Newt Vs. Romney

[familymancaptain of 10]

In General church leadership (General Authorities) we have had, and still have Republicans and Democrats leading us. It would seem the Lord doesn't care much about political persuasion! Is Mitt perfect? No, neither am I, but you guys will need to show me who's running who is!

One Vote Bob

Your right, the Lord doesn't care much about political persuasion when it comes to church leadership. The Church is suppose to be compassionate and take care of people. The minute those leaders start mandating tithing and fast offerings it becomes government and I'm sure the Lord would care about that type of political persuasion.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

The only one who is getting a "hate on" is you. There have been all kinds of anti-Ron Paul comments/threads just like every other politician. You choose to see what you want to see and its plainly obvious you are carrying a mighty big chip on your shoulder. As to why....I have no idea.

If you are still unemployed I empathize with your situation....been in those shoes several times just in the past couple of of years....with a particularly lengthy nasty bout that near put me (and my wife and 6 kids) in my parents mercy/care in 2009. I wish you the best! Godspeed in building the kingdom!

Maybe I am carrying a chip I don't know maybe its because I feel like if you don't support Ron Paul around here you are ostracized criticized and otherwise "cast out" I try to bring a voice for the Ron Paul opposition just to let other people know it doesn't have to an everyone agree type thing here maybe I come across hostile? That honestly is not my intention, i try to be in disagreement without being disagreeable.

As for my employment status getting laid off was the best thing that has happened to me in a quite some time. But thank you for the concern.

To me the ideal form of debate is two candidates, given strictly enforced time limits to 1) present their views 2) cross examine each others positions 3) respond to those cross examinations and possibly get into discussion/direct back and forth and 4) closing statement. The moderator's role should be nothing more than time keeper and making sure both got equal opportunity to express themselves. Ideally the moderator should be a complete nobody, other than possibly someone who was well known for integrity - but the less star quality, the better.

I also think that the "focus groups" per Frank Lunz have NO PLACE in political debates and are nothing more than a thinly veiled tool for telling people what they SHOULD be thinking, rather than allowing them to reach their own decisions.

The problem becomes how to pair the multiple candidates up for the 1 on 1 debates: Cain and Newt mutually did one, but for anyone that saw it, it was nothing but them shamelessly saying how great the other one was. There actually was some good discussion and it allowed them both time to put their ideas out their, so it was useful in that regard, but they really didn;t debate. Silliest moment was Cain getting a question that he clearly had no idea what the moderator was asking, and so he said "I'm going to let Newt answer that one first." It was pretty transparent and embarrassing for Cain.

Back on topic: I do feel that 1 vs 1 debates that last a couple of hours would be much better than the moderated mess that they do now.
I also think it is good that they are including those with low poll numbers in the debates (they didn't as much in 07-08). I think it is important because until the Iowa caucuses, most people jsut aren't paying that much attention yet. So I think it is good that Huntsman and Santorum are not being excluded. With as many debates as they have held, they easily could have given every candidate the chance to debate 1 vs 1 with the candidate polling above them and the candidate polling just below them. Or they could have done a random pairing. Or any number of other things. Most of the debates have been two hours also, and if they only spent one hour with each candidate pair, by now each candidate could have debated 4 of his fellow candidates.

There - and no mention of He Who Shall Not Be Named.

question though i'm not sure I know what you mean by "focus groups per frank lunz"?

After a nominee is picked whoever that may be, I would love to see some of this type of debate vs Obama and whoever. At very least I think it would give American's a better idea of where each individual stands etc etc. Not to mention it would be far less painful than watching a liberal moderator fall all over himself/herself worshiping Obama....

in the Lincoln Douglas style debate is there a set time limit allotted for different things as you mentioned cross examine/state position etc? Or are we calling that style the OI style debate

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

I believe what I talked about is just how high school debates were run when I was in high school (late 70's early 80's). I believe in Loncoln- Douglass there are no time limits, but the moderator ensures both parties get equal chance to express themselves - but there are no set times for stating position, cross examination and rebuttal. Which would still be miles ahead of the current joke debates.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

What OI has suggested is basically what happens when two lawyers, representing clients, essentially debate a case before a judge or a panel of judges in a court of law. Although their clients usually have other labels (plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, respondent, appellant, appellee, etc. ), there is typically a proponent and an opponent. The proponent would have, say, 20 minutes to state his case. The opponent would have 15-20 minutes to rebut the case. And then the proponent would have 10 minutes to respond to the rebuttal.

