Seven reasons Mitt Romney will lose to President Obama | Washington Times Communities

That was quite an article to say the very least!

And to think that came from the Washington Times which is a very conservative paper is amazing.

Very interesting read.

if Obama was able to overcome all he did to win, what was listed in the article for Romney will not be a deterrent.

I love the out dated concept of the rich are out of touch. Repeating again what problem s did the Kennedy's have? How about John Kerry? Nancy Pelosi?
Or any of the other multi millionaires in Washington, DC.

How about Bloomberg in NYC....a multi billionaire.....now just how does he stay in touch....relate.....common touch or what ever other stretch and reach BS?

Articles like this one are written to appease the faithful!!

btk

BTK did not seem to realize this was an article written in the Washington Times - a very conservative paper.

If a very conservative paper is saying this stuff about their candidate, the only thing I have to say is

It may be a "very conservative paper", but this is an Obama- and Leftist-loving writer.

This is where I quit reading because of the leftist bigotry, stereotyping and lying:

"Translation: no pesky regulations. You know the ones: the government says you can’t sell tainted food, it requires safety on the work site, or it tell banks they can’t bamboozle their customers."

Nobody, right nor left wants no regulation against tainted food. This is bigotry and absurdity pinned on the entire half of the voting population. Disgusting.

And P.S......

That kind of hateful, bigoted labeling is also why you get no converts to your side of the fence.

Our grass is greener than your grass.....na na na na na na.

His main problem to overcome is sites like this one that say:

Well if we can't have Mary Magdalen Bachman we will take Romney.

Well if we can't have freak boy Red Neck Perry we will take Romney.

Well if we can't have I KNOW MORE THAN GOD Santorum we will take Romney.

Ya ll dogged Romney for months while I defended him and now that the three idiots above have been eliminated by the intelligent Republicans, you now have to find a way to get support of right wing Radicals on the Romney team. I told you for months, now you can live it.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Seven reasons Mitt Romney will lose to President Obama | Washington Times Communities

About the writer of the article....

"Catherine Poe has been a Liberal for as long as she can remember. Last year, Catherine was named one of the top Progressives in Maryland along with Senator Barbara Mikulski and Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She has been a guest of President Obama in the Rose Garden."

Catherine Poe | Washington Times Communities

From the DEMOCRATS FOR AMERICA website..

"Regular contributor Catherine Poe says the Trayvon Martin case was a perfect storm of race, media and political paranoia."

Martin case just happened to be the one referred to on the home page

Does mean she is wrong but these kind of things have got to be put into perspective based on who writes them.

Originally Posted by Bucco

About the writer of the article....

"Catherine Poe has been a Liberal for as long as she can remember. Last year, Catherine was named one of the top Progressives in Maryland along with Senator Barbara Mikulski and Congresswoman Donna Edwards. She has been a guest of President Obama in the Rose Garden."

Catherine Poe | Washington Times Communities

From the DEMOCRATS FOR AMERICA website..

"Regular contributor Catherine Poe says the Trayvon Martin case was a perfect storm of race, media and political paranoia."

Martin case just happened to be the one referred to on the home page

Does mean she is wrong but these kind of things have got to be put into perspective based on who writes them.

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

The campaign has not even reached the point past where in 2008 Obama and Clinton were calling each other names...who can take the call at 3AM, and about a week or so together Bill Clinton was seething because the Obama campaign called him a racist.

Keep it all in perspective.....the debates will make this election and not the name calling..

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

Lou,
That was an excellent post of yours. Too bad that the wubers on this forum do not go along with you. If they and the rest of their ilk did think like you, the Republicans would have a good chance of winning in November.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the damage to women's health issues has been done by the far-right republican legislatures across the country, and there's no way they are going to walk back those radical new laws they have passed. That's one reason why he's losing with women by 18%. Some other big reasons are the no vote by republicans on "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009" and the no vote on the "Violence Against Women Act". No candidate can unring those bells.

Originally Posted by The Villager II

I feel she would be slanted toward Obama, but lets take what she says and improve on those areas just to make sure Romney wins. We must stop presenting the average Republican as Radical with respect to religion and stop with Poor means Lazy or they deserve what they get attitude and most important, leave womens health to women and their doctors.

Attached is a link to an article discussing how the media "frames" political issues. It is lengthy and a bit boring but what is happening right now is both campaigns are attempting to FRAME the campaign. Obama's over reaction to the one year anniversary was meant to try an take away the past strength of the Republicans on national defense.

Both will do this for some time, until after the conventions probably....articles such as the one you were referring to is part of that attempt and it happens on BOTH SIDES. Writers who lean left are asked to right, and if you notice the writer who gave you pause, was voicing very subjective things...nothing of substance. BOTH SIDES want to begin to paint a picture in everyones mind.

Still in the end, the debates where both will be obliged to discuss ISSUES and PAST TRACK HISTORY will be the overwhelming move.

Of course there are folks who will vote either Dem or Rep if the devil himself were on the ballot and various other groups who do the same thing.

Notice the polls and how dynamic they are now and will be for a bit....then finally they will settle down and paint a true picture of what might be happening.

People, MOST as I said, want to hear themselves what these guys actually believe in and what they might do.

"How the Media Frames Political Issues" by Scott London


PS...I need to add and I said this in 2008 as well. I normally would say that I listen to those who tell you what they will do if elected and not to any negative advertising. I have worked hard and long for the Democratic party in the past....I have voted both democratic and republican over the years for President. In 2008, I realized after doing as much due diligence as possible that I needed to oppose Obama no matter who is running against him. That gives me pause and actually bothers me inside but I feel that strongly on him and there is no room on this man (AND I stress nothing personal...just what he stands for).
I add this PS because I want you to understand that normally, negative conversations just flat turn me off as I would prefer a give and take on an issue and decide from that. I find in my heart that is impossible in 2008 and this campaign. That hurts me a lot...it really and truely does.

Originally Posted by janmcn

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the damage to women's health issues has been done by the far-right republican legislatures across the country, and there's no way they are going to walk back those radical new laws they have passed. That's one reason why he's losing with women by 18%. Some other big reasons are the no vote by republicans on "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009" and the no vote on the "Violence Against Women Act". No candidate can unring those bells.

In addition, Mitt Romney has promised to defund Planned Parenthood and supports a personhood amendment which would essentially ban all birth control. He also supported the Blunt-Rubio amendment which would give all employers control over what healthcare a woman can receive.

The difference between 2008 and 2012 is democrats did not run an "Archie Bunker" type campaign alienating whole segments of the population: women, hispanics, African-Americans, gays and lesbians, seniors, and the poor.

Be real careful what you wish for, it just might come true. This country can't take another four years of the current crop of criminals holed up in Foggy Bottom, we need to change the lot of them.