Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,025 posts)
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:13 AM Aug 2012

Why didn't the Republicans vet Romney more thoroughly?

They had the chance during their debates and nominating process but they simply refused to go there. They knew there were questions about his taxes and his business practices. But they refused to address the problems head on and Romney walked away with the nomination. Now they are stuck with a big question mark.

They have a nominee who prefers to put his money in Switzerland, the Caymans, and Jamaica, rather than America. He is an expert at manipulating the tax code, perhaps even bordering on tax evasion? He is totally out of touch with average Americans and has shown himself void of any tact or diplomacy in foreign policy.

Nobody knows how much wealth he has, but Harry Reid has stated that it is much more than the estimated $250 million dollars. He is more secretive than Richard Nixon. He embarrasses Thurston Howell with his flaunting of his wealth. The saddest part of the entire process is that so many people actually support this guy. If there were no political Parties, he would not get 5% of the support of the people.

27 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why didn't the Republicans vet Romney more thoroughly? (Original Post) kentuck Aug 2012 OP
Who is 'they'? randome Aug 2012 #1
You presume that there is a board that makes the choice, there's no such thing 1-Old-Man Aug 2012 #2
Because they suck at vetting tridim Aug 2012 #3
Why didn't the Godfather vet 'Fredo more thoroughly? sofa king Aug 2012 #4
I think they're focusing on 2016... SidDithers Aug 2012 #5
Oh, come on, Sid. randome Aug 2012 #8
Because attacking "business" is the third rail of Republican politics... rfranklin Aug 2012 #6
they counted on Obama not pushing the issue Enrique Aug 2012 #7
+1, this is the other logical conclusion..that Obama campaign would sit quite uponit7771 Aug 2012 #22
Vice Presidential Nominees Get Vetted, Presidential Primary Candidates Don't Vogon_Glory Aug 2012 #9
The least-lousy candidate Freddie Aug 2012 #11
Because he was the last man standing. TheCowsCameHome Aug 2012 #10
But If R-money Implodes, Hopefully, We'll See Vogon_Glory Aug 2012 #14
White, male, rich, will say anything, greedy as fuck, has an (R) next to his name. What's to vet? TheKentuckian Aug 2012 #12
You are right - he was vetted DBoon Aug 2012 #19
They did. He was the cream of the crop this time around. Lil Missy Aug 2012 #13
They figured all they needed was a white guy treestar Aug 2012 #15
Its his turn. That's usually how the GOP does it. JoePhilly Aug 2012 #16
The one brain they share was busy rock Aug 2012 #17
Because they think the American people are dumb enought to buy what they're selling nt auburngrad82 Aug 2012 #18
Because they thought they would get away with stealing the election malaise Aug 2012 #20
He's a MENTAL CASE LIAR, he most likely lied to them too uponit7771 Aug 2012 #21
They got Bush the Lesser and Reagan elected? bemildred Aug 2012 #23
well, look at his opposition? many thought he was the best of a very sorry lot. WI_DEM Aug 2012 #24
Put this in proper perspective mick063 Aug 2012 #25
They did. He is "less" crazy than the rest of their clowns. He would have been the most acceptable still_one Aug 2012 #26
It's worse than that. Romney is characteristic of the entire system. yardwork Aug 2012 #27
 

randome

(34,845 posts)
1. Who is 'they'?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:22 AM
Aug 2012

I keep asking the question of who is in running the GOP and no one can answer.

It sure as hell isn't Karl Rove.

No one is driving the clown car. That's why this is the perfect opportunity to set the GOP back even further this election.

1-Old-Man

(2,667 posts)
2. You presume that there is a board that makes the choice, there's no such thing
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:22 AM
Aug 2012

There are competing interests in the Republican Party just as there are in the Democratic Party, no one 'vets' the candidate. It is the Primary voters who make the choice and because the Primary elections are strung out over a period of months you really don't see voters in one state making their choices based on the same information as voters from other states. That and mis-reporting of Primary Election results on the Republican side likely skewed the results of the later elections.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
3. Because they suck at vetting
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:26 AM
Aug 2012

The proof? History.

And also most republicans are already so corrupt that none of them would pass a typical vetting.

sofa king

(10,857 posts)
4. Why didn't the Godfather vet 'Fredo more thoroughly?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:28 AM
Aug 2012

Same thing. We have a criminal born into a crime family working for a criminal party, and to the criminal party's surprise, the criminal the were forced to pick is a criminal and--Surprise!--being untrustworthy.

Now I'm seeing Republicans tossing up the "my cat's breath smells like cat food" complaint. Well, what did you expect from the people who stole two elections and killed half a million innocent people? Do they think the guy who wins that nomination is gonna give everyone a free sundae? No, he's going to steal the ice cream from your refrigerator. That's what they do.

Romney the criminal wasn't pleased about losing the last nomination process to McCain. So he did what all good criminals do: he gamed the system so that nobody could steal what was rightfully his to steal. It apparently never occurred to him that his personal conduct might be called into question at a later stage of the process, so he didn't bother to address that.

And why should he, when he can simply muddy the waters by lying about it?

SidDithers

(44,228 posts)
5. I think they're focusing on 2016...
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:29 AM
Aug 2012

Romney is a placeholder, easily thrown to the wolves, because they didn't see any real chance of beating Obama in 2012.

