"I'm not concerned about the voters," Romney

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Well, I’m not concerned about the voters," Mitt Romney said during Thursday’s presidential debate</p>

<p>Read More: <a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;

2

<p>Became governor of MA, then immediately began running for president. Did NOTHING here in MA–blames the legislature, but other republican governors learned to work with them. True, never raised taxes, but raised EVERY fee possible instead–same effect as raising taxes, but lets him truthfully say he didn’t raise taxes.</p>

<p>Sure, saved the SLC Olympics, with an unlimited budget that came out of the taxpayer’s pockets, to prevent national embarassment.</p>

3

<p>I don’t get it. He says he raised more $$ because high school friends helped him. But isn’t there a limit (I think $1300 or $2300) that each person can donate? He’d have to have a lot of friends to raise millions when each can only donate up to the limit. And what about corporate donations? Do those have a limit? Evidently not, since nearly all the candidates (except Paul) accept corporate donations.</p>

4

<p>High school friends can hold parties to raise $$ from each person who attends.</p>

<p>He must have gone to a different high school than I did…I couldn’t raise enough money from mine to do much of anything…</p>

5

<p>Way to take words out of context, tommybill. I would expect no less from you. Here is a little more of the quote:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In other words, Hillary Clinton and Obama are owned by special interest groups, but Romney cannot be bought. (And he is competing with other Republican candiates in a Presidental race) Romney is the example of a self-made man and he can made his decisions as President based on the interests of the American people and not special interest groups.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>This puts it in perspective:</p>

<p><a href=“http://libertyposter.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/composite41.png[/url]”>http://libertyposter.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/composite41.png&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In case you have trouble reading it, here is a clearer image:</p>

<p>[Ron</a> Paul - NASCAR patches on the back for special interest Poster - Ron Paul Forums](<a href=“http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=777994]Ron”>Ron Paul - NASCAR patches on the back for special interest Poster)</p>

7

<p>Hearing the full quote makes me think even less of Romney (which I hardly thought was possible.) Saying ‘I’m not concerned about the voters’ in <em>any</em> context is not acceptable. The fact that he has 225 million bucks in the bank makes me nervous too. Even with all he’s spending on his campaign, he has so much money that the interest/dividends will replenish his coffers within a few years. And he’s hardly a ‘self-made man’… <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/politics/04bain.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/us/politics/04bain.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

8

<p>Excellent points razor. The biggest problem with ultra-liberal media is that they think they are the almighty savior in deciding WHAT the American people should know when it comes to politics, the environment, economics, etc… They believe that they, and only they, should read/here/see information; they interpret it; they decide how best to present it; then they tell us in the newspaper or TV. The arrogance of it. This is just another example of the media DECIDING what we read and how it should be interpreted.</p>

<p>The fact that Romney has raised more money than any of the others is impressive. It shows that he has a lot of supporters. Raising money and giving money are two different things. There are limits on how much an individual can GIVE, but that individual can go out and raise as much money for the candidate as they want. Also, there is nothing wrong with using your own money. Especially considering that everyone of these candidates has that kind of money, and any money you use, is pretty much lost and spent. People forget that the job of president isn’t a big “Pay Raise”. For most people who have run for president over the years, becoming President is a major pay cut. The fact that Romney could possibly get into office and not be in the back pocket of someone or group because they “Helped” him financially get into office is excellent. That’s what I liked about Thompson. That’s what I DON’T like about McCain, Hillary, Obama, Richardson, and Huckabee. Those folk are going to be in the back pocket of special interest forever. Especially Hillary and McCain.</p>

<p>My main point however is the media. It is quite obvious that the media wants the American public to believe that the race is over and that you need to choose between Hillary and McCain. As if they are all knowing. I find that condescending. This type of print hurts Obama and Edwards as well as Romney, Huck, Guiliani, Paul. As far as Romney “waiting” on giving his financial stats, that is normal and appropriate. If the “competition” knows your day to day spending, they can decide more effectively where and how to spend their money on advertising, speeches, etc… It is required to announce your spending by certain dates, and Romney is doing just that. Not a thing wrong with that.</p>

9

<p>

That is not what Romney was saying; although the left-wingers would want us to believe that. Romeny was saying he was not worried about raising money from voters because he is able to supply the bulk of the money himself. </p>

<p>Of course he cares what the voters think about issues and how to govern, but the question he was asked was about raising campaign money.</p>

10

<p>How much $$ has Romney raised? (not counting his own contributions)</p>

<p>from the last quarter</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Excellent post, cc!</p>

11

<p>Christcorp: Would you care to clarify which newspapers, news outlets, websites, etc., you consider part of the “ultra-liberal media”?</p>

12

<p>“Romney praises Bush, bashes Washington”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2638877320080126?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2638877320080126?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Is he trying to lose the primary? Very dangerous, praising Bush.</p>

