Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on January 10, 2015, 12:47:25 PM
-
He is apparently giving serious consideration to a third try for the Presidency.
ETA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-to-gop-donors-i-want-to-be-president/2015/01/09/ce5f821a-9848-11e4-aabd-d0b93ff613d5_story.html
-
Jesus Christ...
-
Doing the same thing an expecting a different result again ...
-
Yep. And if you dont vote for him you're a traitor
-
**** that guy.
-
Are Bush and Romney serious? are they that disconnected from flyover country?
Romney/Bush - Twice the suck in one term.
-
Yep, the GOP is trying to run off its base.
We need a USIP / ANP or some such.
-
How about some new faces for both parties??
-
Third times the charm will make a great campaign slogan.
-
Decent man, good businessman and administrator, understands markets and capitalism better than any Dem and most Reps but insists on being an ideological squish.
If he steps up and totally owns many, if not most, of the more hard edged conservative ideals he should do a lot better than in past efforts.
-
Doesn't matter. It will be President Clinton in Jan. 2017.
-
I think you VASTLY overestimate her popularity.
Liz Warren is soaking up the empowered wimmens and beta/sub-beta male voters. So Hil's main constituency is just not there anymore. Plus there are a lot of establishment Dems that hate the Clintons and would be more than happy to kick her down the stairs.
Finally she may have an illness that impairs her enough that she would not be able to campaign and, if there is visible weakness, would drive many other voters away. The Dems are the eugenicist party after all.
-
I think you VASTLY overestimate her popularity.
Liz Warren is soaking up the empowered wimmens and beta/sub-beta male voters. So Hil's main constituency is just not there anymore. Plus there are a lot of establishment Dems that hate the Clintons and would be more than happy to kick her down the stairs.
Finally she may have an illness that impairs her enough that she would not be able to campaign and, if there is visible weakness would, drive many other voters away. The Dems are the eugenicist party after all.
I think the Eloi will endorse her as ...
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi23.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fb398%2FFLHRI-OK%2FMobile%2520Uploads%2F20150109_153342.jpg&hash=bb0579ab3c11acd7aef63312a90e297118204d43) (http://s23.photobucket.com/user/FLHRI-OK/media/Mobile%20Uploads/20150109_153342.jpg.html)
-
I agree. I think Clinton had her shot and lost it. I don't see her getting the nomination.
It'll go to another segment to pander to. Old harpy isn't much of a voting block.
-
At this stage if a candidate is even halfway between Romney and the Tea Party, and is above room temperature, he or she could win the Republican nomination. Instead, the R's are fixing to lose their base.
-
Moving to New Zealand looks more appealing every day.
-
At this stage if a candidate is even halfway between Romney and the Tea Party, and is above room temperature, he or she could win the Republican nomination. Instead, the R's are fixing to lose their base.
How dare you suggest that the republicans go with a candidate that could actually win.
The Republicans are destined to pick an especially shitty candidate, and probably one that would make Romney look pretty damn good.
After all, the GOP is the party that has to pick a loser so the Dems can win. It's part of "being nice" and "fairness"
-
So tell me how many times has Ron Paul tried to run?
-
A recent poll indicated that if the 2012 election were held today, Romney would win.
:facepalm: Danged 20/20 hindsight!
I really have no idea who I want to run in 2016. Romney seems (as has been pointed out) "been there, done that." Christie? [barf] Jeb Bush? [barf]
*SIGH!* Maybe I'll just sit 2016 out. :'(
-
WHY JEB AND ROMNEY ARE CRAZY TO THINK THEY CAN WIN WITHOUT THE BASE
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/200775/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/palin_levin_walk_2016_nomination.html
It’s all very simple: the Republicans lost Florida in the 2012 presidential election by 0.88. If conservatives stay at home in 2016 in the same numbers as they did in 2012, then there is no chance of the GOP winning. If conservatives are advised by Governor Palin (unlike in 2012) and Mark Levin to either stay home or vote third-party, then it is impossible to see how Florida could be won by, for example, Jeb Bush. However, for argument’s sake, if, because of Bush’s Florida connection and a bad economy, Florida is won, then Ohio (-2.98%), Virginia (-3.88%), and Colorado (-5.36%) also have to be roped in. The road to 270 Electoral College votes is extremely difficult under the most optimal of circumstances; utter realism indicates that it is impossible with the slightest bleeding off of actual or potential votes from 2012.
