Romney or Obama and why

[Adinnieken]

TadpoleJackson said:

Adinnieken said:

I doubt that.  If the media didn't harp on the fact that Michelle Bachman just became a Swedish citizen, then I doubt they'll harp on the issue of whether or not Jindal is a citizen or not.

Having said that, I highly doubt Jindal would run.  He didn't do too well on the public stage in 2008, so I'm not sure anyone on either side was that impressed with him.

Jeb Bush, if he ran and Chris Christie would be a strong likelihood.  I doubt any far-right candidates like Ryan, Cantor, or DeMint would win in a general election.

Why would they care about Bachman? She wasn't a Swedish citizen when she was running for president. Had she been, I'm sure it would have been another story entirely.  What happened in 2008 that would discourage him from running? I did a quick check on Wiki and all I could find was that he was in the running to maybe be the running mate. And he chose to sit out this election so he could run for governorship again. 

Adinnieken said:

The problem is, the Obama campaign will take what he said in the primary and use it against him.  Not only that, but they'll take what he said in 2008, then what he said in 2012, and then take whatever he says during the general election and show how he panders.  Compare, contrast, then add in Romney saying how he's allowed to evolve his opinions over the past four years and suddenly you have the guy looking pretty hillariously bad.  If you don't believe me, watch the Daily Show, because that's what they do pretty regularly.  Show a clip of Romney saying one thing, then show him saying the exact opposite.  Which Romney will voters be voting for?  Is it a toss of the coin based on whatever way the wind blows?

That really didn't seem to bother anyone when Santorum tried that tactic. Romney has the nice advantage of being a pretty liberal republican. So his past will likely grab some of the disenfranchised Democrats, and independents. While having that huge chunk of Repub voters that will vote for him just because he isn't Obama. 

Legally there isn't anything wrong with holding dual citizenship.  The only question is whether or not a politician could, simply because as a dual citizen you have the obligation to both nations to follow and adhere to the rules of both countries.

It might have been in 2010, Jindal did the follow-up to the State of the Union address.  He didn't do well, and since then has kind of disappeared from the national spotlight.

In the Republican Primaries it isn't as important as it in during the General Election.  Though I don't seem to recall Santorum flip-flopping, I do recall him saying some pretty outrageous stuff.  That being said, it'll be used against him like it was used against John Kerry in 2004.

As to Romney's moderate status, unfortunately again I believe he has painted himself into a corner during the Primary.  First in taking stronger far-right stances, and second by having people endores him as either a true conservative, or the only conservative, rather than being a moderate.  So, when everyone endorsing you is sitting there and saying "He's a conservative", how do you then go to the general electorate and say "I'm a moderate!" without looking like you're pandering?  You can't. 

If it were the Democrats calling Romney a conservative, then that would be a horse of a different color.  In the 2008 election Republican's tried desperately to paint Obama as a liberal Democrat.  He didn't let that label bother him, and as President he's actually moderate not liberal.  When the label is from without, you can overcome that label, but when it's from within, it's extremely difficult to shuck that label.  "Are we not suppose to trust the word of the people endorsing you?" is the question it raises.  Again, he's in a corner.