Romney: Time to put Obama behind us

Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan, his wife Janna, Ann Romney and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney wave to delegates following Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's speech during the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., on Thursday, Aug. 30, 2012.

/ AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

(CBS News) In his first speech as the Republican Party's official presidential nominee, Mitt Romney on Thursday delivered an uncharacteristically personal plea for the presidency, outlining his vision for the nation's future while vowing to "put the disappointments of the last four years behind us."

Romney, who jubilantly made his way onstage after making his way through the crowd, spoke of love, unity, and religion as he pledged to help Americans and their families.

He also offered a harsh rebuke of what he cast as President Obama's "disappointing" tenure in the White House, targeting his rival on health care, the economy, foreign policy, and educational policies. He also touched on social issues, promising to respect the "sanctity of life," and the "institution of marriage."

Clint Eastwood's Republican convention surprise
Rubio: Romney will bring a new beginning
Romney friends describe his faith and compassion
Jeb Bush: America's future depends on better education

Couching his criticisms of Mr. Obama in relatively benign language, the Republican nominee said he did "wish" the president had been able to make good on his message of "hope and change," but wondered whether voters still felt as "excited" about the administration as they did four years ago.

"His promises gave way to disappointment and division. This isn't something we have to accept," said Romney. "You know there's something wrong with the kind of job he's done as president when the best feeling you had was the day you voted for him."

Assuring voters a better future under his direction, Romney laid out a vision for an America where "all things" are possible and "big dreams" remain within reach, and outlined a five-step plan he said would create 12 million jobs in America.

"To the majority of Americans who now believe that the future will not be better than the past, I can guarantee you this: if Barack Obama is re-elected, you will be right," he said. "I am running for president to help create a better future. A future where everyone who wants a job can find one. Where no senior fears for the security of their retirement. An America where every parent knows that their child will get an education that leads them to a good job and a bright horizon."

In the hours leading up to Romney's address, friends and acquaintances told personal stories about the candidate and his family, and his speech seemed designed to make him appear more relatable to candidates.

Relating a handful of anecdotes about his wife and children, his Mormon faith, his experience as a business man, and his parents, Romney made a rare effort to shed light on his values, his personal history, and what drives him as a person and as a politician.

"My mom and dad were true partners, a life lesson that shaped me by everyday example," he said. "When my mom ran for the Senate, my dad was there for her every step of the way. I can still hear her saying in her beautiful voice, 'Why should women have any less say than men, about the great decisions facing our nation?'"

He also touted the number of women in his staff, before giving shout-outs to female politicians who spoke at the convention earlier in the week.

Earlier this week, a CBS News poll suggested that Romney suffers from an empathy gap among voters, 32 percent of whom said they felt they did not "know" whether they had a favorable or unfavorable view of the candidate. Polls also show a significant gender gap for the candidate.

Capping off his remarks moments before being joined onstage by running mate Paul Ryan, Romney called on Americans to help him restore "that America" - that is "the best within each of us. That America we want for our children."

"If I am elected President of these United States, I will work with all my energy and soul to restore that America, to lift our eyes to a better future," he vowed, amid deafening applause from the crowd. "That future is our destiny. That future is out there. It is waiting for us."

[Resin-Smoker]

Just about every time a Republican is elected to office, the United States has been involoved in a war. So far Obama has done fairly well considering that not only hasn't the US been involved in a new conflict but Obama tryed to remove the US from the two conlicts the Bush administration illegally created.

Should Romney be elected, I have no doubt that the US will be fighing in Syria and later Iran. For this reason alone, I'll not be voting for Romney. Now while I have no real opinion of Israel, I don't think the US should be pushed into yet another meaningless conflict just to placate an ally that isnt capable of exsiting without direct US finacial support.

As things stand now the US is far too generious with it's "Allies" and far to lenient the misbehavior of global banks and it's corporate supporters. The pursute of the status-que must end and the CEO's should be held criminally accountable for their actions.