I would think that some structure along this line, and keeping track of time would be pretty important for network TV. And I agree with OI, enforcement of the structure and keeping track of time should be the moderators only role -- while in court sometimes judges get into the action by asking questions -- and they should because they're the ones deciding the case and making decisions, whereas the moderator has no such role, and should not be given a chance to taint the debate by asking questions (and I also agree that focus groups, outside questions, etc., should have no place in the format). It should literally be one-on-one between the candidates, with the moderator having only a minimal, enforcement role. And I also agree that the less star power the moderator has, the better. But, the moderator would still need to be someone with enough proven backbone, demeanor, etc., to be able to maintain reasonable control of the debate, rather than have the candidates run all over the top of him, and each other. In other words, he may also need a huge gavel and a fairly loud voice. Even as shown on TV, that is how authoritative judges typically control situations like that. By contrast, in one of the Republican debates (I forget who the moderator was) when Perry's star was seriously starting to fade so he was sticking his neck out and trying to turn things around, and Romney was trying to put the last nail in the coffin, there as an exchange between Mitt and Perry that was down right embarrassing. It was a total free-for-all, with everybody (between them) talking, nobody listening, everything out of control, and the moderator seemingly unable to do much about it. The moderator needs to be someone who won't let that sort of thing happen. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter. Why shouldn't they have an opportunity to show themselves to a national audience as disrespectful fools?

For a two hour debate, the same basic format and time frames could apply. They could flip a coin to see who would go first, and take turns being the proponent and opponent. They could each be alloted a total of 20 minutes for an opening statement of their positions as a proponent. They could each be alloted a total of 15-20 minutes as opponent, to rebut the other's opening statement of positions as proponent. And then 10 minutes, again as proponent, to respond to the opponent's rebuttal. The way that would work in a two hour debate, hypothetically between Romney and Gingrich is that Romney might go first as the proponent, during which he would have a total of roughly 30 minutes, while Gingrich would have 15-20 minutes as the opponent (leaving 10-15 minutes for commercials). Then in the second hour Gingrich would be the proponent, and everything would be reversed.

[tmaccaptain of 1,000]

Now, to make sure that Romney and all his supporters feel the love, here's a link to a great article about Mitt and his Church activity and leadership, etc., (borrowed from a thread in the News section), that belongs on this thread.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 9590.story

In terms of warm fuzzies, this is good stuff, and shows that everything else aside, as a human being, one side of Mitt is a good, caring, compassionate person, who has had time in the trenches with real people, and has learned how to relate, empathize, adjust to the situation. It also shows that he has very good, basic leadership and administrative skills -- which I seriously doubt most people have ever questioned, based on his handling first of the Winter Olympics, and then his governorship. One thing I have never questioned is Romney's leadership and administrative abilities. If I felt as comfortable about his fundamental understanding, backbone, and political policy positions, I could be completely onboard as a Romney supporter.

On the other hand, from my perspective, all the candidates but He Who Shall Not Be Named, including Romney, only want to talk about the "effects" in the cause and effect relationship of many of the most serious issues that face this country. None of them seem willing to address the core causes. Like all their predecessors for the past 20-30 years, they only seem to want to talk about and treat the symptoms rather than seriously address the actual causes of those symptoms, and many of our most serious and fundamental challenges. I will respect anyone who is willing to sink their teeth into the actual causes rather than wince and grimace and smirk when those issues are raised, acting like immature teenagers, and pretending that those issues aren't real and that there must be something wrong with anyone who is willing to actually acknowledge and talk about them -- especially in public.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

All you Romney haters out there.... Why don't you learn to stop being sheep and learn some actual truth, instead of bearing false witness of a man, especially one of your fellow brethren.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/11/flippi ... on-romney/

You asked for it. You see, I actually do read links that someone who disagrees with me posts. So EVERY thing that I post below is from YOUR link, which YOU provided as evidence against the sheep. I will go thru all 15 issues that they analyzed.

TARP: The article posted that Romney did no flip flop on TARP, and was a consistent supporter of it. So there was no flip flop, but Romney's consistent position is the incorrect, unconsitutional position. No flip-flop, but still wrong. (He did oppose some of the later uses that TARP funds were put to, but supported it in general.

Flip-flop: 0/15 Wrong: 1/15

Auto Bailout: Romney did not flip-flop and supported a managed bankruptcy using no federal funds. This was the correct, constitutional position.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 1/15 Right: 1/15

Obama's Stimulus Plan: No flip-flop, he opposed Obama's stimulus plan but supported a different stimulus plan - so still consitutionally the wrong position.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 2/15 Right: 1/15

Race to the Top program: No flip-flop, and correctly supported some of the goals of the program, but also correctly stated it should not be pursued at the federal level.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 2/15 Right: 2/15

ObamaCare (Healthcare): No flip flop. He has said that RomneyCare should not be forced on states by the federal government, HOWEVER he has said that the federal government should use some "carrots and sticks" on the states to get all of their citizens insured. I'lll award half-right for consitently opposing ObamaCare and half wrong for believing thee Federal Government should entice and/or punish states to get compliance.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 2.5/15 Right: 2.5/15

