Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, cried four times during tonight's Western Republican Presidential Debate, yet he has been declared the winner by International Business Times. As President of the United States, who is he going to ask for help when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won't let him speak?
Rick Santorum challenged Romney on healthcare stating that Mitt removed a line from his book, as was mentioned in an earlier debate this year by Rick Perry. Mitt denied the claim and when the debate got heated, both men were speaking over each other when Mitt went on a tangent about not being allowed to speak.
Next it was Newt Gingrich speaking when Mitt again asked for permission to speak. Candidate Romney even went so far as to tell Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, that he had a "problem" allowing others to speak. He also went on to imply that Perry might be attempting to be aggressive because he wasn't doing so well in the polls. At one point during the exchange with Perry, he cried out for help from moderator Anderson Cooper.
If Romney cannot handle himself in an authoritative way during a debate with his colleagues, how in the world is he going to stand up for America against China and Iran? Rick Perry very aggressively told Anderson Cooper, "You ask the questions and I answer how I want to answer." Cooper was not pleased with this retort but Perry knew what he wanted to say and he wasn't crying for help from anyone or pleading for a chance to speak. He simply said what he wanted to say and the debate moved on. Mitt did answer questions more directly than some of the other candidates, except for perhaps Congressman Ron Paul. However, calling Romney a "winner" is not entirely accurate.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 27
Romney disarmed all of his opponents, last night.
And while he was on the bossy side, he came across more as someone who was trying to stick up for his own right to speak.
If you want to blame someone, blame the moderator.
Your personal prism is clearly slanted towards a Conservative appraisal of last night's debate.
Perry has as much chance of winning the nomination as Carlie Sheen has of being taken off his meds.
You never know what might happen in politics. :) Hillary Clinton led the way in the Democratic primary at this stage of the game for the 2008 election. I think somebody is going to blow by Romney - I just don't know who it is going to be yet.
President Romney can do what the current POTUS does and simply blame Bush/Tea Party/Greedy CEO's/Mean Terrorists/Et Al!!!
Brett C is correct about Perry's chance at the GOP Nod...and I would add that President Obama has about as much chance at re-election in 2012 as I do!!!
Not a Romney fan but do believe he will end up being POTUS 45 come January 2013.
Maybe in 2016 we will find a 3rd party candidate that can effectively carry Ron Paul's message to a larger/broader base...one can only hope.
I only wish that wasn't true--but it is.
How do you--LITERALLY--see a prominent third party emerging? From double digit unemployment, for the next 5 years?
If a sustained jobless economy continues, there is likely to be major civil unrest--rather than a 3rd party.....although major civil unrest could lead to a 3rd party....if it doesn't, first, lead to something worse....
I really hope that is not true. If he gets the nomination, I kinda think Obama might still win. Don't underestimate Obama. The guy managed to get into the White House on only his words, nothing to back it up.
Romney is THE presumptive nominee--because most of the Electorate, who would vote for a Republican for President, is either Center Right or Independent.
The more conservative a candidate, the less likely that individual could win the Presidency.
Bush II won, because of his family name.
Reagan won the nomination, because of weak rivals in his party and because of his Hollywood face and Hollywood name.
Perry is not-yet-ready for Prime Time and is too conservative for the Electorate. His inexperience, on the national stage, is quite obvious in the debates.
Romney is a very strong, moderate Republican. Barring something strange, or
unforseen, he will be the nominee.
I don't particularly want to see that happen--because I'm a Democrat, who wants to see Obama reelected. But Romney's the only chance the Republicans have.
What's more, it looks as if Romney might very well win the election, in 2012.
"you and I both know that this country's system cannot accommodate a prominent 3rd party."
My only reply to your comment would be to replace the word "cannot" with the words "will not".
Neither party wants to see more competition - that competition MIGHT actually do something "GOOD"...how bad would that make things?????
But I believe this:
Our political system is so entrenched, at this point in our nation's history, that any significant change is quite, quite problematic--regardless of what Factions might feel threatened.
While the 'competition factor' is surely a noticeable part of it, if a prominent 3rd party tried to emerge, the attempted assault on the 'Political Bureaucracy' --and all its attendant customs and regulations--would compel the new Party to fail, before it ever made any headway.