[wayneonly]

Let me start out by saying that I am a Christian. I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior. However, I find it hard to relate to the radical Christian right. While I don't believe in abortion for most cases, I would not subject a victim of rape or incest to carry an unwanted child nor would I force a mother to die to carry a child to term.

Now let me paint a portrait of a Romney/Ryan/GOP America for you. Although Romney says he would allow abortion for rape and incest victims, the GOP (at THEIR convention) adopted a platform of being against abortion FOR ANY REASON. Given Romney's propensity for "flip flopping, I believe he would go for his party's policy of outlawing abortion for any reason. Thousands of young girls and endangered mothers would be forced to break the law or carry unwanted babies to term. In effect, the government would say that they own the woman's body and her child. Yet Romney wants to eliminate programs that would support that baby and it's mother.

Romney/Ryan/GOP policies would eliminate regulations for offshore drilling, fracking, gas exploration, coal mining or any mining, and many other environmental regulations. In fact, he has proposed eliminating the EPA or limiting its power to enforce regulations. These regulations protect our air, water, and our earth. They protect our health and they require the oil, gas and mining companies to protect our environment. Imagine a country where our air, water, trees, and even the earth were polluted by unregulated drilling, mining, and stripping. Do you want these large corporations to run wild, unregulated to rape the land? Romney would turn the big oil and mining companies loose to make huge profits at the expense of the environment. These are all fossil fuels with a big carbon footprint and they effect the air we breath, the water we drink, and the earth we live on. Do we want to join China as one of the worst polluting nations or do we want to promote our environmental conscience and the health of the world?

On that same line, Romney/Ryan would eliminate funding for "green" energy which would not only eliminate millions of jobs, but would also increase America's dependence on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are finite and we will someday run out of them. Yes, it is good for the oil and gas and coal companies, but it is detrimental to our environment and our health. And it advocates our leadership in advancing the technologies of "green" energies. America has long been an innovator in developing technologies, yet HE wants to abandon "green"energy to others. A classic example of short term gain (GREED) at the expense of long term good.

Romney/Ryan have vowed to reduce the SIZE of government. On the whole, that sounds like a notable cause. But let's look at their proposal. They would reduce the size of federal government by transferring most of the obligation to the states. But they would lower the deficit by reducing funds to those same states. Now states strapped for funds would have to either eliminate those programs or raise taxes. Whether it be property taxes or state income taxes, most of these will fall on the middle class. So, in effect, Romney has raised taxes on the middle class. He just used the states to do it.

Romney/Ryan/GOP policy claims that there is no proof of global warming. If there is no proof of global warming, they don't have to deal with it. So they can promote fossil fuels at the expense of "green"energies. Yet, science shows that the ice is melting, that climate IS changing, and it IS having a harmful effect on the world environment. Do we Americans want to bury our head in the sands with them. There will be plenty of sand when global warming takes full effect. This is long and I will have to continue in another post.

[wayneonly]

I'm back to continue the portrait of a Romney/Ryan/GOP America. I feel this is important for American voters to get a clear picture of what a Romney/Ryan/GOP government would be like and what America would look like under their administration.

Romney/Ryan/GOP has proposed tax cuts for the wealthiest of America claiming they are the JOB CREATORS. Yet they have had tax cuts under the Bush administration and they did not create jobs in America, in fact they sent millions of jobs overseas. The GOP has promoted "trickle down" economics for decades and it has not worked and still will not work. What businesses need for them to expand and hire more employees is CUSTOMERS and those customers can only come from one place. That is the middle class of the U.S. and the world. Yet, "trickle down" economics has caused the decline in both the numbers and the income of the middle class. With the decline in buying power of the middle class, business has lost its marketplace. More and more businesses are failing or cutting back because the market is just NOT THERE. Yet, Romney would give tax breaks to the wealthiest of as much as $250,000 and millions in tax breaks to large international corporations who have a dwindling marketplace.Will this help the economy? Will this put more people back to work? No, it will only line the pockets of the wealthiest and increase the bank accounts of the largest corporations who are making record profits. And alternately, the middle class will have to make up the taxes given the wealthiest. (See the previous statement about the size of government to see where these taxes will originate).

