Skip to main content

Today's Poll: How do you grade Mitt Romney as a potential president?

By Howard B. Owens
Phil Ricci

‎"As President, I will protect the sanctity of life, and the institution of marriage, and protect the freedom of religion."

So...this equals to limiting a woman's right to choose, deny equal rights to gays and cramming Christianity down your throat.

Welcome to the Republican Party. The party who claims to be about small government and personal liberty folks.

He's worthless. He'll repeal the the Healthcare Act, and in return put in Ryan's plan which doesn't help those in the greatest need, nor does it open the boundaries of purchase. He'll create jobs, but he'll continue the asinine tax code that we have now, thus justifying his cuts to the wealthiest Americans, while the middle class will see nothing, or increases depending where on the scale you lie, and worst of all...He'll continue to pander to the far right.

Well guess what? I'm not a Judea white, anti gay, anti choice, anti personal freedom, pro crony capitalist, pro lobbyist, anti education Christian. Like everyone one at that pathetic RNC.

Guess what Republicans? You got behind a guy you don't even support, and your whole joke of a convention illustrated that. You don't like your own guy, and he doesn't have the stones to stand up for what he actually believes in. Good luck winning the Independents!

Aug 31, 2012, 9:50am Permalink
Jerry Buckman

Phil...what an emotional, angry, venom-filled post! You might just have chased a few of those Independents into the Republican arena. Please lay out your non-emotional reasons why President Obama earned your vote this November.

Aug 31, 2012, 10:21am Permalink
Phil Ricci

Jerry,

Obama has never won my vote, nor will he ever, and if my post makes independents want to vote for Romney, then they have no mind of their own.

And yes, there is venom there, because I am tired of freedoms being taken away.

John,

What does my wife's running in a local election have to do with a national presidential race?

Aug 31, 2012, 10:30am Permalink
Phil Ricci

John,

This poll is for a NATIONAL candidate. I made reference to the Republican NATIONAL Convention. I criticized the Republican Party for their NATIONAL candidate. Is that clear enough for you?

And just because I did that, does not mean I support the Democratic NATIONAL candidate either.

Aug 31, 2012, 10:43am Permalink
Mark Brudz

You know Phil,

It's a great country when people can dissagree openly about who they wish to hold public office. Even greater that we can disagree about political mindset, whether it be Repuiblican, Democrat, Libertarian, free pot growers or the rent is too high party.

When Paul Ryan was chosen as VP candidate, you made a cogent argument why you didn't like the choice, You disagreed with his voting record on issues that were dear to you. That was fine.

On individual issues you often make relativetly strong arguments on your positions, many I agree with, many I do not,, but non the less you base them in some semblance of fact.

But this attack was clearly a venomous rant. To say that it was an over zealous personal attack on Romney and a blanket stereo-typed rant against the GOP would be an understatement.

Aug 31, 2012, 11:37am Permalink
Herb Chapman

I think the best thing the Republicans could do is not talk about Obama or the Democrats. Just explain what you feel are the problems, and provide a vision and a plan. Often they start out good, but then they feel the need to throw in some backhanded comment about Obama or Democrats at the end. It's not necessary, and they come off sounding like jerks.

For example, Ryan might explain the qualities that make Romney a great businessman, and how he can carry that knowledge into the White House and drive economic recovery. But they can't seem to leave it at that, so they will say something like, "and Obama couldn't even run a hot dog cart." It's things like that that tire me out from listening to them.

Aug 31, 2012, 11:54am Permalink
Phil Ricci

Rant? Yes. Overzealous? That's your opinion, and I won't argue either way.

Mitt Romney is a weak candidate, and his party which claims to be about smaller government and personal freedoms is a sham.

If my rant found offense, none was directed at you, but my words stick. I was offended by Romney and the exclusive RNC. I am tired of so called "conservatives" who strip freedom away while attack Obama for the same things.

I won't bother with Romney's voting record, because it is a collection of contradiction. One year he is for choice, the next against it. There is not point discussing Romney's validity, because he has none.

I know two little boys in this county that had life saving surgery because the Healthcare Act made possible. Under Ryan's plan, those boys would be denied, and possibly dead. I want real answers, not soundbites.

