Who here likes Mitt Romney?

[MikeWaters]

and does him being Mormon factor into that?

Personally, he instills zero excitement in me. Growing up I tended to root for Mormon athletes (Danny White, Dale Murphy).

But when it comes to being an adult, and about politics, I find myself not particularly caring. and my bias will tend to be against the pretty talking-head Northeastern type. Too much like Stone Phillips.

If the church gets involved with his presidential run (which I don't think they will, but crazier things have happened), I'll be disappointed.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For me, the jury is still out with Mitt. I need to learn more about him. The one thing he did recently that did not impress me was veto a Mass. bill that would provide rape victims with access to emergency contraception pills in the emergency room:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9357672/

I can't imagine why he would veto this, other than pandering to the far right.

Anyway, we shall see.

[Archaea]

In politics, it's not a question of who is an ideal statesman, but rather which prick would I rather have elected?

I don't like McCain, I loathe Billary II, so I guess I may choose Mitt by default.

That is how I vote, by default.

The Democrats always select a tax and spend guy or gal.

The Reps have chosen a slightly less tax and spend guy in Bush.

In light of the high cost of living, I need a president who won't impoverish me and my family. Billary II would do that. She hates religious peoples, she's in favor of socialized medicine, i.e., a single payer system, she's anti-military and generally a bad egg.

McCain is a panderer, aren't they all?

I've campaigned at the highest levels, and if any of you has any ideals about any side of the aisle, forget about it. These guys and gals are all whores without morals or principles. Pick the guy you like and know he's also a slimeball, so vote with your pocket book as nobody else will look out after you.

[SteelBlue]

I like Romney, but I really don't know much about him politically. Haven't taken the time to research his positions etc...

This may be sad, but I really don't want to go through the scrutinization/misrepresentation of Mormonism throughout the election process that will occur if Mitt's run is successful. I lived in MA when he ran against Kennedy and the Kennedy's brought up the blacks and the priesthood issue which I then had to try and explain to my grad school colleagues on several occasions. You can imagine how that was received. Anyway, I'd guess that what would come up in a Presidential run would make 1996 look like a cakewalk.

[bluegoose]

I think that as a politician he is no worse than any of the other repubs that we have to choose from. I also can't stand McCain. I don't see too many other repubs making a strong run at anything for 2008. If your looking for a stalwart champion of the gospel cause running for pres, I don't think he is what your looking for. I don't question whether he is a faithful member of the church, because I'm sure he is. But he is too good of a politician to mix politics with LDS theology.

Looking across the aisle, whatever happened to Obama from Illinois? He seems to have to really dropped off into obscurity over the past year and a half. I have to admit, I was taken in by several of his speeches a couple of years ago during his Senate run, as well as at the Demo National Convention. An extremely educated man, and a phenomenal orator with some decent ideals.

[Archaea]

have ideals.

What they have are pollsters, key constituents and the ability to communicate to them.

I have been involved in politics for a long. long time. People should be more cynical about their politicians. These guys and gals are NOT leaders in the traditional sense.

Bill Clinton is a good example in that he had no true principles, political or otherwise. He just wanted to please people.

He reminds me of the frat guy, who staged a great party, made sure everybody got laid and made certain he got credit for all the sex, even if he ddin't invite all the girls.

In national politics, you have multiple layers of government. First layer that everybody sees is the politician as presented. He's the polished version, after having loads of time with coaches, pollsters and strategists. These are the election assistants.

Behind the scenes are the money guys, be they unions or insurance companies, and the workers. Some of these workers are policy wonks, who actually care about policy and believe they are controlling things. Deeper behind the scenes are bigger money people that very few people see other than politicians of a certain level and a few handlers. These are the true power brokers. In the real world of politics, these are the guys that matter and nobody else. The rest of us are just window dressing.

So don't believe the charade both parties put on, especially not Democrats. The national Democrats don't care about people, they just make people think they do. The Republicans at least don't try to carry on that charade. IF people really knew what was going on, people would be more sceptical, and should be.

These people really only care, by the time they are national politicians, about being elected. They play games and just don't really care. They are good actors, and we the stupid voters buy into their crap. We should disdain all of them, trust them only insofar as we cast them out from time to time, but we should realize that they really a base humans without redeeming characteristics, most of the time. If we do that, we won't be disappointed, or convey too much credence to what they do or say.

[bluegoose]

Don't you think you're being a tad bit harsh with the generalization?

Throwing the baby out with bath water?

Surely there has to be some politicians out there who are interested in the greater good of their constituents? Having very minimal experience with even local politics, let alone national politics, I have nothing to draw upon here.

But they can't all be bad, can they?

[Archaea]

and the good ones are the local ones.

These are people in it, just to get something done. As they move up the ladder, in order to succeed, it is absolutely necessary for them to jettison their beliefs and simply make compromises for key constituents. They basically become brokers of deals. This for that.

They DO NOT lead. The joke that they take a poll, and then run to the front of the crowd is very apropos to describing how successful national politicians operate.

Is it possible that somebody out there doesn't fit this mold? Of course, but I would not count on it, and I would bet against it. The only way you could know otherwise, is if you were personal friends with some national politician before and after he or she became such.

We are much too trusting of these guys and gals. We need less trust and to be more cynical, not of them receiving behind the scenes money and promises, which they do, but of their lack of belief in anything. This is my point. They usually don't believe in anything but themselves.

Hillary might believe, I don't know but doubt it in light of Whitewater, but if she does, she believes in all the wrong things, single payer system for health care, higher, progressive taxes, limitations on freedom of worship, gay marriage, fanatical feminism, more bureaucracies as government is more efficient than private industry, a centralized government as opposed to state government, and so forth.

Because there are still good, decent people in local government, this is why we are better off with more decisions left to local politicians, as they still often have other jobs.

Career, professional politicianism is the disease. They are in it for themselves. The guy or gal or does it in addition to his or her day job, is the person you're more likely to be able to trust. Once they make their living that way, they change.

The process won't allow for any other type of person. Harry Reid wasn't the way he is now before he went down this road.

The problem is, you can't be successful any other way.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The Democrats always select a tax and spend guy or gal.

I don't get involved in many politic arguements, but this is one I just don't understand. If you aren't going to tax and spend then what do you have? Just spend? Is that why every Republican president leaves with a huge deficit?
Tax and spend makes sense. Now you can argue that much of the spending, billions for war etc., doesn't need to be spent. And many would agree with you. But if you are going to spend you have to get the money from somewhere.