So tell me how many times has Ron Paul tried to run?
In total or as a Republican only?
Ron did not try to appeal to the GOP base in any of those attempts.
-
Someone needs to pull a Monty Brewster.
-
Nixon ran for POTUS more than once, losing to JFK in 1960 before defeating Humphrey (and Wallace) in 1968.
Reagan ran for POTUS more than once, losing the GOP nomination in 1976 before defeating Carter in 1980.
H. Ross Perot ran for POTUS twice - 1992 and 1996 - acting as "spoiler" each time and assuring Democrat wins.
So multiple runs aren't out of the question.
The question is - when Romney's best quality is that maybe he doesn't suck as bad as Jeb Bush . . . what are his chances of winning in the general election? Especially when he seemed to give up after his first (very successful) debate with BHO in the last election.
-
I eagerly await the hordes of Republican sycophants assuring us how "severely conservative" Romney is. :rofl:
-
It's the most important election ever! We can worry about your ideological stuff later!
-
I eagerly await the hordes of Republican sycophants assuring us how "severely conservative" Romney is. :rofl:
You should be asking how conservative are the majority of GOP voters.
-
You should be asking how conservative are the majority of GOP voters.
Given that many did not bother to turn out for Romney in 2012, probably more conservative than Romney.
-
Democrats = Globetrotters
Republicans = Washington Generals
-
Given that many did not bother to turn out for Romney in 2012, probably more conservative than Romney.
I'm trying to find a legitimate chart or new article that spells that out.
-
I'm trying to find a legitimate chart or new article that spells that out.
Let me know what you find. Include Project Orca in your searches. The GOP had a massive project management failure on it GOTV management software.
-
Let me know what you find. Include Project Orca in your searches. The GOP had a massive project management failure on it GOTV management software.
Hence the credible source. I was on the reporting side of that fiasco.
-
I think you VASTLY overestimate her popularity.
Liz Warren...
Liz Warren of Fauxcahontas fame? That Liz Warren? The Clinton camp will beat Warren bloody over that stuff and the PC wing of the Democrat Party will write her off.
-
Liz Warren of Fauxcahontas fame? That Liz Warren? The Clinton camp will beat Warren bloody over that stuff and the PC wing of the Democrat Party will write her off.
My wife has been working with some of the up and coming "movers and shakers" in the Cherokee Nation. I've heard several of them say good things about Warren. :facepalm:
-
Yes, but the super-liberals love her. She is "more to the left" of Hillary. And while Hillary can pull in some big money, the base is not enamoured with her. ANd if Warren runs, she'll only pull money from Hillary as Warren doesn't have Hillary's baggage. (Bill, Monica, Obama, and Benghazi among others).
While Hillary thought she was going to be anointed president in 2008, when suddenly the D base flocked to Obama. For many, it seemed like they were grateful to not have to vote for Hillary.
-
I'm trying to find a legitimate chart or new article that spells that out.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUYyNnUI.jpg&hash=a7a8e1e328f3a669cd4bb4c402099221fc53827c)
I'll just leave this here.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUYyNnUI.jpg&hash=a7a8e1e328f3a669cd4bb4c402099221fc53827c)
I'll just leave this here.
:facepalm:
We're doomed.
-
EARLY ANALYSIS: POST-ELECTION NOVEMBER 2012
The Case of the Missing White Voters
But most importantly, the 2012 elections actually weren’t about a demographic explosion with non-white voters. Instead, they were about a large group of white voters not showing up.
