I'm a died in the wool Democrat but would have been open this year to a reasonable Republican. Maybe the real Mitt Romney of Massachussets. But he sold himself so much to the far, far right to get the nomination that I could not take him seriously. Additionally, the Republicans seem bereft of new ideas. Big tax cuts for the rich, boost defense spending, and somehow we will balance the budget? That dog don't hunt, and we heard it before. It didn't work. So Barack gets my vote.
Obama is going to win I think, hopefully he does. The media will be eating it in a few years when nothing improves.
e_blazer, I respect you but you are wrong. First, when I said "hate" I probably used the wrong word, as I meant it in the political sense. What I meant was that people will decide that they will vote for anyone, except maybe Hitler or bin Laden, who is running against "X". Their motivation is defeating X, not supporting "Y". They vote for Y because he or she is "not-X". Hope that clarifies. As to the personhood amendment, Mitt Romney was asked during an interview if he would sign such a bill were he to become president and his response was "absolutely". As recently as last week that was on his web site. Now he just says he wants abortion to be illegal. Another flip? He later said if a woman was raped she might be allowed to terminate. Then the next day said no. The health care plan in Massachusetts was almost identical to the federal. It's why some on the right don't want Romney talking about it. As for the "47%", had Romney merely said that around 47% of the country are not going to vote for him no matter what, there would be no controversy. In fact that would be pretty much true. However, he went on to say that this 47% pays no taxes, are dependent, think of themselves as victims, and nothing he can say will get "them" to take responsibility for their lives. That's a spoiled rich boy's contempt for everyone who struggles. That's how it was seen. By seniors, students, disabled veterans, the unemployed. That "I support Obama" is news to me - I may or may not. I did not vote for him in 2008 because opposition to marriage equality and support for death penalty are deal breakers. He changed his position on the first but not the second. I know I won't vote for Romney no matter what. Forcing women to bear children against our will IMO is RAPE. No difference between forced sex and forced childbirth. In both cases men decide to impose their will on our bodies by force. I don't vote for it. And of course being pro life does not include opposing death penalty... but it does include opposing any measures that prevent unwanted pregnancies or provide for pregnant women and children.
I just and listened to the entire video again. When taken in context, I see nothing wrong with what Romney said. Fact is, there was nothing that you could point out as untrue.
Wouldn't be the first time or the last. Okay, that clarifies things. I think we all are faced in most elections with the choice of voting for someone whose platform and beliefs don't fully match our own. Sometimes the choice is made simply because we think that the other option is worse than the person we end up voting for. Democracy is a messy and imperfect business. Apparently, it would be news to the personhood folks that Romney supports them. From their website: http://www.personhoodusa.com/press-release/obama-and-romney-must-choose-sides-personhood-debate-personhood-oklahoma-supreme-court Again, Romney's main objection to Obamacare is that it is being mandated by the federal government for all states. Romneycare was what the voters of Masachusetts wanted, but a majority of Americans have indicated that they oppose Obamacare. I think it should be pretty clear that Romney understands that not all of the 47% fall into those categories, but that the 47% contains many who do. The message was for the party faithful at the fund raiser. It ended up giving his opponents some nice fodder, but I really don't see anything so very egregious about it. There's way too much emotionally charged rhetoric in that paragraph for me to feel like diving into a discussion on abortion. I will say that I think that this issue is being over-hyped in this election, probably as a means of deflecting from Obama's crummy economic record. The law of the land has been set in Roe v Wade and the president's views on the subject aren't likely to change that law. I don't recall anyone having a particularly difficult time getting an abortion when Bush was in office and I suspect the same would be true under a Romney presidency. The pro-life contingent of the Republican Party may insist on a pro-life position on the party platform and Romney may have had to take that stance in order to get the nomination. That's politics. Based on his past record on the subject, I don't see him giving it much attention if he gets elected.
