IOWA still doesn't matter. but Thanks to all the anti-Romney debates..the true Romney is now in front of Paul and the others. It should have never been the Anti- Romney vote but the sheep were led as always to believe in that tactic. It should have been the Anti- Obama campaign all along..Not the Anti - Mormon..anti gay..anti big government. It should have been for the BEST leader to lead any Government..not just for what they want..or for whom they want it for. 12 anti ..anybody but Romney debates.. and another one tonight .. What's left..Trump..Palin..the Jesus Man himself ? You can complain all you want..but Romney didn't run an anti Romney campaign...or the anti Christian( I dont need to worship just like you )..he let the others implode...say more than they should.. trap themselves into negativity..sort of a quality of leadership we are lacking today ? He stayed boring..on focus..true to his original theme ..creating jobs and uniting a divided America. The others focused on just one topic..one theme..and that didn't have anything to do with uniting a divided electorate. It was more about pandering to the far right..IOWA ( you know Bachmann is from there ?...Give me a break. ) You have had 4 years to destroy Romney..18 weeks of Obama and others daily attacking him.. and still he beats Obama by 10. Other Republicans cant last 2 weeks..much less the next years campaign. Paul says he doesn't know if he's up to it ? Better to find out now ..and I still want him in as SEC of treasury. Do you think Newt will find work lobbying within the Romney Presidency ? I think not. Iowa doesn't matter.. The COUNTRY DOES.
We'll see. The attacks on Newt are beginning to has some affect on the polls, but he still remains in the lead. Plus, he will likely take SC and FL. Once that happens, he should sail to the nomination. You might as well get behind him.
How is Romney the best leader? He led the Olympics or something like that? lol... It's always scary when the candidate's biggest contributors are banks... Coming from the guy who supported TARP... Nothing suspicious there - nope, not at all. The guy's great, I mean he ran the Olympics!!
Let's see.. "He led the Olympics or something like that ? " Well..Let's examine a little bit further,I'll help you along. A leader leads by definition by being in front..or near the front in anything they do..be it education...religion..Moral and personal life decisions..Government service and ethics.You can use history for a guide.. 1. So in education .. Romney was at or near the top of his class at every level.In real courses that matter in government..Economics. Not art..football..or religious training. Harvard has a course in economics ON HOW HE SAVED THOSE OLYMPIC GAMES. Harvard chose ROMNEY as a role model..not the other candidates. His education leadership shows him at the top..Not the best..but better than those He is running against . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_romney Romney went to public elementary schools[9] and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.[10][15][16][17] He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel at academics.[10 End. NO EARLY SPECIAL private schools..no special treatment..In fact a Harder life because he was a Mormon. Pt. Romney. 2. Religion. Mormons train their kids different than many others.I am NOT a MORMON..but many Mormons do Missionary work. Over seas. Romney chose FRANCE ..he speaks that language. he went.. he served..and did he lead ? He won that religions highest award for missionary work. He doesn't run from the fact that others fear the Mormons. Just last week The GINGRICH campaign fired its manager over the Mormon Cult comment he made. Romney leads..others try and follow .. Pt. Romney. 3.Morality and personal Life.. He doesn't drink or smoke...lie or cheat on his wife or with the IRS ..He has no outstanding corruption charges in his governmental roles. He is light years ahead of Newt..and Perry and Santorum on this issue. Santorum lost his senate seat over sending his kids to a PRIVATE school and billing the school district where he didn't even live.That tidbit hasn't been brought out yet..do some reading.. Pt. Romney. 4. Government and economics. Took over the Olympics when nobody else wanted the job.Many said Cancel. Turned that bad corrupt BS into the best run economic run games in HISTORY..and he did it for FREE. Who else works for free on that stage ? He did it for free in The games and for his 4 years turning a debt ridden state around.Who else can say that. What other CEO took a salary of 1 dollar for a year to turn around that failing business. ? 113% profit on returns for 14 years. Who in politics comes close ? In education..religion..economics and governmental leadership ?? If he was a Baptist..he would be elected already.
Yes he led that effort with a Kennedy in a democratic state ..got it passed in the light of day..not like Obama...with tricks and procedure..( I'd love to see that comparison in a debate ) And he balanced his budget at the same time. Pretty cool ! and the majority of Mass. still likes it several years later. How's Obama's insurance mandate doing ?