Bottom line, this party pushed everyone that wasn't far right away, and I'm fed up. Was there venom? Yes, tons of it, and I will have more as I hear more rhetoric from both Romney and Ryan.

Aug 31, 2012, 11:57am Permalink
Judith Kinsley Bolsei

For a country built on freedom of choice, their whole platform revolves around denying select groups their individual rights and playing on the emotions of people who feel justified in their hatred of people who do not conform to their standards. Hence, the Republican delegates who threw the nuts at the African American reporter. Reason enough for me. It appears that some folks dislike the current president enough that they will vote for a fruitloop to get him out of office, at all costs.

Aug 31, 2012, 11:58am Permalink
Rich Richmond

I’m willing to concede that the President can run a hotdog stand; particularly if the said hotdogs are made from real dogs.

Mitt Romney’s dog lasted 15 years after its car ride.

Obama’s dog lasted until dinner.

Aug 31, 2012, 12:17pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

And to accuse a man of killing a women simply because he invested in a business that failed is any different?

There are extremist in all persuasions, yes even in some that claim to be liberatarian.

Did Mitt Romney throw those nuts?

Did Barack Obama actually say that Mitt Romney was responsible for that women's death?

If someone attending a speach by Phil's wife shouted out only Italians should be allowed to vote in Batavia would that reflect her personal position?

Of course not.

"Hence, the Republican delegates who threw the nuts at the African American reporter. Reason enough for me. It appears that some folks dislike the current president enough that they will vote for a fruitloop to get him out of office, at all costs."

So what you are saying is that the actions of two, most likely intoxicated idiots is reason enough reason enough for you? Really?

I have no doubt Judith based on other of your post that you disagree with the GOP platform, that is your right, but I assure you that some zealots from the Democrats will also say and do some pathetic things, wait, They accused Mitt Romeny of being responsible for a women's death. hmmm I suppose that is good enough for some one to call Barack Obama a hate monger too!

Both would be wrong, and both would be fools

Aug 31, 2012, 12:22pm Permalink
Doug Yeomans

YAAAWWWWWWN....I'm grilling burgers and chicken thighs and installing the stack for the coal stove. Anyone that shows up to help can have free beer and grilled goodies.

Aug 31, 2012, 12:25pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

"I know two little boys in this county that had life saving surgery because the Healthcare Act made possible. Under Ryan's plan, those boys would be denied, and possibly dead. I want real answers, not soundbites."

And what Ryan healthcare plan? Were these two boys over 65? I say this because Paul Ryan didn't submit a 'Health Care Plan' he proposed medicare changes yes,

And what part of the not yet implimented Affordable Healthcare act enabled these proceedures Phil? Just asking for clarity's sake.

Aug 31, 2012, 12:33pm Permalink
Phil Ricci

It's a part Medicare, Mark that was implemented. It allowed for the surgeries to happen and to reduce the cost for the families, so that the hospital would be compensated. Under Ryan's plan, this would go away.

Aug 31, 2012, 12:41pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Sometimes venomous rants are based on reality.

Jerry, we've done that poll before. We'll see what question(s) we want to ask if any come Dem convention time.

Also, it's worth noting, there are more than two candidates in the race.

Aug 31, 2012, 12:47pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Actually Phil, that is factually innaccurate, Under Ryan's plan, which by the way was co-written by Ron Widen D oregon,

Anyone who choose to stay on Medicare the way it is could, although I concede the first version didn't the current version does.

Families and children are NOT covered under Medicare, that is solely for seniors, I assume that you mean Medicaid which covers the poor.

The part which you are citing existed under Medicaid fpor a long time as the benefits under Medicaid are determined by the state, not the fed. Obama care simply moves more people to medicaid.

Indiogent children's coverage under medicaid in NY state has existed for at least a decade, nothing to do with the Affordable Health Care Act

Now, with out knowing the specifics, it would be safe to assume as well that this is where the proceedures were covered.

More troubling though, is the blanket accusation that (Again assumed based on your context of these cases) automatically assumes that the kids would not have received the care and that the GOP caused that and further that Obama enabled it, both would be totally false.

