.

Poll: What Did You Think Of Mitt Romney's Acceptance Speech?

The Republican presidential nominee criticized President Obama and laid out his plan to create jobs

Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney formally accepted the Republican nomination for president Thursday night at the party's convention in Tampa, Florida.

In his speech, Romney criticized President Obama for not leading the country in the right direction the past four years.

He also laid out his five-point plan to create 12 million jobs in the United States.

The entire text of Romney's speech can be found here.

What did you think of the Republican nominee's speech? Vote in our poll and discuss the speech in our comments section.

Mark D September 03, 2012 at 09:47 PM
I would like Fred to give a citation of just how many times voter fraud has actually occurred, and whether the frequency is sufficiently high enough to warrant voter fraud suppression laws.
Mark D September 03, 2012 at 09:51 PM
No need for slippery slopes and false analogies here.
Albert Rubio September 03, 2012 at 10:05 PM
I am neither Democrat nor Republican. Clint I think did a pretty good job pointing out Obama's record on Gitmo and the wars. 1. He promised to close Gitmo but didn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8USRg3h4AdE 2. Clint mentioned Obama gave a timetable for bringing troops home from Afghanistan, and the Romney question is a good one, Why not bring the troops home now? Obama promised to end the war immediately upon taking office but didn't http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WYTKj8pU5M&feature=related The war is over (officially) now but only recently. Bush could have done the same by now. It shows me that Democrats and Republican parties have the same foreign policy. There were so many (Democrat) demonstrators against the war (rightfully so) but why did they not push Obama to keep his promise to end the wars??? Why don't they push him now concerning Afghanistan??? on War, Romney will do the same as Obama, as Obama did the same as Bush .
Albert Rubio September 03, 2012 at 10:29 PM
Dalamar, >We the People cannot afford another 4 years of 19 th century distribution of wealth. Remember what that brought us in 2008? Bush’s Depression, Economic collapse, not 1 but 2 wars, and a huge deficit just to mention a few things. 1. the 19th century saw the greatest rate of increase in the standard of living for the average man. What is wrong with that? Without Capitalism, there would be hardly any wealth to distribute and you would kill the golden goose in the process. 2. Obama has not improved Bush's depression. He has made it worse. 3. Economic collapse is still on the menu. 4. War is still on the Menu. (see previous post) is it your goal to be just a partisan noise maker? Both parties are responsible for the mess we are in and neither is admitting their mistakes and you are looking the other way and attacking phantoms.
Dalamar September 04, 2012 at 02:04 AM
Hello Albert. Please refer this link to answer your #1. seekingalpha.com/.../21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-... This link for your #2. www.foreignpolicy.com/.../how_republicans_sabotaged_the_recover I think the link for #1 also answers #3. This link for your #4. https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/05/02-6 I am not a partisan noise maker. Merely pointing out things others do not. The choice is up to the reader to review /research my links or information I post. My guess is those who already decided the monarch is their choice will only post meaningless sarcastic comments. Remember my words when you see Proposition 32 on the ballot. This brings the organization ALEC very close to home. ALEC sponsored the bill and guess who sponsors ALEC. Read the fine print, Proposition 32 sole intent is to dismantle all labor unions in California to prevent working people from having a voice. Pay very close attention to this Proposition and what it means to all of us, especially union workers. As for non-union voters, don’t be short sighted. This proposition WILL eventually affect everyone if it passes. ALEC is supported by the Plutocracy/Oligarchy of this country and they have an agenda and it is to subvert democracy. It is an affront to all regardless of your politics and party affiliation. No politician who is associated with this organization should be anywhere near a public office. A vote for Romney is a vote for Plutocracy/Oligarchy
Albert Rubio September 04, 2012 at 02:55 AM
Dalimar, To be fair in debate, you must understand opposing views accurately and without distortion (not easy). Honestly, I am not attacking you, but you are wildly partisan and mis-representative of other ideas Especially related to economics which is the KEY to these problems. I believe you have good intentions, but you play the strong partisan and don't seem aware of it. Keep in mind, this is from someone who is not a Republican. 1. The wealth gap is meaningless. Your focus on it indicates a Marxist point of view. Please tell me if you consider yourself a Marxist or other. Equality of wealth is not a market phenomena and if you aim at it you aim at abolishing voluntary trade (capitalism). please admit or explain! To be fair and accurate, Corporatism is bad, but don't conflate it with Capitalism! 2. From your link: "the Republican Party had about as scientific an approach to the economy as medieval alchemists did to the periodic table." ... And so do you until you start from sound economic ideas. This amounts to babbling. (Economics in One lesson, its free, just download and Read it.) 4. Your link agrees with me. War is on the menu and Obama is responsible (as Bush) for its continuation. He had the power since day One to stop it. NOTE: if you have no intention of reading the book you can say so and disregard my future posts. I will keep pointing out fallacies for the benefit of others and not to pick on you. Regards