Minimum Wage: No flip flop and Consitutionally sound, since it only applied to Massachusetts.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 2.5/15 Right: 3.5/15

Illegal immigrant hiring: No flip flop, was not regarding government policy but a private action, which he followed the law.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 2.5/15 Right: 4.5/15

Don't ask, don't tell: Romney has been consistent that gays should be able to serve openly in the military, but does not believe the policy should have been changed in the middle of an armed conflict. No flip-flop, and there are valid arguments on both sides as to whether that was the "constitutional" position to take. No flip and I will split the score between right/wrong as I don't know.

Flip-Flop: 0/15 Wrong: 3/15 Right: 5/15

Ohio Issue 2: article posted says he did a "half flip" on it. Not really a national issue so no points either way regarding consitutionality.

Flip-Flop: .5/15 Wrong: 3/14 Right: 5/14

Assault weapon ban: Ful flip-flop, yet his current position is unclear. It appears he opposes new assault weapons bans but supports existing ones, yet claims to support the second amendment. He appears to be trying to have it both ways currently.

Flip-Flop: 1.5/15 Wrong: 3/14 Right: 5/14 unclear on principles: 1/14

Tax pledge: Flip-flop, no consitutional right or wrong answer.

Flip-Flop: 2.5/15 Wrong: 3/14 Right: 5/14 unclear on principles: 1/14

Abortion: Full 180 degree flip flop, but now does support the correct, constitutional position.

Flip-Flop: 3.5/15 Wrong: 3/14 Right: 5/14 unclear on principles: 1/14

Ronald Reagan: The article posted gives Romney a full flip-flop on Reagan - I'm willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt and say his position on Reagan "evolved". No scoring.

Climate Change: The article gives Romney a flip-flop-flip on this: In other words he did a 180 and then reverted back to his original position. Reading all of the quotes involved, I am only going to give him half a flip and I believe his position is pretty much where it should be regarding policy. I don;t see any support for carbon taxes and it seems like his more or less consistent position is - Climate change is happening, we don't know to what extent it is being caused by man, and we shouldn't spend billions of dollars trying to fix a problem we are not sure we understand. I do believe he thinks we should be "wise stewards" of the resources we have. Wise position and within constitutional bounds.

Flip-Flop: 4/15 Wrong: 3/14 Right: 6/14 unclear on principles: 1/14

Conclusion: On 4 of the 15 issues, Romney has done a 180. I'll admit, not as bad as I thought, and certainly a person has a right to change his mind. I get suspicious when those changes are made exactly when it is to his benefit politically. Of the 15 points the article addressed, I found 1 to not involve right or wrong in regards to the constitution. Of the remaining 14, I consider Romney wrong on 3, right on 6, and either unclear or that arguments could go either way whether it was consitutional or not on 5. Not as bad as I had expected, but not good enough for me to support, either. Going outside of this article, I have found Romney's understanding of the constitution or even an attitude showing that he holds the constitution in reverence and would use it as a yardstick against which he would measure his decision - lacking.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

NICE posts, tmac!

[one4freedomcaptain of 100]

I'm sorry, but debating Newt vs. Romney in my mind is akin to a gangrenous leg in need of amputation and debating what color to paint the toenails.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

I'm sorry, but debating Newt vs. Romney in my mind is akin to a gangrenous leg in need of amputation and debating what color to paint the toenails.

[skmocaptain of 1,000]

Seems to me it'd be like fudge debating chocolate. A collie debating an old english sheepdog. A kidney bean debating a pinto bean. Orange roughy debating cod. A dumbocrap debating a republican't.

[skmocaptain of 1,000]

By the way, I heard a good reference to Romney the other day. Someone called him "Mittens" Romney. I laughed out loud.

[jonholb55captain of 100]

I would like to see a debate between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney for the following reasons:
(1) Newt would be the better debator, but what about the substance of the debate. Newt Gingrich is the ultimate Republican party insider. He is an "Establishment Republican" even more so than Mitt Romney.
(2) Newt Gingrich wants to get revenge against Mitt Romney. Even if it destroys the Republican Party. The only person that wins in this situation is Barack Obama. He will coast to re-election in 2012.
(3) You wouldn't want to elect to President of the United States, someone who is motivated by revenge. Such a person is unstable. The President of the United States needs to have a sound mind and be able to think clearly and quickly in a logical pattern sometimes under great pressure.
(4) A Newt-Mitt debate would be interesting in the academic sense, but otherwise, it would be a waste of time.

[Fiannancaptain of 1,000]

Newt: Psychopath.

