Speakeasy forum: Romney won't offer specifics on promise to provide specifics

with what one candidate hedging on specifics but the specifics that the other has already done.

We are urged to vote against a person more than we are to vote for a person. The more a person reveals, the more ammo they they supply to the other side. We, the voters, are being played by the slick campaign organizations whose job is to study our vulnerabilities and fears. They use their skills to create perception rather than truth. Just like a game show, we now have an opportunity to choose between what we already have in our hands or what's behind the door.

I have my suspicions about our president. Those suspicions stem from his activist roots which I've stated here before. He was a competent and studied person in the arts of manipulation and persuasion. So are the proverbial "used car salesmen". As such, you listen to the spiel but don't buy anything based upon it. This doesn't necessarily make a person a liar but you do need to be careful. I see too many that follow a person like a sheep does a shepherd. The shepherd also uses dogs to round up his sheep when they begin to leave the herd. I think Obama's herd was showing signs of wandering and that left him vulnerable to a lesser known challenger. The dogs have been put to work now...overtime.

Frankly, I don't think Romney has much chance of winning the election but I'd hope he at least puts a good scare into the president and lets him know there's no clear mandate to bull ahead with his own person agenda and ideas of what the US should be.

in the Middle East as BO's blunder?

literally been an open book for years........what did we know about BO, even back to his Chicago days and how his campaign leaked the SEALED divorce settlement records of his Senate seat opponent (Jack Ryan....remember that name? It's the one he mixed up and called Paul Ryan by that name during the 'dressing down' he gave Ryan publicly) and forced his opponent to resign from the race. Recognize the tactics being used against Romney? Nothing has changed.........BO's own statement of "if you have no record to run on you destroy the opponent".....and one of the first campaign slogans of this re-election for BO was "KILL ROMNEY".

You can't wrap your head around the idea of supporting a candidate that you know 'absolutely nothing' about, and yet you support the ONE candidate that most people STILL know nothing about.......you are a prime candidate for buying stock in Tylenol Migraine meds........because the headaches should BO get back in will only worsen.

saw 23 years' worth of those taxes......just because YOU didn't see them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Let's see -- he goes on about the stimulus that his running mate took advantage of and that WORKED, he talks about repealing "Obamacare" even though he appears to like most of it (at least that was what he said LAST week), he wants to cut taxes for the richest Americans, a proposal that leading economists say will raise middle class taxes by up to $2,000 a year, he wants to deregulate the banks so they can go back to doing the things that caused the economy to crash in 2008, sounds great.

I saw something about him wanting to limit damage awards from high-dollar lawsuits. Clearly another attempt to protect those zillionaire businessman pals of his from those nasty consumers. A trial lawyer was once asked why not sue for a dollar if it isn't about the money. His response (paraphrasing), "Because if I sue for a dollar, they'll just give me the dollar. The large sum is a way to get them into court an punish them for their wrongdoing." Limiting damage awards is another way of limiting corporate liability.

I'll give him wanting to see an end to frivolous lawsuits. Who doesn't?

I've only skimmed through it; I'd have to guess that a lot of it was written by his campaign staff because when Romney is asked these questions, he never seems to be able to answer them with any specificity.

....is between "Hope and Change" and "smoke and mirrors."

My prediction du jour: The foreign policy debate will cost Romney big. His own people acknowledge that he's weak there. They'll prep him as best they can, but he can't anticipate everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBHnOiBJEjk

.....in his comments about bin Laden. If Bush had gotten him, he'd have "spiked the ball" too and rightly so. It was an accomplishment to be proud of and one of the great achievements of his presidency. The only thing sad about it is the pathetic attempts by the Right to downplay or criticize the capture and killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world.

Josh, there was no problem with him telling that we got him and very roughly how. The problem was his spilling the beans about who actually did the mission and details of what happened. The missions of the SEALs are classified and so are many of their techniques.

during his first presidential campaign debates. As I recall, he bobbed and weaved as best he could by attempting to divert attention from discussing his own ideas by harping on what he said were failures of the previous administration in that area. He seemed to have no plan other than to rely more on the UN for direction. His promises were more focused on returning the energy of government to domestic rather than foreign matters. I'd say that McCain was far better versed in foreign policy but that didn't seem to hurt Obama.

For one he will say exactly the same things, the same way, he's said them before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSYbA09F060

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JiJ0j6qjo8w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyDlW-S4STY
BWAA HA HA HA!!


All Romney has to do is say and claim some of them first and then accuse Obama of trying to copy him during the debate, LOL. Attack the others before he has a chance to say them, so when he does it sounds weak. At the least he will know already what Obama is going to fall back to, everytime, his scripted and by now very memorized statements.

About time you came to acknowledge it.

it will turn into the truth.