HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » O.K.! I think I figured o...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 05:45 AM

O.K.! I think I figured out why Romney pulled the "I agree with the President..." card out...

...during the last debate. It all makes sense now.

Here's the new RW strategy.

Have Mitt say he agrees with the President and just about everything during the last debate so that anyone in the center, who still on the fence, but usually votes Repulican't, will just say to themselves, "Well, both Romney and the President agree on just about everything anyway, so I'm just going to vote the way I usually do (Republican)..."

So, that's my guess, they are counting on the politically "lazy vote" to break for Romney.

Make sense?

Well, just wanted to share that before I went to bed, will respond to replies when I wake up.

16 replies, 1422 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply O.K.! I think I figured out why Romney pulled the "I agree with the President..." card out... (Original post)
Up2Late Oct 2012 OP
demwing Oct 2012 #1
mercuryblues Oct 2012 #2
unc70 Oct 2012 #3
alc Oct 2012 #4
randome Oct 2012 #5
mercuryblues Oct 2012 #6
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #7
mercuryblues Oct 2012 #8
dems_rightnow Oct 2012 #11
mercuryblues Oct 2012 #12
Enrique Oct 2012 #9
Bucky Oct 2012 #10
Up2Late Oct 2012 #14
Barack_America Oct 2012 #13
kentuck Oct 2012 #15
Lucinda Oct 2012 #16

Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 06:31 AM

1. logical but...

I don't think they expected Romney to get such an ass woopong. Progect fail!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 07:26 AM

2. When someone

is out of ideas, they fall back on what is comfortable to them. rMoney used this strategy with Ted Kennedy and it was a failure. For him to try it during the debate means it has worked enough for him at times to think it was a good idea. To me, that speaks volumes on his leadership style.

He takes other people's ideas and passes them off as his own and believes no one will notice. What he fails to recognize is people do notice but because of who he is, they don't bring that to his attention.


If he thought that by agreeing with Obama he could get indepent voters, he was sadly mistaken. What it showed is that he is willing to throw away his positions for personal. How well will that work when negotiating with China? Most of all it showed he was weak, if he can't stand and fight for what he believes in, he will be begging on his knees. Americans want a negotiator, not a beggar. Even bush with his 'with us or against us' public attitude is more preferable to the indies and undecided voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:22 AM

3. Routinely see at places like wral.com

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:27 AM

4. moves the choice to the econonmy

Anyone on the fence thinking Obama is safer for foreign affairs, or at least better than taking a risk with an unknown, can feel ok about foreign affairs and decide on economy if they think Romney will be the same on foreign affairs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:31 AM

5. I usually don't like to indulge in excessive speculation but...

...I'm starting to get the feeling that Gloria Allred truly is going to have some damaging info released in court this morning -if the hearing goes her way.

I think Romney looked like a whipped dog at the debate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #5)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 08:59 AM

6. speculation has it

That rMoney testified in the divorce case of the Staples founder and CEO. He testified what the stock was worth.The ex-wife got X amt of shares in the settlement. She sold a bit of them right before the stock went public, most likely around the price rMoney testified they were worth. I think rMoney placed a low price on the shares in court and when they were going public a short time later placed a high value on them. Essentially screwing her in the divorce. The staples founder is a huge supporter of rMoney, so I don't think it was an affair.

rMoney testifies in court that they were worth a pittance, then files with the SEC that they were worth their weight in gold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:02 AM

7. If he undervalued them

Wouldn't his friends wife have received more than she was entitled to? That seems counter intuitive to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #7)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:09 AM

8. yes

but she sold at least 1/2 of the shares before they went public. If she sold them at the value rMoney placed on them, she lost money.

I had not thought of the opposite being a possibility. But it could also be that scenerio. She got fewer shares, sold them and when Staples went public she realized she should have gotten more. Either way shows rMoney either lied in his testimony or to the SEC. I lean towards court testimony. He and the Staples founder are tight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mercuryblues (Reply #8)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:22 AM

11. Interesting

I also had not considered your scenario.

They almost HAVE to be either over or undervalued. Valuing a stock that doesn't trade on a market has a lot of guesswork involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dems_rightnow (Reply #11)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:42 AM

12. it is guess work

If he varied greatly on the worth is the key.

Some media outlets are saying it was his testimony in a child custody case, so this line of speculation could all be moot. It is after 9AM on the East Coast, so we shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:13 AM

9. it is because Obama has been so hawkish

he has put Romney in a bind. If they try to go to the right of him on foreign policy, they will have to become crazy people. Which is what they are doing when no one is paying attention, when they talk to RW radio for example. But at the debates, normal people are watching so they can't do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:20 AM

10. Right, the fanatics are already voting for him, tho they gotta bite their tongues to do it

He's trying to break loose a few moderates who've bought into the "Obama's increasing the size of the government" malarkey but are scared that the neocons will come in with Mittens and start a new war. But guess what, the same vacuousness that made Romney shadow Obama thru the 3rd debate will also leave the door open for the neocons, posing as "experienced foreign policy hands" from the last GOP administration, to come in and dominate Romney's FP, too.

"John Yoo part 2" in other words.

And Romney's already promising to bulk up the Navy to facilitate those new wars. The word "wars" by the way is the Republican code word for stimulus package.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bucky (Reply #10)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:41 PM

14. Man, I hope not, most of those Neo-cons should be in Prison.

NOT teaching Law school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 09:46 AM

13. I made this pic last night.



It could read, "The same foreign policy you support, now repackaged in a white candidate".

I know it's horribly cynical, but I think there's some truth to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:45 PM

15. I agree..

And the media is playing it the same way. They are saying that neither candidate has an agenda for the next election while they play ads of Romney saying that Obama does not have an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Up2Late (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2012, 02:47 PM

16. Yep. And the base wont care that he looks left, as long as they win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread