Posted on 01/07/2012 8:32:05 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Romney has a record where he touted his belief system, policy proposals, etc, when running for U.S. Senator against Ted Kennedy. He has a record as governor. But Romney says ignore THOSE specifics - here is who I claim to be now, and what I claim to stand for. And he says now to take him at his word about who he is and what he stands for.
But he is low on specifics, especially tonight, and throughout the debates, Romney has been heavy on platitudes and speaking moatly in generalities (I will restore America, America can be great again, Obama this, Obama that, etc, etc).
But when Gingrich points out what the Wall Street Journal has to say about Romney's economic/jobs plan, or when Santorum points out (accurately, mind you) that Romney is a top-down pro-banker bailout kind of politician, Romney diverts away to attacking Obama, instead of dealing with the issues raised.
The Romney plan: ignore the specifics of the past that deal with me, and if you try to pin me down on an issue, or a question of character now, I will ignore you or divert attention elsewhere.
The aforementioned are not the characteristic that defines a leader. Period
Many will just see that as ‘showboating’ rather than being part Chinese in his psyche.
Romney got most time to speak, followed by Huntsman, Paul, and Santorum. Newt and Perry were just there for the ride. ABC did all it could to insure Mittens is the the one to lose to zero.
Pure tedium. I kept flipping back and forth between the debate and the Saints/Lions game. Seemed like every time I came back to the debate, they were STILL discussing that irrelevant topic.
The GOP establishment loves these kinds of debate formats, because they are meant to hurt conservatives and help the RINOs, whom they want to get the nomination.
Harvard doesn’t count?
Romney is the definition of an empty suit. He is full of cliches and socialism.
If the GOP nominates him....they get what they deserve. Unfortunately the rest of us will pay for their sins.
“I’m not a Romney supporter, but one good thing I will say about him is that at least he didn’t go to one of the standard overrated east coast liberal universities.”
I think you may be partially right in that he went to Stanford and Brigham Young for undergrad but went to Harvard Law for law school
The debate was nothing less than a Romney campaign stump. He had the majority of the time and rambled incessantly without saying anything of value. There seemed to be an intentional plan to direct more questions and responses for the benefit of Romney. It became so blatantly pro-Romney with regard to time that my wife and I could barely contain our rage. We watched the entire debate but it was difficult because bias in favor of Romney.
Sorry. I didn't realize he'd gone to Harvard Law School. As the presidency goes, that's definitely not a plus in my book.
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.