Posted on 08/18/2012 6:29:13 AM PDT by GlockThe Vote
Why not?
Almost all of my friends are Democrats; all of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
Ask them these days, as I have, if they plan to vote for Obama this November, and they’ll give you an “Oh shucks” sad smile, look down, look back up with guilty eyes and say “I’m disappointed.”
Then they play the party line and say. “But Romney? But Ryan?”
I’m not talking about those African Americans, Latinos and lockstep Democrats who’ll blindly vote for Obama no matter how high unemployment may be or what shape this country may be in.
I’m talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats who are a soft nudge away from casting their vote for Romney.
All they need to know is that they’re not alone.
Democrats were disappointed in 1980. They’d had, under President Jimmy Carter, four years of inflation, unemployment and gas rationing. Yet, when asked, they said, “But Reagan?”
At this point in 1980, Carter was nine points ahead of Ronald Reagan in the polls. Reagan had been slimed by the press and pro-Jimmy Carter forces as being dumb and bumbling. Sound familiar?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Romney isn't Reagan. That's the difference this time around. Sometimes, the non-incumbent party must field its best candidate in order to regain the White House. The GOP has not done that in 2012.
If Romney loses, it will be because he was an incredibly weak candidate, not because of petulant voters.
No voter asks for or expects perfection. They just require a sufficient lack of imperfection.
In this environment, I can't think of a worse choice than Romney. The guy practically invented 0bamacare, for Chrissake!
Romney may still manage to win against this incredibly damaging Marxist usurper, but to blame a potential Romney loss on anybody but Romney himself is disingenuous, and the epitome of absurdity.
Reagan attracted a lot of Democrats in 1980 because he spoke out in support of labor unions and on social issues such as special rights for women (a liberal cause back in those days that is similar to the special rights for homosexuals that liberals are pushing today).
In fact, here is a clip from Reagan's Labor Day speech in 1980 by the Statue of Liberty in which he spoke of the virtues of labor unions and collective bargaining. It was such a stance that brought millions of working-class Democrats into the fold. Romney is not going to bring those voters over this time because he is seen as an enemy of labor unions - the prototypical union-smashing big-business capitalist.
So that is what I mean by the fact that Romney/Ryan is running (up to this point) a more conservative campaign than Reagan/Bush did in 1980. Despite his (Romney) reputation as a social liberal, since securing his nomination earlier this year, Romney has made no sops at all to liberal social causes. He seems to be running as a button-down, no-nonsense conservative who is going to Washington to fix things and do some ass-kicking. His selection of Paul Ryan further reinforces what I just said.
Now granted, we haven't heard the convention speeches yet and we have yet to see the debates and the massive media ad blitz that will assault us once the Romney team can start freely spending their amassed campaign fortune once the convention is over with. So maybe Romney does lurch to the left as he did in the past when running for office in Massachusetts. So far, no signs of that though. We shall see.
Bottom line is that Romney we see running for the White House looks to be much different than the Romney we remember in Massachusetts when he was trying to govern a state that was 90% controlled by a far-left Democrat state legislature.
If Paul Ryan is an example of the people he is going to select for his team, there are a lot of Freepers that might be eating their words come a year or two from now.
I was talking about how he is running not how he will govern. Your moron comment is discourse I would expect from the left, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and blame your upbringing.
Obama is counting on you and your type... I’m sure you won’t let him down...
You n00b Willardbot trolls and your absurdist talking points can hit the bricks. Just because you get a thrill up your leg at the thought of having a leftist RINO as President doesn’t mean others do. This is a Conservative website, pal. We support Conservatives here.
want some cheese to go with your whine?
Fair point - Reagan had his base nailed down so he could move to the center when campaigning (i.e., the base trusted him)...no one since that time, on the Republican side, has been in that situation - and no one has had the blowouts that Reagan had.
Based on his record, Romney is someone Democrats could feel comfortable voting for.
Selective memory is part of efforts to make sense of conflicting reality.
What has changed is American jobs have been sent overseas.
It is time for Republicans to demand an end to off-shoring.
Bring back US jobs. Because outsourcing them is destroying America.
Bring back US jobs. Because outsourcing them is destroying America.
There's nothing wrong with off-shoring, of itself. It's a synmptom of a larger ill.
What's really wrong is the conditions that bring about off-shoring. Intractable, over-priced union labor. Onerous government regulations. High taxation.
Those are the problems Republicans need to address. Then, off-shoring will fix itself.
I disagree.
Ever more strongly.
It is time to heal America.
One-time super-liberal, self-important founder of a major ad agency, Jerry retired and invested his soul and some of his wealth in a Long Island restaurant.
Fine restaurant. But a real come-to-realizer for Jerry (a successful ad agency isn't really a business so much as a small bank with a collection of dope-heads locked up in the back room).
Regulations, licensing, taxes, more regulations, it goes on and on in the restaurant business in New York.
One day, Jerry threw up his hands and became a conservative -- though I believe he still calls himself a liberal and is a registered Democrat.
In any event, the motivation behind the column is real. And the ad ideas are solid gold -- if the Romney campaign can be brought to recognize them.
You don't favor correcting the problem -- harnessing out-of-control unions, eliminating onerous regulations and reducing taxes?
You would prefer, instead, a simple diktat that made farming out jobs overseas illegal -- while leaving all the motivations for doing so in place?
Surely, I'm misunderstanding you.
You may or may not be misunderstanding me.
We have now, the most open country in the world. Bar none.
That rather than improve things, is destroying us. You may think that is not the case, but I do.
Whether we agree or disagree, I am becoming ever more determined to stop this.
If we wait until all unions are destroyed, we will be destroyed.
It is time to turn around.
America first.
Got it.
Not exactly.
We have addressed the problem, as much as we can. That is where we differ.
Now China is becoming the predominant threat. More than Russia, more than Islam.
We climbed in bed with China. Probably a good idea, but the time is over.
It is time to re-build America now. 100%.
Starting by matching all of China’s market-altering moves. Import limits. Everything.
This becomes a (very) different game now.
We are now on different playlists.
I believe, you are still on the old one.
I propose we move on. That is where we differ.
Honestly, what does all that have to do with off-shoring -- which was your original comnplaint?
We re-industrialize America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.