Let me bring up one more point about Romney/Ryan and the GOP policy. The GOP has always been anti-worker and especially anti-union. Some of you may be anti-union because of bad experience but most who are anti-union are because of anti-union propaganda. But every working man and woman needs to know that many of the "perks" or even the conditions they have in their working environment today are because of unions. Most of you are too young to know of the garment worker "sweat shops", the mining disasters in the eastern coal mines, disabled workers with no disability, and many other worker abuses. Unions are responsible for getting ALL workers the 40hr. workweek, overtime, health care, pensions, safe work environment, anti-harassment laws, and many other worker benefits. When you really look at the workers of America, you realize we are all in this together. We all want a decent wage, we all want a safe workplace free from harassment, and we all want the respect of our peers and our BOSSES. And we all want to go home with a sense of accomplishment and self worth. When you look at the "big money" supporters of the GOP you will recognize many who are openly anti-union (which ultimately translates into anti-worker) and some who are more covertly anti-union/worker. They are the party of the wealthy and they have duped many into thinking they have the working man's interests at heart. They do not and don't let them fool you, America.

[anarchteacher]

This article is disingenuous and a diversion. There is almost no difference between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on the real issues of substance.

Both Romney and Obama support:

Assassinating American citizens without due process;

The indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial, or attorney;

Warrantless spying on American citizens;

Federal restrictions on gun ownership;

The George W. Bush foreign policy of pre-emptive, unconstitutional, undeclared no-win wars of aggression;

Sending your money to foreign dictators to prop up their repressive regimes;

The racist War on Drugs responsible for more Americans being imprisoned than in any other nation;

Wall Street bank bailouts of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase which fund their campaigns;

Corporatism or crony capitalism, favoritism of privileged elite special interests, and the concept of "too big to fail."

Both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama oppose:

Balancing the budget in less than 30 years;

Paying down the $16 trillion dollar national debt;

Addressing the $222 trillion dollar unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. owed to present and future generations of Americans;

10th Amendment rights of states to make their own laws (medical marijuana, open carry) or nullify unconstitutional federal legislation (Obamacare, gun registration);

Ending the Federal Reserve banking system which destroys the financial integrity of the dollar while enabling the American empire overseas and its welfare-warfare State at-home.

[A_Canadian_Opinion]

Romney, get a watch, you don't know what time it really is. It' time for Obama to finish cleaning up the mess made by Bush and his Republican moron friends.

[nygurl1]

george - you are a dumb rep bigot.

[arthanyel]

by realtimecoffee August 31, 2012 6:16 PM EDT
Why didn't the Democrats block the tax cuts in the first place then Arth? The level of breastbeating and then smiling and waving on both sides is not hypocritical, it's business as usual in DC. We spent 3.5 Trillion this year. What we got from it was, "It could have been worse", and more killer debt for our grandchildren to spend their life suffering through.

----- cut here -----

I agree completely with you that both parties are in on the con, and that both parties are corrupt.

Regarding the tax expiration, there with the economy still fragile, and people still unhappy, no one wanted to expire the tax cuts on the middle class - the most important stimulant possible. Democrats would have allowed high income breaks to expire, Republicans blocked them.

Politically, neither side would accept full expiration - Democrats wouldn't want the fallout of raising taxes on the middle class in the middle of a recovery, and Republicans wouldn't accept raising taxes AT ALL.

[arthanyel]

realtimecoffee: I am an apocoloptimist - I think everything is going to $$%^$ but that it will turn out all right in the end :-)

We are in agreement that both parties are conning the poeple, and both will do whatever it takes to stay in power. The only MAJOR difference between them is that Democrats want to placate the masses enough to avoid a revolt, and Republicans want a big enough army to put down the revolt.

I also agree that in many (and potentially most) cases having the States and cities control more of the revenues and spending is a Good Thing. I have some severe concerns about the US remaining a world power (which 50 indepdent little countries (states) wound NOT be, and I have concerns about the level of basic fairness that could be in place (witness the nonsense in Texas and Wisconsin, and the voter suppression activities all over the country).