As of this writing, Barack Obama has received a bit more than 60 million votes. Mitt Romney has received 57 million votes. Although the gap between Republicans and Democrats has closed considerably since 2008, Romney is still running about 2.5 million votes behind John McCain; the gap has closed simply because Obama is running about 9 million votes behind his 2008 totals.
Of course, there are an unknown number of ballots outstanding. If we guesstimate the total at 7 million (3 million in California, 1.5 million or so in Oregon and Washington, and another 2.5 million or so spread throughout the country), that would bring the total number of votes cast in 2012 to about 125 million: 5 million votes shy of the number cast four years ago.
With this base line, and armed with the exit-poll data, we can get a pretty good estimate of how many whites, blacks, and Latinos cast ballots in both 2008 and 2012. Assuming the 72/13/10/5 percentage split described above for 2012, that would equate to about 91.6 million votes cast by whites, 16.6 million by blacks, 12.7 million by Latinos, with the balance of 6.3 million votes spread among other groups.
Compare this with 2008, when the numbers were 98.6 million whites, 16.3 million blacks, 11 million Latinos, and 5.9 million from other groups.
In other words, if our underlying assumption -- that there are 7 million votes outstanding -- is correct, then the African-American vote only increased by about 300,000 votes, or 0.2 percent, from 2008 to 2012. The Latino vote increased by a healthier 1.7 million votes, while the “other” category increased by about 470,000 votes.
This is nothing to sneeze at, but in terms of the effect on the electorate, it is dwarfed by the decline in the number of whites. Again, if our assumption about the total number of votes cast is correct, almost 7 million fewer whites voted in 2012 than in 2008. This isn’t readily explainable by demographic shifts either; although whites are declining as a share of the voting-age population, their raw numbers are not.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Fimages%2Fwysiwyg_images%2Fchart11-8.gif&hash=944668dc4e39d9c7cc2a40a93c1864fee6145a87)
Damage Control Operative At New Republic Concedes White Turnout Fell
Sean Trende’s low white turnout assertion wrecks the Left’s Minority Triumphalism and so it is to be expected that their apparatchiks are deploying to contest it, as Steve Sailer has noted.
But the article Steve links to There Aren`t As Many Missing Voters As It Seems Nate Cohn The New Republic November 8, 2012 concludes with a devastating concession:
Given the initial exit poll data and the current national popular vote tally, it looks like white turnout might have declined slightly since 2008. I`m holding off judging just how much until the final exit polls and results are reported…
John McCain lost in 2008 because of low white turnout. Romney and Karl Rove failed to reverse that.
Romney lost the presidency. Karl Rove got rich.
LATER ANALYSIS: JUNE 2013
Who did turn out for BHO in exceptional numbers? Black old ladies. IOW, BHO won by getting his base riled up to vote. and Romney lost by alienating his base.
Census Bureau Refutes “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” Mantra—Obama Won Because Of Old Black Ladies (And Turned-Off Whites)
But who did turn out in 2012 to drive Obama to victory? Who was the fresh new face of the American electorate in 2012?
Old black ladies.
According to the Census survey, fans of Tyler Perry movies voted in remarkable numbers in 2012—even more than in Obama’s first victory in 2008.
Unsurprisingly, given Obama’s candidacy, from 2004 to 2008 the number of black voters had grown 15 percent.
Unexpectedly, however, blacks added another 10 percent to their vote total from 2008 to 2012. Nationally, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted compared to 64.1 percent of whites, 48.0 percent of Hispanics, and 47.3 percent of Asians.
Nationally, 66.2 percent of eligible blacks voted compared to 64.1 percent of whites, 48.0 percent of Hispanics, and 47.3 percen
Thus in the crucial battleground state of Ohio, blacks achieved a voting rate of 71.7 percent compared to 61.9 percent for whites.
Overall, the raw black vote total grew more than even the Hispanic vote from 2008 to 2012: an incremental 1.68 million for blacks versus 1.44 million for Hispanics, and a decline of 2.00 million for whites.
Among blacks, older women were the most diligent at increasing their turnout in 2012.