If you want to make the case for the AHCA, fine, there are in fact good points in the law, though overall I would not agree that the Law as a whole is a good thing.

But the cases you cite have absolutely NOTHING to do with the Ryan-Widen medicare proposal

Aug 31, 2012, 12:57pm Permalink
Judith Kinsley Bolsei

You misread my post Mark. The nut-throwers exemplify the extreme members of that convention. Gotta wonder who let them in though. There may as yet be nut-throwers at the Dem's, we shall see, but I know it won't be Lorie. The "It appears that some folks dislike the current president enough that they will vote for a fruitloop to get him out of office, at all costs." was directed at all those people who think this man was the reasonable choice to represent them for that reason, not nut-throwers in particular.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:15pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Actually Judith, I did not.

And the 'Nut Thrower's from the Dems didn't even wait for their convention when they released that ad acussing Mitt Romney of being responsible for that Kansas woman's death. (Remember the head of that group, Bill Burton at one time was a key Obama strategist, and by many accounts still is)

When Harry Reid, stated that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes in 10 years withou a single shred of evidence it was in fact the same thing. Simply stirring up class envy in order to garner a more aroused party.

When the editor of Yahoo News was fired Wednesday because he was caught on open mic accusing Romeny and Ryan of leading a racist campaign, that didn't seem to bother you a bit.

I reject that kind of thinking on both sides, and make no mistake, it is an equal opportunity stupidity
And lest we not forget, there were many who voted for Obama in 2008 simply because he wasn't George Bush. It cuts both ways and again a intellectually weak argument for either.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:27pm Permalink
Julie Morales

He’s a transparent wind up Ken doll and Ryan’s hot. What this campaign needs is a good sex scandal. If either of them was from NY we’d have one.

I think I love Phil, too.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:33pm Permalink
Judith Kinsley Bolsei

Mark, why were you so distracted by the "nut-throwers" and not Richard's "hotdog-cookers"? Seems biased to me. You strayed from my original argument which was my issue with the current Republican platform and its restriction of personal liberties.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:35pm Permalink
Tim Miller

Jerry - if you watched or read about the speeches at the RNC, then you would really know what "an emotional, angry, venom-filled" item was. Top it off with the lies from many GOP speakers (Ryan especially), and you'll understand where Phil's pretty accurate note came from.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:42pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

I am not distratced by nut throwers Judith, I simply find your insertion of these nut throwers into the argument as biased.

Here is a surprise for you, while I do not agree with every plank on the GOP platform, I see the overall GOP platform this cycle as 100 times more positive and frankly more realistic as an economic patth to the future.

As far as liberty is concerned, I see CLASS ENVY as the greatest threat to liberty that exist and so far that is pretty much all I have heard from Democrats

Aug 31, 2012, 1:44pm Permalink
Tim Miller

Mark - I cannot answer for Judith, but I can respond to your post...

- Those let go from companies Bain bought out did lose insurance. Would that woman have received better treatment with her old insurance that after it? Darn good chance she would have.
- I'll throw the "prove it" right back at you - Romney has not shown me any proof that he HAS paid any taxes during those same 10 years. What is he hiding? His father, also a wealthy man, had nothing to hide...
- The firing of that Yahoo yahoo (sorry - couldn't resist) does not bother me one bit - he SHOULD have been fired. Interesting to note that I have not yet heard anybody on the right call for Rush's head for his political statements, but then I guess IOKIYAR.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:48pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Oh P-L-E-A-S-E Tim, Please expound on the lies that you saw or read about, Please be so kind as to link to the articles that you read that establish them as lies.

I can't wait for this

Aug 31, 2012, 1:53pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

If not for class envy, Mark, we wouldn't have a regressive income tax -- entirely pushed by progressives of the early 20th century under the very bold assertion that only the rich had an obligation to pay taxes, that their wealth needed to be redistributed (and progressives were mostly Republicans at the time). Of course, it didn't stay that way, but that thinking still seems to drive the progressives notion of taxation.