srl99 September 04, 2012 at 03:49 AM
Mark D - you are right. I should have referenced Terry Gilliam's Brazil.
Darwinian Justice September 04, 2012 at 04:08 AM
Anytime, anyplace.
Larry Kinslow September 04, 2012 at 04:28 AM
It figures! You just don't understand!
Jack Manes September 04, 2012 at 05:45 AM
I gotta laugh at all this nonsense about how bad Obama is and how he didn't do anything. He didn't fail, Congress are the ones who failed. Obama asked Congress on numerous occasions to act in a responsible and a bi-partisan manner to get things going. The house Republicans in effect said "screw you". In 2009 when Obama gave a speech in Congress Rep Joe Wilson from South Carolina shouted out "You lie". From day one the Republicans have shown nothing but disrespect and damn near brought this country to bankruptcy.
Albert Rubio September 04, 2012 at 06:12 AM
>AMERICA FOR SALE TO THE HIGHEST BIDDERS. You will find me very hard to convince that these big money campaign investors are doing this for the "good of the country" Even good intentions will not effect the good the country without sound and proper knowledge and principles. The problem is intrinsic to the interfering State. If it did not have the power to impose on business and the economy, then big money would have little interest in elections. The solution is a separation of the state from interfering in commerce, yet this is contrary to the political philosophy of both parties and so they cause the very problem. "The belief that there prevails an irreconcilable conflict of group interests is age-old. It was the essential proposition of Mercantilist doctrine. Mercantilism was a philosophy of war. The Nazis promise us peace for the time after their final victory, when all other nations and races will have learned that their place in society is to serve as slaves of the Master Race. The Marxians promise us peace for the time after the final victory of the proletarians. Our age is full of serious conflicts of economic group interests. But these conflicts are not inherent in the operation of an unhampered capitalist economy. They are brought about by the fact that mankind has gone back to group privileges and thereby to a new caste system." --Ludwig von Mises. The Clash of Group Interests
Jack Manes September 04, 2012 at 02:52 PM
Here are the problems confronting this country. Its up to congress to get things moving. http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/back-to-school-letter-to-the-us-congress-by-mohamed-a--el-erian
Dalamar September 04, 2012 at 05:34 PM
Hello Albert, First I will reiterate. Capitalism in and of itself is not bad. It's what people choose to do within capitalism and their wealth which creates a lot of the dogma and conflict. Let us begin where we can agree. "Corporatocracy--in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning notwithstanding the 'free market' label." This is why the Koch brothers, the SuperPAC club and ALEC are a threat to democracy. Ergo a threat to true capitalism. Using political means to mold markets to be favorable to their own corporations, there is no free market competition. Lack of true competition leads to the accumulation of wealth to those who have the political influence, which funds further political influence. It is a cycle. .
Albert Rubio September 05, 2012 at 06:24 AM
Dalamar, Good Start. We are both against Corporatism. Would you agree that the Democratic party (ignoring the Republicans for now) is guilty of "using political means to mold markets" (subsidies, regulations, prohibitions, punitive taxation, monopolies, socialism) even for supposed good causes ?? Do you oppose this? Do you support free markets? (free markets = capitalism = voluntary trade) Also, could you please explain or give me a link specifying why you have such a problem with the Koch brothers? I would like to know more about this point. Thanks
Trader Lu September 05, 2012 at 07:39 AM
Albert...Let's say that those in office stopped using the "political means to mold markets" that you enumerated. Yes, we would have a better form of free market capitalism than we have now. However, unless we do away with "income tax," we will never attain a more "purer" form of capitalism. Those who make laws and have the power to tweak the tax code will always be a target of seduction by the lobbyists. This ability to manipulate the tax code gives politicians an enormous amount of power and allows them to get favors and donations from these corporations. It is difficult to get a significant amount of elected officials to seriously consider a "national sales tax" because it is harder to carve out exceptions for small groups of monetarily endowed entities.
Dalamar September 05, 2012 at 01:58 PM