The Census Bureau explains:
In 2012, overall turnout rates decreased in comparison with both 2004 and 2008, a drop in voting characterized by large decreases in youth voting rates for all race groups and Hispanics. The only subgroups showing voting rate increases in 2012 were blacks between the ages of 45 to 64 and 65 years of age and over.
This growth in black turnout was particularly concentrated among those over age 65. Also, black women traditionally vote at significantly higher rates than black men, and the black gender gap in turnout hit a new record in 2012.[For First Time on Record, Black Voting Rate Outpaced Rate for Whites in 2012,By Sarah Wheaton, New York Times, May 8, 2013]
So why did so many old black ladies bother to vote in 2012?
To express racial solidarity. To win. To ensure the White House stays black.
Old black ladies are American citizens. They are more than entitled to show up at the polls and vote for a credit to their race like Barack Obama.
But they are not exactly The Wave of the Future. The vast enthusiasm that Obama excited among aged African-Americans is not a logical reason to put Hispanic illegal aliens on the voting rolls.
But that is in fact the standard logic.
...
In contrast to the fervent black effort to re-elect Obama, whites were strikingly unmotivated by Romney. The total white vote dropped from 100 million in 2008 to 98 million in 2012 (down two percent). Only 64.1 percent of eligible whites voted in 2012, down from 66.1 percent in 2008 and 67.2 percent in the recent high-water mark year of 2004. This was the first time in the history of the Census survey that whites were not the highest-ranking group in terms of their rate of voting.
The vdare.org articles are extensively sourced and provide an imperial buttload of links to those sources.
Let me repeat:
BHO won by getting his base riled up to vote. And Romney lost by alienating his base.
Reaching out to the "middle" is a loser of a plan, as McCain and Romney and GHWB's second non-administrations attest.
-
The "Big Tent" the Stupid Party likes to talk about is so big that it seems empty.
-
Don't forget Dole.
GHWB did two things wrong: Violated his "read my lips" pledge, and failed to continue, build on what Reagan had started.
-
Scott Walker will likely be entering the race.
While he isn't across the board the perfect conservative, he's far better than anyone else throwing their hat in the ring so far.
What he does have going for him is that he's kind of an 'everyman' candidate- he's firmly middle class, doesn't have the persona of a bankster, a used car salesman, or effeminate dictator fellator. In a state that is split 50/50 between conservative and liberal- almost down to last individual with very little space in the middle, he's won two statewide elections as well as a recall election so far.
-
GOP "leaders" (and I use the term loosely) will alienate their base by moving to the left in order to woo more liberal voters.
Thing is, while they MAY get a figurative pat on the head, the lefties they're wooing WILL NOT VOTE GOP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
And if they become "Democrat LITE" . . . why should the base vote for them?
I don't feel good about the 2016 election for POTUS . . . =(
-
GOP "leaders" (and I use the term loosely) will alienate their base by moving to the left in order to woo more liberal voters.
Thing is, while they MAY get a figurative pat on the head, the lefties they're wooing WILL NOT VOTE GOP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
And if they become "Democrat LITE" . . . why should the base vote for them?
I don't feel good about the 2016 election for POTUS . . . =(
And it will cost them 10x $$$ per "moderate" voter relative to a "base" voter to the right to motivate them to go to the polls.
The middle of the road is where campaigns go to get splattered by oncoming traffic.
-
As far as things stand now, I'm in for Walker. I like Rand, even though he's mushy on immigration. I'm sure warts will appear on Walker with time, but I'm going to try and be happy for a little while.
-
Ted Cruz
-
Ted Cruz
I don't have a single problem with Ted Cruz but I'm afraid he is an unelectable lightning rod for controversy.
EDIT: plus I don't think he's making any noises about running. Same with Gowdy, though I don't think he has any business running for president anyway.
-
As far as things stand now, I'm in for Walker. I like Rand, even though he's mushy on immigration. I'm sure warts will appear on Walker with time, but I'm going to try and be happy for a little while.