Aug 31, 2012, 1:55pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Tim, just a little point of fact, the women who died was employed at a company other than the one held from Bain and had her own insurance prior to being laid off by that company. Her husband was employed by that company and never carried insurance for her

Had absolutely NOTHING not only to do with Romney and actually NOTHING to do with Bain.

Last I looked it is the ACCUSER that has to prove in this country, NOT the accused, and the 2 years that Romney diod release in itself counter the Reid argument/ If you are going to accuse someone of anything it is up to YOU to prove it Not yopu to disprove it.

And finally Rush is a shock jock, NOT the director of news, the yahoo guy should have been fired Just like FOX fired E.D. Hill immediately for making a similar open mic comment about Barack Obama

So SPARE ME

Aug 31, 2012, 2:16pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

But it is CLASS ENVY Howard, and progressives from any party in my view are redistributionist.

As I have stated before, my view is Flat 19% tax, $30K exemption for EVERYONE no matter their income and ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS

That way the Poor pay Nothing, everyone else pays something, and in practical terms the rich actually pay more

Our tax system as it stands is nothing more than an incubater for crony capitalism for all political parties

Aug 31, 2012, 2:04pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

It would depend on how you determine federal spending.

1) Social Security basically a retirement plan, adding a 3% of income contribution is really no different than a 401K.
The Federal Budget contribution would essentially be the same as matching funds by an employer.

2) Likewise Medicare is really a government run Health Insurance program, same principles apply, although I a agree with the Ryan/Widen proposal here, which allows for Seniors to choose a more eclectic plan if they choose, simply supplemented by their contribution to Medicare the extra coverage is out of pocket and NOT mandatory.

3) Medicaid on the other hand is for those who are poor or disabled and should come out of that 19%

A 19% of GDP federal budget is considered small Government by almost every economist, I could even go for a lower percentage if, States were given more autonomy to spend on certain items and that tax shifted to the states, that would allieviate some federal mandate, and some states may in fact choose not fund those items at all.

This concept forces federal budget decisions according to need rather than political posturing to a degree. Of course, it also has to go hand in hand with a super majoprity rule (1/3 of both houses to raise taxes or increase spending beyond the cap) that any extraordinary expenditure or tax like a war for example, would have to be enacted with far more than a 51% vote.

Aug 31, 2012, 4:52pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Capitalizing a word for emphasis, is not cap locks use.

If it is the substance that causes you dismay, please feel free to just say so

Aug 31, 2012, 4:58pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Mark, I think a flat tax needs to be a constitutional amendment, or other wise it will get diluted over time.

Also, you're right about caps for emphasis.

FWIW, also, earlier, I deleted a comment from somebody who questioned whether a commenter was at work or not. That's a personal attack, essentially, because it's nobody's damn business.

Aug 31, 2012, 5:22pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

A flat tax would necessitate a constitutional amendment in the long haul I agree, but it could also be implimented in the mean time.

A constitutional Amendment would definately be necessary to ensure the that in increases require a super majority of both houses

Aug 31, 2012, 5:54pm Permalink
John Roach

Just listened to Obama, at Fort Bliss, TX, take credit for getting the troops out of Iraq. He seemed to forget that it was Bush who signed that agreement to get us out. And the President seems to have forgotten that he tried to have the treaty changed so that we could stay longer, but the Iraq government refused.

Aug 31, 2012, 6:20pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

Let's get back to the original question.

"How do you grade Mitt Romney as a potential president?"

I voted "F". Here's where the rubber meets the road to me.

Romney is a Mormon. I consider all organized religion to be based in myth and deceit, but the Mormons almost take the cake (only Scientology is more ridiculous). This is a man who believes Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and translated golden tablets into a new book of the Bible. This is a man who believes that you must wear magic underwear to be admitted into Heaven.

Any person who can be deluded into believing such utter crap isn't fit to be a manager at McDonalds, let alone the leader of the free world.

Aug 31, 2012, 6:24pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

But John, the President's press secretary said that this was not a political trip, rather a support the troops visit so there was absolutely nothing political about his statment at all ;)

Aug 31, 2012, 6:32pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Well than you give or have given an "F" to every President we ever have had Sean in that all have them have professed faith in the Bible and Christianity except Thomas Jefferson who simply called him our creator.