Hello Albert, Yes I agree the Democratic party (and some individual republicans, though few) uses political means to mold markets generally for good causes, successful or not. I think it would not be fair to answer a yes or no whether or not I oppose these actions. We would have to address each policy and I know there's no possibility to have that conversation here. So I will answer like this; I agree with most of their policies. There exists a compromise of supporting these policies and allowing free markets. I believe the evidence is in the fact there does exist a "1%" in our political/market theater despite being under the current "restrictive conditions". Would you also agree on the following premise? In a truly free market all 'players' have to play fair. However, I think it is realistic to say not all 'players' do play fair. Whether it's privatizing profits while socializing the costs of environmental damages, health risks to consumers, falsifying product advertised claims, or safety. Thus enter the molding of markets. This is one of the more informative links about the Koch brothers; www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/.../koch_brothers.pdf Some might take the delivery of the information to be moderate leftist, but regardless of the delivery the information is factual. It is based on this information I am concerned. Thank you.
Constance Dobbins-Lowery September 05, 2012 at 06:10 PM
I wonder if anyone is ever going to admit that it was the Bush Administration (Republicans) that screwed this country up in the 1st place? The Republicans are funny. They were not angry when they saw this country going down in flames during the Bush Administration and now you expect President Obama to clean it up in 4 years with a Republican House??? The expectation is unrealistic in my opinion. Can Gov Romney really create 12 million jobs during his 1st year in office? He has yet to state how and if he is so in love with the success of America then why doesn't he share his brilliant plan with President Obama. Are we really just that stupid to buy into the "republicans can make the world better" hype? Unless we have some bi-partisanship, it doesn't really matter who wins - "house rules". We are so busy being loyal to a political party that we are no longer loyal to the success of this country. Here is my summary of the last 4 years: Complain about the problem (Republicans) Try to fix the problem (Obama) Block the problem from being fixed (Republicans) Complain about the problem not being fixed (Republicans) Sadly, it will be the opposite if the Democrats control the house and Romney wins... The speech was political because that's what politicians do....the goal is to sell us an ideology and nothing more. The debates will be interesting.... - C
David September 05, 2012 at 06:38 PM
You realize that Obama had a filibuster-proof Senate (60 Dems) and a huge House majority until 2010, and the Dems still have 53 Senate seats?
David September 05, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Romney & Ryan have detailed plans that they believe will improve the economy. Obama as far as I can tell has only one: raise taxes (oh, and deny obvious job-creating projects like the Keystone Pipeline). If you think raising taxes and jacking up the bureaucratic regulatory Leviathan will help, well, it's gotten California this far--to a second - highest in the country unemployment rate.
Albert Rubio September 06, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Trader Lu, I agree, I am opposed to the income tax. A very low consumption or sales tax seems to be most equitable. My personal feeling is that all levels of the state combined should not consume more than about 5% of GDP, today it is about 10 times that much. An interesting thought is that if we pretend to abolish the entire Federal Budget, there would still be a lot of taxes and government left over.
Albert Rubio September 06, 2012 at 02:33 AM
Dalamar, > I agree with most of their policies. Then you approve of "using political means to mold markets" like your opponents, you just think your interventions are better. This however I argue is an arbitrary position. Reading economics in one lesson (EIOL) would reveal the fallacies involved in the most common Economic policies. >There exists a compromise of supporting these policies and allowing free markets. This is a logical contradiction. One cannot have it both ways. Either you "mold markets" or let them free. >Would you also agree on the following premise? In a truly free market all 'players' have to play fair. My answer is that the word 'fair' is seductive. It is a subjective notion and can have no objective meaning or standard. The line drawn by the Classical liberal thinkers is between violent and non-violent actions. Only violent actions (because they contradict the rights of others) are punished as self defense, but prohibiting peaceful acts is a violation of rights by the state itself. EIOL demonstrates how the work of the state in the economy can only be counter productive and oppressive. A voluntary market would more effectively be managed and self regulated by voluntary means. Thanks for the link, I will be looking at that later.
Albert Rubio September 06, 2012 at 03:45 AM