My only complaints about Walker are:
- He wasn't gung -ho enough on Concealed carry. We could have had constitutional carry, but he settled for 'shall-issue', though a really good 'shall-issue' at that.
- He won't commit to 'right to work.' He did a fine job of taking down the public sector union cabal, but won't touch closed shop unions, at least not yet, though there is building pressure for him to do so.
Minor nit-picky complaints, no deal killers for me.
-
A serious 2016 presidential run may not even be a possibility for the Republicans after two years of controlling the legislature.
I just heard that the Republicans are open to raising the gasoline tax. Seriously? How disconnected from reality are these clowns?
The only organic (ie not government caused) good economic thing that has happened under Obama is the crashing price of oil/gasoline. It has been an across the board raise for everyone helping the lowest economic class the most. So they are going to fubar the one silver lining in the economy? Nutz :facepalm:
-
A serious 2016 presidential run may not even be a possibility for the Republicans after two years of controlling the legislature.
This is, sadly, a very good point.
-
The only organic (ie not government caused) good economic thing that has happened under Obama is the crashing price of oil/gasoline. It has been an across the board raise for everyone helping the lowest economic class the most.
But, but, but the poor all ride buses and choo-choos so we must put a bigger tax on gasoline to pay for these.
-
My only complaints about Walker are:
- He wasn't gung -ho enough on Concealed carry. We could have had constitutional carry, but he settled for 'shall-issue', though a really good 'shall-issue' at that.
- He won't commit to 'right to work.' He did a fine job of taking down the public sector union cabal, but won't touch closed shop unions, at least not yet, though there is building pressure for him to do so.
Minor nit-picky complaints, no deal killers for me.
Interesting article on just that last item from NRO today:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/396302/scott-walker-right-again-mario-loyola
-
Walker, at least so far, is an acceptable choice to me.
Cruz is as well. I like his positions, but his executive experience is not where I would like it.
Jindal is my preference among the current hopefuls. I can only hope competence and honesty are desired traits in the 2016 election, but I doubt they will be.
-
Walker, at least so far, is an acceptable choice to me.
Cruz is as well. I like his positions, but his executive experience is not where I would like it.
Jindal is my preference among the current hopefuls. I can only hope competence and honesty are desired traits in the 2016 election, but I doubt they will be.
Jindal looks like a used car salesman and talks like a whiny castrati. He could be the reincarnation of Reagan and he'd never get elected President.
-
I don't have a single problem with Ted Cruz but I'm afraid he is an unelectable lightning rod for controversy.
EDIT: plus I don't think he's making any noises about running. Same with Gowdy, though I don't think he has any business running for president anyway.
You obviously don't remember Reagan then. As far as the press was concerned he was the second coming of Nixon, only worse. The love they currently show for Obama is almost the polar opposite of the hate they had for Reagan. Only they hated Reagan much, much, much more then they love Obama.
-
You obviously don't remember Reagan then. As far as the press was concerned he was the second coming of Nixon, only worse. The love they currently show for Obama is almost the polar opposite of the hate they had for Reagan. Only they hated Reagan much, much, much more then they love Obama.
I was a young-un when Reagan was elected and that is the vibe I got.
-
You obviously don't remember Reagan then. As far as the press was concerned he was the second coming of Nixon, only worse. The love they currently show for Obama is almost the polar opposite of the hate they had for Reagan. Only they hated Reagan much, much, much more then they love Obama.
Does Cruz have the same oratorical skill and ability to appeal to the vast unwashed that Reagan did?
-
Here is the ranking politically of the 2016 hopefuls of both parties
http://dailysignal.com/2015/01/15/political-startup-ranks-conservative-liberal-2016-candidates/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdailysignal.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F150114_2016Ranking_Scanlon.png&hash=bf0f66435456f25bbef98d42b3c3f2ad8ba724bd)
-
I'm not buying that for Rand, especially as he hasn't exactly made a secret of his position on Immigration.
-
What is their definition of conservative and liberal?
It would be a more useful chart if it broke it down into quadrants. Left and right, social and economic .