Might non partisan of you

Aug 31, 2012, 6:35pm Permalink
Sean McKellar

"Well than you give or have given an "F" to every President we ever have had Sean in that all have them have professed faith in the Bible and Christianity except Thomas Jefferson who simply called him our creator."

You are absolutely correct Mark. I do give all presidents that have given any religion a nod an "F": One of the basic tenets that our founding fathers put forth is the separation of church and state. They were very wise, for the last time religion had any bearing upon government it was called "The Dark Ages". Somehow the fundy Christians have hijacked the populace into thinking that this is a Christian country. Total bullshit.

"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
-Thomas Paine

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion”
-George Washington

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
-from the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the Senate in June of 1797

I think our Founding Fathers will spin in their graves if a guy who believes in magic hats and magic underwear is elected President.

I stand behind my "F".

Aug 31, 2012, 10:07pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Funny you should choose this quote by Jefferson

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson

It means that he swore never to question one's religion as a matter of criticism

Now “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” was not a quote by George Washington, it was wriiten as part of article 11 of the Treaty Of Tripoli and finalized not ratified in 1797. It was written by Captain Richard O'Brien US Navy and Joel Barlow U.S. Consul General in Algeirs who negotiated the treaty. It was signed on June 10th 1797 under the Washington adminstration but not ratified until 1804 under the Adams administration. It was also written as an appeasment to insure to the Dey Of Tripoli that our fight with them was over piracy not religion.

But I digress, while there are some that read the constitution and insist we are a Christian nation, there are others that believe that constitution guarantees our right to practice any religion or no religion.

While evangelicals tend to state that we are a Christian nation, others believe that we are a nation of many Christians and many religions, (I for one). Mitt Romney is NOT an evangelical Christian,

In fact he has stated several times that while his religion is an important part of his life, all religions should be free to practice as they wish (That would include those who do not believe in religion) But take not my word/

"We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don't remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to."
Mitt Romney 30 August 2012

Just sayin'

Sep 1, 2012, 9:40am Permalink
Sean McKellar

Mark, thanks for the well-thought out response. I appreciate it.

"We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan; that might have seemed unusual or out of place but I really don't remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to."
Mitt Romney 30 August 2012

Does this mean we should disregard his ridiculous beliefs because he was more concerned with sports than religion as a kid?

Sep 1, 2012, 12:00am Permalink
Jeff Allen

C.M. you must have mistaken the term "mitt" as applying to Obama since he has raised more than double Romney from PACS and unions and outraised and outspent his opponent 2 to 1 in 2008. Romney has only recently started outraising Obama in the last couple of months but has a loooooong way to go to catch up. Problem is the media only accounts for DNC vs. RNC money and ignores Obamas personal campaign warchest and all the dollars collected from unions. Obama money dwarfs Romney money and it will be spent with a vengeance.

Sep 1, 2012, 6:15am Permalink
Jason Post

Mitt isn't short for anything. It's just Mitt. On a related note, Mitt Romney's proper name is Willard Mitt Romney. I can't say I blame him for going by his middle name.

Sep 1, 2012, 6:27am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Thanks for the chuckle, I NEVER said that Jefferson was a Christian, I said except for Jefferson called himthe creator, that is consistant with a Deist. And I never said that religion had a place in Government.

Nice try Judith

Sep 1, 2012, 8:34am Permalink
Mark Brudz

LOL Sean, it means that one's religion should have nothing to do with it.

What strikes me most about the entire argument is that everyone seems to forget why Freedom Of Religion was included in the Bill Of Rights in the first place.

It was not a bunch of Aethiest that got together in a room bashing religion. The first settlers from Europe came here to escape religious persecution.

When you attack religion, you attack everything American, when you attack those that do not believe in religion or God, you also attack everything American'

Tolerance works both ways, Freedom of religion likewise works both ways.

Is Mitt Romney guided in his personal beleifs, sure he is, just like JFK, just like Ronald Reagan and just like Jimmy Carter. In fact just like a Secular Humanist or a Deist.