That said, I think it can be addressed - in the same way that a properly run big enterprise can address it. The federal gvoernment should only directly manage those functrions which are by definition required at the level of the nation (like the military, for example) and set the national POLICIES that are required (like enforcing the constitutional right to vote), but leave the detialed implementaitn to the states. So more block grants with rules, rather than externally imposed programs and workers.

But those details have to ait until we break the strangehold opf the current politicial system, because until we do NOTHING will happen until it all burns down.

[nygurl1]

omg! A bunch of nitwits who have no idea what they are talking about and lying like crazy!

[HuntinFishin]

"The Republican part of the COngress has been completely obstructionist. Republicans have filibustered at rate more than 10 times higher than the historical average, and have unanimously prevented Obama from passing any legislation if they can - in an attempt to make the economy worse and hurt his re-election chances."

So if Obama can't get anything done if Congress is obstructing his agenda or, in your words, he has at least a "semblance" of control, how will the next four years be any different?

[arthanyel]

It may not be different. On the other hand, there will be several differences:

1) Republicans will no longer be fighting to try and get rid of Obama, so they will be MORE INTERESTED in making things better and taking credit for them so they can win in 2016.

2) If Obama gets re-elected, it will be because a majority of American accept the idea that Republican obstructionism is a big part of the problem. Republicans will have to be less obstructionist to recover.

3) The economy is much better now than it was in 2009, and therefore there is more room to re-engineer taxes (especially business and high income taxes) and come out with a workable solution.

Of course if Republicans win and Romney gets elected, then Democrats will filibuster everything and we won't make ANY headway.

[arthanyel]

realtimecoffee: I agree with yiou in theory, especioally that the Democrat/Republican pnzi scheme will never solve the problem.

That said, the "ever growing federal government" isnt the problem - the federal government hasn't grown that much. It really hasn't.

What HAS happened is non-disretionary spending has continued to grow, revenues have been slashed, and the bulk of the money for state and local governments comes from property and income taxes - which have been devastated by the housing collapse and the high unemployment. It isn't that they suddenly started spending too much, it is that they suddenly lost a lot of revenues and they aren't being replaced. And state and local government HAS grown dramatically over the last 40 years.

We need re-engineering - not fiddling. Neither party will do it.

But until we can get that done, we are stuck with a choice between Obama and Romney - and Obama is clearly a superior choice, in exactly the same way that playing Russian Roulette with two bullets is a clearly superior choice to playing with 6 bullets.

[HuntinFishin]

"Nonsense. During the period the Democrats had the semblance of control, they were completely focused on truning the economy around because you can't shrink your ay to success. AND THEY SUCEEDED. "

Tell that to the 23 million who are still unemployed.

[arthanyel]

Tell that to the 25 million MORE that would be unemployed if they had NOT succeeded.

I realizeyou don't pay any attention to facts or math, so you probably don't undersdtand that positive job growth and positive GDP growth is actually better than huge losses on both, but it's still true.

Huge losses caused in significant part by Republicans.

[arthanyel]

realtimecoffee: On the other hand, doing nothing would have had us more than AN ADDITIONAL $3T in debt on top of that, as well as having destroyed everyone's retirement savings and having things go into a full Depression.

Given the historic obstruction from the Republicans, and their overt, intentional willingness to sacrifice the country to gain power (by doing everything possible to block Obama and then blame him for the lack of results) I think Obama has done a reasonable job. He is nowhere CLOSE to what I had hoped for and also nowehere close to what we really need, but he is not the main problem.

Politics and obstructionism are the main problems.

[arthanyel]

by HuntinFishin August 31, 2012 5:38 PM EDT
Really? So you agree that the Democratic obstructionist congress thwarted Obama's ability to cut the deficit when he became president?