>I wonder if anyone is ever going to admit that it was the Bush Administration (Republicans) that screwed this country up in the 1st place? The Republicans are funny. They were not angry when they saw this country going down in flames during the Bush Administration and now you expect President Obama to clean it up in 4 years with a Republican House??? What's wrong with this partisan picture? Bush harmed the country, but not permanently, it is only right to hold Obama responsible for his own own term. For example he promised to end the war upon taking office. Democrats who protested (rightly) against Bush did not force Obama to keep his promise. WHY??? Obama was given the authority to go through with the promise that Democrats demanded from Bush. What is funny is that anyone supports either party. Their only success is promoting their intellectually bankrupt ideological fallacies.
Albert Rubio September 06, 2012 at 04:30 AM
Does anyone think this is funny? or distorted or misrepresented? is this president Obama cleaning things up after Bush??? Reality Check President Obama 1-on-1: How does he justify having a "kill list"? http://www.fox19.com/story/19456470/reality-check-president-obama-one-on-one-how-does-he-justify-having-a-kill-list#
Trader Lu September 06, 2012 at 04:54 AM
Albert, I defer to Benjamin Franklin, who said, "The only things certain in life are death and taxes." Yes, we would still be left with state and local taxes. There are only a few things that the Federal Gov't does well. Social services should be left to local governments if they choose to undertake them (most social services should be undertaken by the church). There is a lot more bang for your buck when their is local control and oversite. When everyone pays (such as required by sales taxes) then everyone has skin in the game. Waste would not be tolerated and the abusers are more easily routed out.
Trader Lu September 06, 2012 at 05:16 AM
Constance sure did not move in some of the same circles I did when the Republicans started overspending after 2004 and topped it off with "TARP." There was an increase in social programs and they didn't push back on Barney Frank's idea of giving everyone with a pulse a mortgaged home. They then felt it necessary to bail out the banking industry that they had forced to take on loans that they normally would have rejected. This is because the liberals always paint conservatives as being heartless and many politicians make decisions based on fear (of being characterized as mean-spirited). Many of us were really ticked off and when the Tea Party started up during the first months of Obama's reign (a lot of people woke up to the fact that his talk about retraining spending was pure falsehood), the movement took off. Conservatives from both parties and many Independents had enough.
Constance Dobbins-Lowery September 06, 2012 at 08:21 PM
Everyone is so ticked off with Obama. Everyone should have been mad sooner...and yes Obama is responsible for his Administrations... "You didn't get mad ....when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President. ...when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate Energy policy and push us to invade Iraq. ...when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. .... when we spent over 800 billion (and counting) on said illegal war. ....when Bush borrowed more money from foreign sources than the previous 42 Presidents combined. ...when over 10 billion dollars in cash just disappeared in Iraq. ... when Bush embraced trade and outsourcing policies that shipped 6 million American jobs out of the country. ... when they didn't catch Bin Laden. ... when Bush rang up 10 trillion dollars in combined budget and current account deficits. ....when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. .... when we let a major US city, New Orleans, drown. .... when we gave people who had more money than they could spend, the 1%, over a trillion dollars in tax breaks. .... with the worst 8 years of job creations in several decades. .... when over 200,000 US Citizens lost their lives because they had no health insurance. .... when lack of oversight and regulations from the Bush Administration caused US Citizens to lose 12 trillion dollars in investments, retirement, and home values" - author unknown
Constance Dobbins-Lowery September 06, 2012 at 08:22 PM
@ David...could you please kindly point me to the plan that Romney & Ryan have put together...I would love to read it. Send any links that you have.
Albert Rubio September 07, 2012 at 02:51 AM
The republicans have a lot to account for, for which they have not come clean, however, many of the things you cite are very partisan and erroneous points.
Albert Rubio September 07, 2012 at 02:52 AM
Democrats Retreat on Civil Liberties in 2012 Platform "In 2008, Democrats were eager to draw a contrast with what they then portrayed as Republican excesses in the fight against Al Qaeda. Since then, the Obama administration has in many cases continued the national security policies of its predecessor—and the Democratic Party's 2012 platform highlights this reversal, abandoning much of the substance and all of the bombast of the 2008 platform. Here are a few places where the differences are most glaring:" * Indefinite Detention * Warrantless Surveillance/PATRIOT Act * Gitmo * Racial Profiling in Fighting Terrorism * Torture http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform
Bobby September 23, 2012 at 03:56 AM
KC Democrats get California no matter what

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »