Source
r/Republican•
TheMerchandise

No question Romney performed very well at the debate. But was it merely a performance?

Full disclosure: I definitely lean left and will probably vote for Obama in November (voted for him in '08, which was the first election for which I could). However, I consider myself pretty moderate and really try to understand both sides of every issue. I'm pretty fed up with bipartisan politics on the whole. I'm writing this for purposes of learning what I can so that I may make an informed decision, and hopefully this will start an open discussion the likes of which, sadly, cannot be found on r/politics.

To the point now: Romney spoke very well and kept his composure better than the President. But what he was saying gave me considerable pause (or on occasion had me shouting at the screen). It just seems so inconsistent with the positions he's taken throughout the campaign. And his rhetoric at this debate was markedly different from the things he said behind closed doors or to audiences composed entirely of Republicans. Of course this is because he's trying to appeal to all Americans and is reaching across the aisle, so to speak.

But I would argue that Obama's ideas have been more consistent throughout the campaign. I think what he stands for has been clear from the start, and I frankly have no idea after last night what Romney really stands for.

The questions I'm asking:

  • Do you think last nights performance is an accurate reflection of the direction Romney wants to take this country should he win?

  • Do you think there's a notable discrepancy between things he said last night and things he's said within the last few months?

I had a few more specifics, but I can't remember right now; I'll add them in as soon as I do. I really wanna hear as many opinions as possible, but I'd appreciate any sources you guys have to back up facts. Looking forward to hearing from some new/different perspectives. Thanks!

EDIT: I accidentally a letter

Posted Oct 4, 2012, 7:33 PM UTC · edited

428
jcc8•

A couple years ago while talking with friends I relayed that the only Republican I could vote for was Mitt Romney. The rest of the republican party had shifted so far right, it seems, just to disagree with Obama even when they really did agreed with him. It's debilitated Congress to the point where even Veterans' Jobs bills are being held up.

Now, over the course of the campaign Romney followed the party so far to the right he even chose Paul Ryan as his running mate - whose biggest claim to fame is marketing a budget that defies basic math. Then, last night Romney was a completely different person - he was the candidate I might be able to vote for.

But, it was just a performance. He's proven he will not stand up to anyone in his party. Not even Rush Limbaugh when he calls a private citizen a slut and seemingly doesn't understand there's no relationship between how much sex you have and how much birth control you need covered under your insurance. His plan was to turn Medicare into a voucher program, but when that caught blow back, now he says you can keep Medicare or use a voucher. He'll say whatever it takes.

The President lost the debate, just as John Kerry whipped George W. Bush in 2004, there's no question about it. But, it was ironic that the President was the one talking about having to say "No" sometimes as a part of leadership while Romney spent his time shape-shifting as many casual citizens tuned in for the first time. The President has a solid lead in swing states like Ohio and Romney had nothing to lose. He had to make his move.

Bottom line - if Romney's strategy of saying whatever it takes and the Republican party's strategy of obstructing things like jobs bills for veterans or holding the nation's debt ceiling hostage causing a downgrade works, it will redefine modern politics. It will prove to politicians that you should not give in and compromise even when the interests of the country are at stake. Politicians will have no need to treat the public with any sense of respect, because if you reward this behavior, you don't deserve it.

edit: grammar/punctuation.

17
lfergy•

I wish I had more upvotes to give you.

1
rownpown•

Haha I just want to upvote this whole thread! are these republicans talking? I didn't think you could be so well spoken and rational! Upvotes for all!!

2
odin20•

I think he did a really good job expressing himself. Especially the way he redefined 'trickle down economics' was spectacular.

The thing is that free market philosophy is superior to anything else. Even to the most vulnerable people in the society. But on the first look it doesn't seems so and Obama has a very easy job using populistic rhetoric on how he is going to fix all problems through government. When people listen to him they can say: "its okay. he is going to help us out with giving us money/benefits".

Romney, on the other hand, has to convince people that his unintuitive approach (free market) works. The US was build on this approach, but it is not all that straightforward because you don't actually see any specific person helping you out.