----- cut here -----

Nonsense. During the period the Democrats had the semblance of control, they were completely focused on truning the economy around because you can't shrink your ay to success. AND THEY SUCEEDED. Before Obama's policies tstarted to ake effect, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month and GDP was shrinking at -8%. Now we are gaining about 200,000 jobs a month and GDP is rising about 1.8%.

And after accomplishing that monumental feat in less than a year, the Republicans blocked all attempts to restore fiscal sanity by refusing to allow revenues to increase by a single penny - which is ludicrous.

[HuntinFishin]

Semblance of control is not the same as the "obstructionist congress" theory trotted out by others.

[arthanyel]

The Republican part of the COngress has been completely obstructionist. Republicans have filibustered at rate more than 10 times higher than the historical average, and have unanimously prevented Obama from passing any legislation if they can - in an attempt to make the economy worse and hurt his re-election chances.

So instead of trying to implement policy and judging on the results, Republicans block all policy and then blame Obama for the lack of policy.

That is both hypocritical and damaging.

[arthanyel]

by HuntinFishin August 31, 2012 5:17 PM EDT
He had full control of the Congress, he was aware of the situation, he made a pledge, and the deficit has grown instead of being cut in half.

---- cut here -----

Conservative propaganda.

Obama and the Democrats had "full control" of the Congress - NEVER. For 59 days, IF they could get Joe Lieberman to vote with them, they had a filibuster proof majority. That is hardly "full control for 2 years".

Regarding cutting the deficit in half, that promised was made and was not fulfilled, but the real question is - WHY. And there are two main parts to that.

First, the Great Recession and high unemployment have been far worse than Obama had hoped. And since Republicans in Congress have been blocking everything the President has tried to do to improve the economy, it is hardly Obama's "fault" that the deficit is still high.

The second major part is the Republican complete opposition to raising revenues a single penny. Historically federal revenues average about 21% of GDP. Right now they are around 15%. If the TEMPORARY tax cuts expired, that alone would halve the deficit. If the GOP had agreed to $1 in tax increases (ALL FROM ALLOWING TEMPORARY CUTS TO EXPIRE) for $4 in spending cuts, the "grand bargain" Obama was pushing for would have halved the deficit. If the REPUBLICANS (including Paul Ryan) hadn't blocked the Simpson-Bowles commission report, and it had been voted on, that would have cut the deficit by MORE than half.

So get the facts - stop spewing propaganda.

[HuntinFishin]

Nice diversion from the facts. Obama pledge was unfulfilled. The Democrats had the majorities in both houses. Plain and simple.

[arthanyel]

HuntinFishin: Not a diversion - a direct explanation. And you just repeated the same propaganda instead of providing any rational response.

Democrats had majorities for 2 years - and Republicans filibusdtered everything Obama wanted for all but 59 days. FACT

Republicans blocked all deficit reduction plans from Obama becuase they included tax increases - specifically, allowing temporary tax cuts to expiure. FACT

So don't spew propaganda about how Democrats didn't do anything - Obama tried to do a lot, and Republicans blocked it.

realtimecoffee: Correct. I don't know how big an assumption it is, however, because the deficit is not a result of Democrats increasing spending - it is a result of the economic collpase (pre-Obama), irresponsible REPUBLICAN spending, and irresponsible REPUBLICAN refusal to expire tax breaks.

Reagrding whether Democrats are "notoriously poor stewards" - please provide any non-partisan reference to that statement. Actually, over the last 60 years, Democrats have been the SUPERIOR stewards of the economy. Republican Congresses and administrations are responsible for $13T of the $16T debt.

Finally - is 20% of GDP the "right amount" of revenues and spending? The worldwide average is 31.6%, and among non-communist first world countries the average is 38.8% so, yes, I would say about 20% seems to be reasonable.

[TimeToEvoIve]

Obama has done an outstanding job after inheriting the Bush Recession and having the Republicon cult do everything they could to further take down the economy.

Robbed Me and Lyin' Ryan before him keep lying about Medicare for example. And a room full of government hating airheaded Republicons bought into it. What a bunch of ridiculous, gullible, self-hating idiots!!!