
Its part parlor game you usually win when you compare the current election to the most obscure election of the past possible (this reminds me of the 1876 election between Samuel Tilden and Rutherford B. Hayes) and part useful political analysis. While no two elections are ever exactly the same, there are elections whose dynamics clearly resemble one another and where studying what happened can help you understand what will happen...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In terms of electability and platforms, it isn't necessary to include 2012 or 2004.
Romney = Kerry, period. To the detriment of the republic.
Well, they certainly are both notorious flip floppers. I still can’t believe we’re stuck with Romney. Here’s a sample of what we’ll see. The DNC already has a Mitt vs. Mitt video out:
and Romney didn’t demean the military and throw his medals away, or hang out with Hanoi Jane. A far left Marxist pair of un flippable flops Obama has. ( Hey that sounded like Yoda!)
Neither did Carter but it does not mean he was a good President.
Re: Vietnam War...
* A 19-year-old Mitt Romney demonstrated in favor of the Vietnam War draft.
* But his status as ‘Mormon missionary’ exempted him from the draft.
But we weren’t comparing Carter to Kerry, so I wouldn’t be addressing Carter, would I? Carter was his own unique mess.
It’s a great analogy.
Bush was easy to beat in 2004, but Kerry was the perfect foil.
Obama is easy to beat in 2012, but Romney is his designer dream opponent.
Wasn’t he on his mission for 1 or 2 years and it had always been a Mormon rite of passage, not just a made up draft dodging ploy? (No I’m not defending Mormonism). Cheney had deferments, I see no problem with legitimate ones.
I think Kerry went to Vietnam purposely to make himself into some kind of war hero for a future run for office. He had already spoke about running. When he couldn’t handle it he got out ASAP and latched on to an antiwar, lying group he led into congressional hearings.
Nor was the article comparing Kerry and Romney in Vietnam. The issue is the flip-flopping 2004 vs 2012. Nothing about Vietnam.
RomneyCare is another unique mess because it makes him uniquely unqualified to be able to successfully run against Obama and his government take-overs.
Along with Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, both courtesy of the Massachusetts electorate. Should tell you something right there.
It wasn't Mormonism I thought you were defending.
> Mitt Romney 2012 = John Kerry 2004?
No way. Although I will never vote for RINO ROMNEY, he is not in the same class as a full blown traitor like Kerry.
The results will likely be the same. He will lose.
If Romney does win we will have the likes of a Mayor Bloomberg in the WH. A lose lose situation.
I’m still waiting for someone to show me one single solitary conservative ideal I won’t have betray in order to support Romney.
All the candidates had their flaws but Mitt rolls them all up in one neat stinking package.
NTHockey: “A huge dilemma, to be sure.”
Which is why I hope conservatives on both sides of the “Vote Romney” or “Do not vote Romney” dilemma at least respect that. I don’t know of any conservative who is planning to vote for Romney based on his “severely conservative” record. It’s clear that most of us are severely agonized by this dilemma.
tsowellfan: “He (Mitt Romney) will lose.”
We really don’t know that, although that appears to be a popular point of view here. Mitt Romney, in the unfortunate event he’s the nominee, will face literally the worst president in my lifetime. It’s quite clear that President Obama and his fellow travelers are doing everything they can to remake the country to match their fantasy (it didn’t work for the USSR, it won’t work here). The odds against a Romney presidency would be much, much worse with anyone other than a President Obama in office. As it stands, people are literally weighing outright destruction of America versus maybe holding it together for a few more years with Romney. What a crappy decision to make, but it is what it is.
Exactly. When this election is over, I think that Republicans are going to view 2012 the same way that Democrats view 2004 - a big missed opportunity.
You have to go outside the country for this one, to our neighbors in the Dominion of Celine Dion and Maple Syrup. This is John Tory vs. Dalton Mcguinty in the 2007 Ontario election. The only difference, other than citizenship, is that John Tory was not Mormon.
Dalton McGuinty = As Liberal Party leader and premier (equivalent of governor) of Ontario, he was to left of Obama, and less charismatic. He was running against Tory for a second term, and was a shoe-in to lose to Tory given how far left McGuinty had moved the province, destroyed the economy, pushed an abortion and gay agenda in schools (despite claiming to be a Christian), and presided over the legalization of same-sex marriage not only in the province, but in the country. With apologies to conservatives everywhere, Dalton made Obama look like Reagan.
John Tory, leader of the Ontario “conservative” party was a wealthy corporate executive and establishment CINO from the most liberal city in the province. He had beaten out his less wealthy conservative opponents. He had two predecessors, Mike Harris, who had been elected premier on a hard conservative mandate, was great for his first term, but went soft during his second term and became very unpopular (spent first term as Reagan, his second term was similar to Bush’s). Between Harris and Tory, the party had been led by Ernie Eves, a long-time party establishment squish a la McCain. Eves would then lose to Liberal Dalton McGuinty. Tory promised to chart a moderate course, and won the establishment and media support because he was the most “electable”.
As party leader, John Tory attacked pro-lifers, rural conservatives and gun activists. He blamed a lack of gun control (and his predecessor Mike Harris) for gun crime in Ontario’s big cities. He openly mocked social conservatives and Christians, while marching in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade - the largest in the world.
His platform was for the most part indistinguishable from McGuinty’s. He even instructed his candidates to downplay the name of the party, which contained the word “Conservative”, having them run as “John Tory candidates” on signs, campaign literature and when giving press interviews.
Tory basically promised to implement the same leftist policies as Dalton, but said he could do a better job implementing them because he had corporate experience whereas his opponent was a life-long politician and political activist. His only other policy difference (intended, believe it or not, to appease social conservatives threatening to stay home because of Tory’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gay agenda policies) was a promised to provide public funding to religious private schools (excluding Catholic, which are already publicly funded), which in Ontario are predominately Muslim, but only if they would agree to opt-in the pro-abortion and pro-gay public school curriculum.
This would become the dominant theme of the campaign as there was little else to distinguish John Tory from Dalton. Needless to say, John Tory got hammered from all sides. The left accused him of undermining public education in promising funding for religious schools. The secular right accused him of promoting religious extremism since the religious schools in question were predominately Christian or Muslim. Christians and Muslims accused him of being a Trojan Horse for cultural Marxism in tying the funding to a public school curriculum that promotes abortion and the gay agenda.
Despite very low approval rating, Dalton not only won a second term, he increased his seat majority.