So I would say that what he said yesterday is an accurate reflection of the direction that Romney wants to take - he just expressed himself better then so far.

1
Caethy•

Just tossing this in here. Look at other countries (Mainly Northern Europe). Countries where Obama's policies would be right-wing in their respective political spectrum. Countries were 'free market philosophy' and other Republican standpoints are extreme-right viewpoints.

If free market philosophy is 'superior to anything else', then why are these countries doing objectively -better- on economical factors and on quality of life?

I'm not saying Romney's policies don't work (I don't want to get into that discussion.) - But claiming his way is the 'superior' way is something that I don't actually see being supported by any facts at this point.

9
evolveasaddictConservative•

Two things. Government works better with smaller, more homogeneous populations. The idea and genius of states rights is so that the states can be the Sweden's and Finland's (which for example has the population of Colorado) of the continent. The United States is 350+ million people of varying cultures, needs, and wants.

Secondly the countries you mention, unlike Southern European countries, are actually quite capitalist save for a few social programs like healthcare which piggyback greatly off American innovation in the industry. If we adopted such a program there would be no outside superpower free-market economy producing top of the line medical equipment, cures, pharmaceuticals, and doctors thanks to competition.

Medicare voucher programs, school voucher systems, private roads, low corporate tax rates, enforced borders, no minimum wage. All things common in those countries. The big myth is that they're "socialist". Many of them are just as economically free as we are, if not more so.

3
Caethy•

Voucher programs? No. School vouchers? No. Private roads? No. Corporate tax rates? Debatable. (Private tax rates are often FAR higher) Minimum wage? No. I'm sorry, you're getting your facts wrong. While -some- of these countries might have one or two of these statements right, overall it's utter nonsense.

On top of that, Europe's own medical industry is doing absolutely fine. On the level of research, equipment, pharmaceuticals (both production and research) - As well as having absolutely top-notch doctors. The entire world relies on each other for plenty of things. European healthcare is by no means piggybacking off America.

3
evolveasaddictConservative•

Oh no doubt they're first world healthcare systems, don't get me wrong. The US just leads in all of those categories.

My point was those countries can afford such healthcare systems because of their vibrant economies and small, relatively homogeneous populations.

While -some- of these countries might have one or two of these statements right

That's what I mean, these countries have a lot of economic freedom on par with the US. You can say no no no, but those are all things many of the most successful countries have. That's not to say these are particularly important or ubiquitous examples, but rather they are some of the more vilified "capitalist" tenets we're familiar with. The Germanic countries are hardly the democratic socialist ideal Americans romanticize them to be. Greece and France are better examples.

2
TheMerchandiseOP•

The free market philosophy is a great ideal. I think the problem stems from the inherent corruption in our current system. Regulations are necessary because otherwise greed gets out of hand and people don't play fair. But those regulations must always be competently put in place and enforced- good intentions and good planning don't always go hand in hand, which is definitely a problem the Obama administration has.

What I find so worrying is that I can't get a read on Romney's intentions. When he's talking to his conservative base, I hear scary things. But when he addresses the whole population, he sounds slightly more reassuring. I guess I just have to check the specifics of his plans for office and measure those against my own moral compass.

Bottom line: take everything politicians say with a grain of salt, especially when your vote hangs in the balance

EDIT: that sounded more preachy than I was intending. And it's vague because I'm not terribly well versed on specifics. But I stick by the message; I just wish there was a clear presentation of the facts on both sides' plans. News coverage in this country is turning into a joke, and a bad one at that -_-

4
Caethy•

Just keep this in mind: Sounding more agressive in a debate doesn't mean a thing. Look at both parties standpoints in an objective fashion. Just because one candidate is fairly timid during a debate (Obama is just not very good at them, Romney is. On the other hand, he's an amazing public speaker that leaves Romney in the dust) doesn't mean his policies are any better or worse.

Judge what the candidates say, not how they say it.