13

<p>I loved the line on Olbermann ‘When Romney needs more money, he asks the man in the mirror.’ GGGG</p>

14

<p>Great line.</p>

15

<p>How ironic. The poster (#1) has accused others (including me) of misrepresenting words to make a point. :mad:</p>

<p>I wonder what that same poster would do if someone misrepresented a quote from Hill or Bill, - the angry desperate dynamic duo ? :o</p>

16

<p>There is a long list of liberal media. Just as there is conservative media. Unfortunately, the liberal media tends to be more prominent. I also think that some of the outlets, especially on television, have some programming that isn’t nearly as liberal as it’s flagship news programs.</p>

<p>But off the top of my head from many years of listening and reading, I consider the following 4 pretty liberal and biased in their reporting of the news:</p>

<ol>
<li>CNN</li>
<li>MSNBC</li>
<li>New York Times</li>
<li>CBS.</li>
</ol>

<p>Don’t get me wrong. There is also most definitely “conservative” leaning media outlet also; such as Fox and more talk radio than the liberal side. Unfortunately, the major MASS MEDIA in the country tends to lean more towards a liberal slant than neutral. Liberal may sound like a “Good” adjective, but it isn’t. The news should be neutral. Unfortunately, they prefer to sensationalize and care more about their rating. At least on the conservative side of the media, like fox, they try to at least give both sides the ability to state their position. The liberal side tends to word their questions the way they want them answered and openly support their candidates or preferences. </p>

<p>We won’t agree, and that’s fine. Most people however understand and know that of the major media outlets, the majority tend to lean towards liberal/democratic political views.</p>

17

<ol>
<li>CNN is owned by Time Warner.</li>
<li>MSNBC is owned by General Electric</li>
<li>NY Times has a liberal bias</li>
<li>CBS is a multi-billion dollar corporation</li>
</ol>

<p>Give me a break.</p>

18

<p>

</p>

<p>Evidently you haven’t seen the thread about Faux News. Do a search on parent cafe.</p>

19

<p>The biggest problem with ultra-conservative media is that they think they are the almighty savior in deciding WHAT the American people should know when it comes to politics, the environment, economics, etc. This is the Faux News mission.</p>

20

<p>dstark; I don’t care in the least who own what. That doesn’t take away from which way they tend to lean politically. Maybe they lean that direction because of their over riding interest in sensationalism and ratings; and their use of the 1st amendment as their cape to give them free reign to say and do whatever they want. If they try and cross police tape, or be an embedded journalist in Iraq, or report Guiliani having had affairs, etc… they rationalize it behind the 1st amendment and say that they are providing news. The truth is; they are providing what they want the readers to respond to. That is their first priority. They don’t care how it affects the country, the military, the political process, etc… They only care about their motives and goals.</p>

<p>Because the liberal side tends to lean more towards constitutional rights allowing the end to justify the means, the media tends to also support this position and also leans towards the liberal side. How many people in the past have been DEFENDED for what they say, do, art they perform, etc… because it’s “THEIR RIGHT”. Even though it is offensive to others. Yet, if a group with the opposite convictions speak up against them, they aren’t supported as having the same 1st amendment rights. Depending on if they want to use the “Politically Correct” card, that group is considered racist, hate crimes, bashing, etc…</p>

<p>See, a large part of the media likes to be able to say ANYTHING they want without being held accountable. They use the 1st amendment as their shield. Well, the ACLU and other groups that also don’t believe in true accountability support them. The liberal politicians also seem to support them. We don’t have to agree. And this is what will separate the liberal from the conservative. The liberal will say whatever they want and believe, and expect everyone else to allow it. Anyone who disagrees or challenges those comments must be trying to take away their rights and it has become personal. Conservatives generally have a problem with the action, words, print, etc… but they don’t concentrate on the person. That is the fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative. One looks at the PERSON and takes what is said or done PERSONALLY, while the other one looks at the actions and such and leave the person out of it. </p>

<p>We aren’t going to agree. I know that. I’ve been involved with politics for way too many years. I’ve supported Republicans and I’ve supported Democrats. Once in a while you find someone who can bridge the gap of both. Usually, that person isn’t elected anyway. This election is no different. Each time frame in life when a president is elected, there is a different type of president needed. When people say that so and so was one of the greatest presidents of all time, that’s only relative to when they were in office. The next president we elect needs to be able to do 3 things. 1st; Control and stimulate the economy both domestic and international. 2nd; Allow the CONGRESS to allow the MILITARY to do their job. That is why we did poorly in Vietnam. We allowed the congress to run the war instead of the military. Same crap is happening here. 3rd; They need to reign in control of our borders and immigration problem. All other problems mean nothing if these 3 can’t be addressed and fixed. I don’t want to hear about health care, mortgages, the environment, etc… until these are addressed. If these 3 aren’t taken care of, the others will never matter.</p>