But Sean consider this, the Mormons, as starnge as their religion may seem to you or I, are also known for tending to the poor, to great gifts of charity to Mormons and Non-Mormon alike. The Catholics built a hospital network across the nation that still rivales government and private hospital systems to this day. The Methodist also have an extensive hospital and charity network across the world.

Sure there are zealots in all religions that go too far, sure there are seculars that are zealots and go too far condemming religion. However, for every bad thing a religiouis Zealot does, there are 10 fold goods things that purponderance of a given religion's followers do.

It is Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. NO ONE should have to foresake his faith or lack there of as a measure of fitness for Government service.

So when you mock Romney's religion, don't forget to account for the fact that he gave his entire inheritance to charity, don'y forget that because of the compass that his faith gave him he donates 6% of his income to charity every year beyond the 10% he gives to his church. Just like I won't forget the many philantropist who are agnostic or Aethiest who give so much of their own to those who have nothing.

Sep 1, 2012, 9:06am Permalink
Judith Kinsley Bolsei

Any particular reason you take my posts as always in relation to you Mark? Just saying it makes you seem very self important.

Sep 1, 2012, 10:20am Permalink
Ed Gentner

Mitt was the last clown in the car for the GOP primary/nomination circus and now he is determined to drive it right back into the same economic ditch that the last Republican President did while stripping women of their reproductive rights, turning Medicare into a discount coupon program for the benefit of the insurance industry, PHARMA, continued tax breaks for big corporations and oil industry, all paid for by the 98% in the middle-class. The new Christian values candidates Romney/Ryan plan is to take from the needy and give it to the greedy, even the Catholic bishops called Ryan/Romney out on their budget plans as contrary to the teachings of Christ. Obama has been criticized for not doing enough but little or nothing has been said regarding an obstructionist Republican House and Republican members of the Senate who have voted in lock-step to thwart any real jobs legislation that would have been of any real benefit to the majority of Americans. A vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote to return to the high risk economic and tax policies that damn near put the country into another "Great Depression". I'll stick with Obama, we still have a way to go and it may be taking longer than we had hoped but he will get us there.

Sep 1, 2012, 10:25am Permalink
Judith Kinsley Bolsei

Most interesting was that we actually agreed as to the separation of church and state which is definitely the minority opinion in this day and age. The fact you think I post to simply rebut you IS self important.

Sep 1, 2012, 10:32am Permalink
Mark Brudz

Exactly How did "the last Republican President did while stripping women of reproductive rights?"

Exactly how is " turning Medicare into a discount coupon program for the benefit of the insurance industry?"

Exactly how is "continued tax breaks for big corporations and oil industry, all paid for by the 98% in the middle-class. " ( 46% of Americans pay little or no income tax at all)

Exactly how is "The new Christian values candidates Romney/Ryan plan is to take from the needy and give it to the greedy?"

I hear this daily rhetoric from the DNC everyday, perhaps it is time to put some beef behind it?

Not criticizing mind you, sincerely would like to hear supporting eveidnce

Sep 1, 2012, 10:37am Permalink
Mark Brudz

I do not think that you post just for me, I thinlk you post to express and debate Ideas just like most of us here.

Telling that you seem to take it personally, I certainly do not.

As far as "Self Important" seriously I am no more or less important than you or anyone else.

What I do see as important is the debate itself.

Sep 1, 2012, 10:43am Permalink
John Roach

Ed,
How does not raising taxes on anyone translate to 98% paying for it? The 98% don't have their taxes raised, so how do you get that, except for a liberal talking point?

And if you, Ed Gentner, can keep the current Medicare plan if you want or take a different plan, how does that hurt you or anyone? Why are you against you and others having a choice?

Sep 1, 2012, 10:55am Permalink
Daniel Jones

Anyone else find it ironic that the Republicans stonewalled Ron Paul, a serious candidates who won delegates, from speaking at their convention because he wouldn't let them screen his speech....but they let Clint Eastwood ramble on and on pretending to debate an imaginary Barack Obama for 11 minutes?