To me, Government is a mixture of regulation and deregulation--depending on what is favorable, for the most number of citizens and for the country, as a whole.
For my money, Ron Paul is too one-sided in his views about hands-off government:
If Government existed not to govern, there'd be NO Government.
Lora, is this comment even for real? Did you forget that he was an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2004, followed by being a United States Senator before coming president? I'm not sure how that experience equals "only his words."
Most Conservatives, out of the Media--and certainly, many IN the Media--have flagrant BLIND SPOTS, about OBVIOUS facts.
Also, you might want to check your facts. Obama has never, not even once, voted "present" while in the US Senate. If you can find one incident of such occurence, I will eat my hat. He has voted "present" occasionally while an IL State Senator. And I mean very occasionally: He's cast thousands --literally thousands-- of votes as a State Senator, and less than 150 were "present." I'm not sure how that equals "nearly all of his votes in the Senate." Did you fact check your claims, or did you hear someone say it on TV and believe it to be true?
So far O's doing okay. No president can single-handedly change everything, but DADT was repealed, Osama bin Laden is gone, health care reform was passed, he established a credit card bill of rights, extended tax cuts for middle and lower classes, and fully funded the VA.
I could go on, but it seems like you get all of your information from sound bites and are a little short on facts.
In the U.S. Senate they say "abstain" and I hope you are hungry.
He did "abstain" over 30% while in the U.S. Senate.
And if you look closely, the issues he abstained from are "hot-button" issues such as abortion, health and poverty issues.
So, in my opinion, his U.S. Senate record doesn't count because he was simply there to further his political aspirations - clearly not doing his job as a Senator.
And that Health Care Reform doesn't go into effect till Jan. 2014. I hope Republicans do not overturn it as they are threatening to do, but the window of opportunity might be there if Obama does not get re-elected.
Lora, you might want to Google a little harder. Thirty seconds ago "nearly all" of his Senate votes were present, which is of course wrong, and now you have a detailed analysis of what types of votes he abstained from voting on? He's both abstained and voted for hot-button topics, and abstained and voted on fairly minor issues.
Even though I said "nearly all", I still stand by my opinion that he's indecisive. And his voting record in the U.S. Senate shows it.
And you weren't "mainly responding to typical rhetoric." You said he "never, not event once" abstained from a vote in the U.S. Senate. Fact is your statement is wrong.
Not exactly
Good luck with Herman Cain, guys!
He was the first black head of the Harvard Law Review. Constitutional Law Professor? FactCheck.org says his formal title was "senior lecturer" and he was "regarded as a professor." (Checked it online because I read his book some time ago - Dreams from my Father - and I did not remember him being a professor.)
I think Obama is too cerebral and not enough action. Like it or not, a President needs to be both.
So is a halogen spotlight - but I would NOT want one of those calling the "Oval Office" home any more than I do either of these two.
I have known many intellectually "smart" people who could not function on a day-to-day basis, as it was just too simplistic a concept for them to grasp.
For POTUS, I want someone who is smart but also "effective"; someone who is articulate but also "aware"; someone who is logical but also a "leader". To me, with President Obama - we have the smart, articulate and logical but lack the "effective", "aware" and "leader" attributes.
Well stated and I agree. So, who do you have in mind that is all those things? I can only think of one and he was already President for two terms...and his last name ain't Bush. :)
NO one currently comes to mind. Unfortunately, the "right" candidates are too intelligent to run for public office.
Just imagine an America with a Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, etc. as elected officials in Washington. How much further down-the-road would we be with regard to alternative power, competetive edge, "PEACE"!!!, etc. - NOT to mention our standng in the world...WOW!!!
Today, we DO NOT attract the brightest in US politics - so we are left with having to choose from an already lower-tier of candidates.
Just look at the past 60 years: we have had Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama...of those 10, I'd say three (3) were above average, two (2) average and five (5) below average - let's NOT even discuss Congress!!!
You don't get a winning season by always playing your second and third bench players!
I was not referring, at all, to whether native intelligence translates to effective Presidential leadership.
I was attempting to answer the question, literally.
Many considered FDR to be a first-rate President with a second-rate Intellect.