Mitt: Boring.

Obama: Chronic narcissist.

[uglypitbullcaptain of 1,000]

(3) You wouldn't want to elect to President of the United States, someone who is motivated by revenge. Such a person is unstable.

that happened in 2008

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Locke, your use of the expression " your man crush's on him" (Ron Paul) reveals you as typical of the many Mormon rectums cheerleading for a candidate whom more politically astute Mormons consider a disgrace to the Mormon Church.

"more politically astute"???!!!!!!!!

Stop. You're killing me. That's funnier than man crush.

[kathyncaptain of 1,000]

I'd take Romney any day over Obama.

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Locke, your use of the expression " your man crush's on him" (Ron Paul) reveals you as typical of the many Mormon rectums cheerleading for a candidate whom more politically astute Mormons consider a disgrace to the Mormon Church.

"more politically astute"???!!!!!!!!

Stop. You're killing me. That's funnier than man crush.

Yes, more politically astute.

When one supports Romney it always comes down to:

1. Holds the priesthood!
2. Saved the Olympics!
3. Proven successful businessman!
There may be others, but certainly 95% of the pro-Romney argument here on LDSFF boils down to that. Also throw in "best chance to beat Obama" (very debatable)

Now look at the Ron Paul supporters that you love to hate. Why do they support their candidate?

1. Always votes in compliance with the Constitution
2. Takes his oath of office seriously.
3. Is consistent both in his views and in causes he supports.
There may be others, and it should be noted that in polls of how a candidate would do against Obama, that both Romney and Paul are within the margin of error of each other. I believe the last I saw was something like 47 Romney 47 Obama vs 46 Paul 48 Obama. This after months and months of media campaign to say Paul is "unelectable", "will NOT be the nominee" etc.

So yeah, politically astute. People who have actually read writings of the prophets regarding the proper role of government and the importance of upholding the Constitution. People who don;t go whimpering to the corner because someone had the nerve to disagree with them on an internet forum (and usually because they have no leg to stand on, so default to playing the victim to those MEAN people on the internet.

I appreciate people with differing opinions that will actually engage in discussion. Far too many just ignore any comments that don't fit their comfy little paradigm though.

Most, not all, but MOST of the Romney support I have seen on these forums is so clearly based on common religion, and equally clearly NOT based on any kind of understanding of the constitution or our duty as members regarding our political involvement. There are some notable exceptions, but there are many that it is clear have not devoted so much as an hour to doing any honest unbiased research on the matter. They want their Mormon President, end of discussion, and don't you dare threaten their vision of such a glorious outcome. Frankly, I think it will be the beginning of massive persecutions (but even if that were the case, I would still support Mitt if I thought he was the best choice).

I have come around a lot on Mitt - I used to think that he was a snake willing to say anything to anyone in order to win. Now, I think he is just very lacking in knowledge and understanding, and he is willing to convince himself that he is truly doing the right thing when he takes all these various positions...that just happen to change when it will best serve his political interests. I'm not being sarcastic. I believe he sees a need to change a position, and he convinces himself that the new position is the right one and he changes...that's easy to do when you lack foundational principles.

[patriotsaintcaptain of 1,000]

Mitt has his issues....but Newt is worse. This video is long (34 min) but gives a lot of great Newt info.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Conclusion: On 4 of the 15 issues, Romney has done a 180. I'll admit, not as bad as I thought, and certainly a person has a right to change his mind. I get suspicious when those changes are made exactly when it is to his benefit politically. Of the 15 points the article addressed, I found 1 to not involve right or wrong in regards to the constitution. Of the remaining 14, I consider Romney wrong on 3, right on 6, and either unclear or that arguments could go either way whether it was consitutional or not on 5. Not as bad as I had expected, but not good enough for me to support, either. Going outside of this article, I have found Romney's understanding of the constitution or even an attitude showing that he holds the constitution in reverence and would use it as a yardstick against which he would measure his decision - lacking.

This is probably one of the more fair assessments I've seen. Nice job.

[ebenezerarisecaptain of 100]

Most, not all, but MOST of the Romney support I have seen on these forums is so clearly based on common religion, and equally clearly NOT based on any kind of understanding of the constitution or our duty as members regarding our political involvement. There are some notable exceptions, but there are many that it is clear have not devoted so much as an hour to doing any honest unbiased research on the matter. They want their Mormon President, end of discussion, and don't you dare threaten their vision of such a glorious outcome. Frankly, I think it will be the beginning of massive persecutions (but even if that were the case, I would still support Mitt if I thought he was the best choice).

This is fair too. But on that same note there are plenty of kool-aid drinking Paulites as well.

[LikeMember]

[bobhenstracaptain of 1,000]

Well, so much for Newt's chance at a cabinet post----