1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Inevitable Mitt Romney Tour Running Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Bob Cook, Feb 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    The 99 percent. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a term that entered the lexicon solely because of Occupy Wall Street. And now it's the biggest issue in the election.

    I guess all the Fox News/Limbaugh "what's the point?" commentary has its answer.
  2. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    OWS = Just a disorganized bunch of spoiled kids who live at home and have no real message or agenda.
  3. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    A tradition unlike any other. Mitt Romney, on the Republican ballot.
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I read something that was linked on Real Clear Politics that said that Obama would win every state where his approval rating was higher than 46 percent or something like that. It was an interesting read that showed again how basically six states will determine who wins this thing, but I didn't fully buy it because there's a difference between saying that you don't approve of the president and saying that you will vote for Romney.

    There are a lot of people who are unhappy with Obama who will vote for him again by default.
  5. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    I love my country. I'm afraid I won't recognize it in four years if Obama wins a second term, because I fear for a lot of what could happen.

    That said, there is one thing that could give Romney a nice bounce... who would he select as a running mate. Christie? Rubio? Daniels? Giuliani? He selects a solid running mate and his ticket all of a sudden could look appealing, even if a lot of us wanted his veep to actually be President. lol
  6. Uncle.Ruckus

    Uncle.Ruckus Guest

  7. joe

    joe Active Member

    We had to destroy the village to save the village.
  8. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Here's a question I've been wondering about for a while now, ever since the second (or was it third?) Newt comeback, when the GOP establishment came out of the woodwork to attack him. It seems like every former Congressman who worked under Newt in the 90s has come out to blister him. Over and over again, they are saying "Newt should not be President." They then list one reason or another as to why he's clearly not worthy (some even call him unhinged).

    My question is this: Why did the GOP put him at the top of their leadership when they did? If he's so terrible, why did they allow him to be second in line for the Presidency? Doesn't that call into question the party's overall worthiness to lead?
  9. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    You're not going to recognize your country in four years no matter who wins, if for no other reason than the masses of aging white Baby Boomers and even older white people are being replaced mostly with minorities, particularly Latinos, and recently arrived immigrants. The younger population is much more ethnically and religiously diverse, is much more likely to approve of, say, gay marriage and drug legalization.

    Beyond race and ethnicity, the overall trend for population growth is slow, because of the large aging (and dying) part of the country. So we won't get fast growth that comes with lots of people having lots of babies.

    I don't mean to bring this up to accuse you or anyone of being racist or unduly nostalgic. But the people who say we need to "take our country back" have to be aware that you can't take it back to 1955 or 1981 or whatever ideal year is stuck in your head. Profound changes are coming no matter who is President.
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Before the original post gets buried, few things are more useless than polling "registered voters." Likely voters has been proven more accurate so many times, I don't know why they bother with the former.
  11. Brian

    Brian Well-Known Member

    Change the name and you now know how the other side felt in 2004.
  12. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I'm not going to sit here and spew hyperbole about how Obama is ruining the country, but I think he's been a colossal disappointment as President. Part of that was due to unrealistic promises and expectations. Would Romney be better? I think it would be naive to say yes, but I'm willing to give him a chance, even though I'm far from being a big fan of his.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page