Sid

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
8. Oh, come on, Sid.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:33 AM
Aug 2012

You mean they 'planned' from the outset to lose the election? If 'they' had any plans, they would have run someone credible during the Primary.

There is no 'they' there.

 

rfranklin

(13,200 posts)
6. Because attacking "business" is the third rail of Republican politics...
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:30 AM
Aug 2012

They know where there money comes from and they did not want to open up that can of worms. You can see how President Obama has had "businessmen" turn on him because he has dared to mouth the most mild of criticisms about the one percent.

uponit7771

(90,271 posts)
22. +1, this is the other logical conclusion..that Obama campaign would sit quite
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 09:39 AM
Aug 2012

...and be ran over like Kerry did

Vogon_Glory

(9,105 posts)
9. Vice Presidential Nominees Get Vetted, Presidential Primary Candidates Don't
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:33 AM
Aug 2012

I think that the simple answer is that vice presidential nominees get vetted, presidential candidates don't. They don't because they don't have to. If you want to become your party's presidential nominee, you get the necessary number of signatures, fill out the paperwork (And keep it up to date), set up a campaign organization, start spending money and hustling voters and away you go.

R-money didn't get vetted because he didn't have to, not in the way that guys like Robert Dole or George HW Bush had to be (And Dan Quayle. And Sarah Palin. ). Mitt-sie looks likely to get nominated because he seems to be the least-lousy candidate Republican primary voters decided to vote for.

Hopefully the Republicans will do the country a favor and nominate Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum the next time around.

Freddie

(9,247 posts)
11. The least-lousy candidate
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:49 AM
Aug 2012

That says it all!
Besides, he's been running for President for at least 6 years now, you'd think his past would be quite well known by now. Oops.

TheCowsCameHome

(40,166 posts)
10. Because he was the last man standing.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:36 AM
Aug 2012

Just look at the field they offered in the primaries - by comparison, Rmoney was a shining star.

Vogon_Glory

(9,105 posts)
14. But If R-money Implodes, Hopefully, We'll See
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:58 AM
Aug 2012

But if Divine Providence is kind to the USA, should R-money's presidential campaign goes down a black hole, hopefully one of those lesser stars will attract enough Republican primary votes to be their presidential candidate in 2016.

I'm hoping for Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or Rick Santorum against the Hill or Elizabeth Warren.

TheKentuckian

(25,003 posts)
12. White, male, rich, will say anything, greedy as fuck, has an (R) next to his name. What's to vet?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 08:56 AM
Aug 2012

For real, the anti-Willard forces just couldn't come together on a candidate or he'd have been bounced way back.

They are also a bit of a mess talent-wise. They don't have much better than Weird Willard, Rubio (has a melanin problem), Christy who is a newbie and has control problems, Paul Ryan with the reality problem, and a few boring and unpopular fundy governors that are most viable due to lack of exposure.

DBoon

(22,315 posts)
19. You are right - he was vetted
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 09:30 AM
Aug 2012

From their perspective,there is nothing wrong with him - wealthy, entitled, self-centered prick. Just like one of them - so no problem.

rock

(13,218 posts)
17. The one brain they share was busy
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 09:20 AM
Aug 2012

It was first base in a baseball game. No, I don't mean it was playing first base, I mean it WAS first base.

malaise

(268,316 posts)
20. Because they thought they would get away with stealing the election
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 09:37 AM
Aug 2012

but that's not going to happen

bemildred

(90,061 posts)
23. They got Bush the Lesser and Reagan elected?
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 10:27 AM
Aug 2012

And they didn't really expect to have to play defense much. When you own the MSM, it's easy to get complacent.

 

mick063

(2,424 posts)
25. Put this in proper perspective
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 10:34 AM
Aug 2012

Remember the GOP debates? Remember that train wreck?

After each poll leader self destructed, Mitt was the sole survivor. The entire field was vetted and the GOP cream rose to the top. In other words, he was the only "electable" survivor. Mitt was the best they had to offer.

We are not seeing the vetting of a presidential candidate. We are seeing the vetting of an entire political party. When they can get past being stupid, they will put up a formidable foe. As it is, Mitt's money backers are the only advantage for the GOP. They fail in every other category.

still_one

(92,017 posts)
26. They did. He is "less" crazy than the rest of their clowns. He would have been the most acceptable
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:04 AM
Aug 2012

to independents, but his elitist and selfish views is what the republican party today is, so though he is not as rabid as the others he still expresses wing nut opinions


yardwork

(61,495 posts)
27. It's worse than that. Romney is characteristic of the entire system.
Fri Aug 10, 2012, 11:09 AM
Aug 2012

You might as well have posted "Why didn't Wall Street vet their business practices more thoroughly?" After all, the economy of the world depends on these men - they are all men, almost all of whom are white - following their own rules. But they didn't. They lied and cheated on a scale that is unimaginable to the average person.

Same with the corporations. They've sold themselves to China, they've laid off millions and moved the manufacturing overseas to countries where they are allowed to employ what is essentially, if not actually, slave labor, and nobody says boo. Where is the government? Oh yeah, that would be "protectionism." That would interfere with "the free market." Can't have that - that might be "socialist."

Romney's candidacy is just the next logical step.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Why didn't the Republican...