5
TheMerchandiseOP•

Judge what the candidates say, not how they say it.

That is an excellent point. Do you think it's fair to say that the majority of people describing the debate last night as a clear win for Romney are judging it on how rather than what? Also, I feel like what Romney said last night was very different from what he's been saying for most of this race (especially during primaries).

All in all, the debate just made me feel uneasy. Apparently that sentiment's fairly common among European leaders. Go figure :/

5
Caethy•

Western Europe (Not just their leaders) has a political spectrum that is, on average, a lot more liberal than the United States. When placed (out of context) on a map of the political spectrum in many European countries; Obama would be fairly right wing already. Romney's policies almost fall outside the spectrum into extremism.

It's very natural for many European leaders to feel uneasy about Romney; His political views are almost unthinkably extremist for European standards.

As my personal view (Obviously very biased): If -I- judge it on the actual content within the span of my knowledge... Romney didn't just lose, he was a disgrace. He lied, he flip-flopped; and he still refuses to actually propose any real solutions rather than just repeat supposed problems.

I don't agree with Obama on a lot of things. Obama isn't always truthful either, and he's changed his views as well. But next to Romney? Romney's (in my opinion) disregard of any form of actual respect for reality is disgusting to me.

5
RastilnI•

In my opinion, the two major candidates are being vague because they want to sound appealing to the widest group of citizens, which means speaking in generalities and ideals while forgoing specifics. It's much easier to think, "I like Obama because he wants to help the middle class and get our economy on track!" than to think, "I agree with the individual mandate clause in the ACA and Obama's desire to invest in green energy rather than traditional energy sources!"

Third parties, on the other hand, can afford to be more specific because they realize that there's almost no chance of them being elected, so they prefer to get their message across instead of whoring themselves out for votes.

4
squigglesthepig•

If the free market philosophy really worked, wouldn't corruption be irrelevant as market factors auto-corrected for corruption?

2
evolveasaddictConservative•

Yes. The auto-correction is an ongoing process.

1
RMaximus•

I find the premise of your question hypocritical. Was anyone questioning Obamas performance when he got elected? Were his actions NOT the exact opposite of what he campaigned on before he got elected? Why is Romney held to a different standard?

0
RMaximus•

So what if it was? You think the hope and change Obama was really him? Theyre all actors in one form or another. All that matters is that he will be 10x better than Obama.

-1
rownpown•

How so? Can you explain why/how Romney will be "10X better than Obama"?

1
RMaximus•

Because he has business experience and is not a race baiter.

-5
rownpown•

Business experience doesn't necessarily translate into a better president. Im sure he is a great CEO; He made a lot of money for himself and others. But our political system has more than one branch. 2012, man...race baiter? seriously?

1
RMaximus•

Sure it does. We hired a president without business experience and have the worst recovery in the history of the nation. Um, yeah race baiter. Did you see the videos of him in his church? He was race baiting. Wake the fuck up.

-5
wethedownvotedNeoconservative•

It just seems so inconsistent with the positions he's taken throughout the campaign.

Or maybe you're finally seeing his real positions instead of the strawmen Obama, Jon Stewart and the rest of the MSM attack.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/04/Romney-Humiliates-media

-2
TheMerchandiseOP•

while I agree that my opinion of Romney has definitely been influenced by biased sources, I have heard/seen enough of the things he's said while on the campaign trail to know that there is some dissonance. and i'm compelled to point out that the article you linked is more biased than the fact-checking sites it bashes. facts are not biased. how people interpret them, on the other hand...

4
coljung•

Jon Stewart ? I always find it funny when the right calls out for 'lying', when all he does is use actual clips of what this or that person said. Kinda difficult to make up stuff when you are using their actual clips.

1
Spineless_JohnNeoconservative•

The Daily Show is biased in that it only chooses the most exploitable clips. Sure, they give context, but they don't show all of the "good" things Mitt Romney has said.

Arguing about the bias of the Daily Show is a waste of time anyway, considering it's a comedy show.

3