You know for the record if MA wanted that kind of healthcare great. In fact I have no problem with state wide universal health care as long as it is up to the state. If I did not like it I could move. No where does Mit say he will keep obamacare or try to instate his own plan. Of course I am still for Paul but lets disagree with Mit over things that matter.
I would say Dr. Paul is pretty well educated. He studied Austrian economics and believes in the free market. Romney's whole campaign pretty much ends with TARP and healthcare mandates. He is the equivalent of a political party pleaser. He says what others want to hear in order to be relevant. It's the only explanation for his flip-flopping. Did I mention he supported TARP and individual mandates?
No..That be Huntsman. Romney earned his wealth in the private sector. Not selling his soul like Newt and Perry. But for fun..show us his " daddy's money " Romney gave more to charity this last year than Perry earned cheating in Texas government pay for play. Texas pays for Perry's life style. Taxpayers paid for Newts salary from Fannie and Freddie.
"daddy's money" allowed Romney to be prepared to make his fortune. Being a 'Romney" set the stage for his success. Perry was raised poor, and worked hard for his.
What a joke. You know the Romney story right.. How the family had to move to Mexico to get away from RELIGIOUS persecution. How they were dirt poor.. Being a MORMON set the stage for his success...and THAT is why the other religious leaders fear him being elected. Not his political history but the fact he doesn't cheat or game the system.. If Perry's religion examined his political dealings in the same manner they examine Romney's religion we might have a debate. But they dont. IF they believe in Jesus they get a pass for corruption..stealing ..lying..and spreading FALSE information for personal gain. So..being a Romney..helped..but being a Mormon..educated..self reliant and most of all a True believer in The American way led to the Romney success. Many others have famous dads..wealth..silver spoons.. and they choose to do what ? Sell their names for profit.
Pretty well educated ? Where ? When ? On what ? He studied this grand economic theory where ?. Taught by whom ? and when ? Again..Romney has those records..Obama hasn't shown them..Paul cant. Paul was educated to be a MEDICAL DR. a long..long..long time ago. Does THAT make him an expert on medicine and medical systems and practices in the modern era ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school Mainstream economists are generally critical of methodologies used by modern Austrian economists.[9] In particular, the Austrian method of deriving theories has been criticized by mainstream economists as being a priori or non-empirical.[9][10][11][12] Some scholars have argued that Austrian economists are often averse to the use of mathematics and statistics.[11] According to Austrian school economist Peter J. Boettke, the position of the Austrian School within the economics profession has changed several times from center to fringe, and is currently a distinctly minority position.[2] Critics argue that Austrian economics generally lacks scientific rigor, rejects the scientific method, and rejects the use of empirical data.[9][11][87] Thomas Mayer has argued that Austrian economists have advocated a rejection of scientific methods which involve directly using empirical data in the development of (falsifiable) theories; application of empirical data is fundamental to the scientific method.[10][87] Austrians argue that empirical data in and of itself cannot explain anything, which in turn implies that empirical data cannot falsify a theory.[88] According to most mainstream economists, the Austrian business cycle theory is incorrect.[93] End. So where did Paul go to college to study this really hard to digest information ? What Grades did he Post ? Which Company did he lead using this style of finance and economic power thinking ?
How many doctors are over the age of 50? He's not out of date, it's not like the brain has moved to your knee cap... What, did he practice in the dark ages or something? Getting a doctoral degree is hard work. I'm sure there are no stupid doctors out there. And mainstream economists don't agree with Austrian Economics? GOOD!!! They're the idiots that got us into this mess in the first place. They were the ones that had no idea what was going on, that couldn't predict what was going to happen in 2007. I REALLY want their advice on this! Let's keep spending, spending, spending, spending... The Austrian Economists predicted the housing bubble many years before it happened. No one else knew it was going to happen until after it happened. GREAT mainstream economists there. Grades and a college education are a great factor in economics. Just look at those economists that didn't know squat! I don't know Dr. Paul's education and quite frankly, I don't really care. What I do know is that he has been right about many economic events and that is what matters.
Romney abandoned his campaign in Iowa. What makes you think hes going to surge the 20+ points he needs to win? BTW: Iowa has pretty much decided who gets nominated. last time it didnt, was in '94, with Huckabee.