Sep 1, 2012, 12:24pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

Several planks to this years GOP platform were specifically inserted in defference to Ron Paul

"'.........This year’s Republican platform contains several planks that were sought by supporters of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, whose insurgent Republican presidential campaign energized a new generation of libertarians. It calls for an annual audit of the Federal Reserve, and for forming a commission to “investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar” along the lines of a commission that was established three decades ago to study — and wound up opposing — a return to the gold standard. ..........."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/us/politics/republican-platform-takes…

"......Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Thursday he's pleased with the Republican Party's draft foreign-policy plank, despite the rejection of several amendments on nation-building from his supporters......"

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/foreign-aid/244933-paul-pleased…

Ron Paul had 160 delegates of a needed 1140, his son was given a prominent speaking spot and did quite well acxtually when he did speak

The Clint Eastwood stick was just that, a comedy stick, withpout script or teleprompter. It was humor, it was Clint Eastwoods, and it was funny. Much more funny I might add then the likes of a Bill Maher monolog

The vial things promoted by Democrats of late are what I find ironic

Sep 1, 2012, 6:39pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Mark, are you actually defending the GOP for not letting Ron Paul speak?

The whole purpose of suppressing Paul was to suppress freedom, further proving the moder GOP is as devoid of a true understanding and respect for true conservatism as any progressive.

So they threw Paul a few bones in the meaningless platform. He deserved a prime time slot to say whatever he wanted.

Sep 1, 2012, 7:13pm Permalink
Mark Brudz

No Howard. not defending at all, just sharing what he and his campaign staff have said since Thursday. And what exactly the GOP did do in deference to hiim.

Personally, I was dissapointed that he did not speak,

But I found no irony that Clint Eastwood did his stick, and I still thought that was funny inj a cerebral way

Sep 1, 2012, 7:18pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Just curious Phil, exactly what so call freedoms are being taken away? Religion being pushed down our throats? You talk about Romney taking away our freedoms but, mention nothing how Obama is taking our freedoms and pushing for governmental control of our lifes.

Your Venomous ways should shout loud and clear against our government as a whole. It is funny to see your post and preach about gay marriages (Who Care?), pro-life (Who cares?), Women’s rights being neglected and taken away? Really? If that is the case would not all women be upset? Birth Control being one of the main issues. Women feel that it should be free. Why? They say it helps them but, it does not for all. Today's society is so freaking sexually active that, I believe there is a larger number of women who want it to protect against unwanted pregnancy.

How about we focus on real issues such as our economy and how we get back on track! How about we focus on how to rebuild our work force! How about we focus on how we strengthen our industries and keep them here in the USA! How about we focus on taking care of the citizens of the USA and protecting them! How about we focus on health care plan that will not put this country into bankrupcy! How about we focus on getting our government from abusing our tax systems and programs! How about we focus on putting the People of the USA back in control and remind the government they are, "OUR EMPLOYEES!" You bring up issues that effect the minority and not all of the nation as a whole.

Sep 3, 2012, 7:51pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Howard, Doug has a good idea. How about a BBQ for the members of the BATAVIAN? Charge a set amount for food, beverages and entertainment. With your connections you are bound to find businesses that would help out. Especially ones that want to market their business. What do you think?

Sep 3, 2012, 7:57pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

REAL PROOF? What real proof do we have on any politician? Even the current President has not been totally truthfully. They all have secrets and hidden stashes. Who cares about paying taxes? Really look at the number of people who do not.

Look at our taxes that benefit foreigners moving into this country to receive an education, a loan, to start a business and receive free medical care. While an American Citizen struggles to receive the same benefits.

BTW, Rush is right winger and just another a - - hole. He is right that if Obama is elected for another four years this country is in danger! People worry about their rights now, wait and see. I am voting for Romney not because, I dislike Obama. I always felt America is like a big business and needs to have a business style leadership. Before some knucklehead states that Romney has closed businesses. That is part of the business world removed the weak and strengthen the growth of another profitable business. I know there are business CEOs like those of Kodak who hold a blind eye to the truth and/or do not know their arse from their brain. Those are usually the ones who end up retiring and/or in bankrupcy.

Sep 3, 2012, 8:25pm Permalink

Authentically Local