-
It would be a more useful chart if it broke it down into quadrants. Left and right, social and economic .
That is a chart I could use.
-
What is their definition of conservative and liberal?
It would be a more useful chart if it broke it down into quadrants. Left and right, social and economic .
I'd be more interested in an axis with libertarian vs statist.
-
I'd be more interested in an axis with libertarian vs statist.
I don't disagree but then you would alienate potential democrat voters who really want a fiscal conservative that is socially moderate to liberal. (I know that sort of describes a libertarian)
-
I don't disagree but then you would alienate potential democrat voters who really want a fiscal conservative that is socially moderate to liberal. (I know that sort of describes a libertarian)
Well, as long as you define 'fiscal conservative' as 'reasonably free market' and 'socially liberal' as 'don't mess with people's personal lives unless you have to'.
-
Well, as long as you define 'fiscal conservative' as 'reasonably free market' and 'socially liberal' as 'don't mess with people's personal lives unless you have to'.
Bingo!
Fiscally conservative and socially liberal (in the modern definition of liberal) are mutually exclusive.
-
Carson trod his schwanz with his gun control stance. To hell with him.
-
Well, as long as you define 'fiscal conservative' as 'reasonably free market' and 'socially liberal' as 'don't mess with people's personal lives unless you have to'.
Please, define "have to".
-
How about some new faces for both parties??
Like Ron Rand Paul?
-
Bingo!
Fiscally conservative and socially liberal (in the modern definition of liberal) are mutually exclusive.
So are "socially liberal" and "don't mess with people's personal lives."
-
Like Ron Rand Paul?
Rand Paul is performing worse electorally right now than Ron Paul did at this stage of the 2012 election.
-
Bingo!
Fiscally conservative and socially liberal (in the modern definition of liberal) are mutually exclusive.
You could be fine with social liberal ideas, but refuse to provide any funding.
-
You could be fine with social liberal ideas, but refuse to provide any funding.
The definition of "socially liberal ideas" involves use of .gov force and funds.
-
The definition of "socially liberal ideas" involves use of .gov force and funds.
Ayup.
Even those "socially liberal ideas" that are not big spendy programs cost money for when folk don't get with the new paradigm and gov't agents need to shoot them in the face.
-
Please, define "have to".
When their personal lives are intruding into other's in a negative fashion, and I'm not talking about their feelings.
-
When their personal lives are intruding into other's in a negative fashion, and I'm not talking about their feelings.
Thanks. Not the way it originally came across to me. I'm with you now.
-
Romney calls for "global solutions" to "climate change." Severely conservative you guys.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-climate-change-presents-045246618.html;_ylt=A0LEVxEI68FUYCoAZdRXNyoA
-
And let's not forget his thoughts on the Second Amendment.
"But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street."
Given the lemming-like way GOP policritters vote with the party, Obama getting elected may have saved our gun rights in this country.
Here's the full transcript.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here’s the headline: “Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his ’94” Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other” guns rights “groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons. `That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,’ Romney told the Boston Herald.'” “At another campaign stop” “he told reporters, `I don’t line up with the NRA.'” Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.
GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it’s, it’s wonderful, and you’ll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I’ve had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don’t line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don’t see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…
MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That’s the key thing. I support background checks to, to–for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure…
MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.
GOV. ROMNEY: …to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don’t buy guns.
The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people’s backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don’t want to cause a waiting period that’s not necessary based upon today’s technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I’m a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don’t.
-
And let's not forget his thoughts on the Second Amendment.
Given the lemming-like way GOP policritters vote with the party, Obama getting elected may have saved our gun rights in this country.
This was precisely my thought after Sandy Hook. Had Romney been incoming as president, we'd have seen a new ban.
-
Romney calls for "global solutions" to "climate change." Severely conservative you guys.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-climate-change-presents-045246618.html;_ylt=A0LEVxEI68FUYCoAZdRXNyoA
I said elsewhere, I didn't think Romney could do anything to make me less likely to vote for him.
And, I was right. Still 0% chance.