Barack Obama 42%
Mitt Romney 33%
(Both are) 6%
Romney is very well-spoken, and he seems to perform just as well without a teleprompter. What’s more, even though we don’t know Obama’s grades but only his degrees, Romney’s got the same top degree, only more so. Romney is a graduate of Harvard Law who earned a simultaneous MBA from Harvard Business School, a tricky and difficult feat that not many accomplish or even attempt.
Unlike with Obama, we even know quite a bit about Romney’s grades. Take a look:
This post was modified from its original form on 18 Apr, 14:55
Romney graduated in 1971 [from Brigham Young] with a 3.97 grade-point average. Because he ranked at the top of his class in the College of Humanities, he was chosen to speak on graduation day…Mitt decided to attend Harvard Business School, but his father thought he should obtain a law degree, so he enrolled in a joint program at Harvard Law School. In 1975, he graduated from Harvard Law cum laude and from Harvard Business School, where he was named a Baker Scholar and was in the top 5 percent of his class.
Back in December of 2011, the NY Times spotlighted Romney’s years at Harvard Business School:
Mr. Romney recruited a murderers’ row of some of the most distinguished students in the class. “He and I said, hey, let’s handpick some superstars,” said Howard Serkin, a classmate…
Mr. Romney served as a kind of team captain, the other members said, pushing and motivating the others.
“He wanted to make straight A’s,” Mr. Serkin said. “He wanted our study group to be No. 1.” Sometimes Mr. Romney arrived early to run his numbers a few extra times. And if his partners were not prepared, “he was not afraid of saying: ‘You’re letting us down. We want to be the best,’ ” Mr. Serkin added…
Mr. Romney was in his element. His class performances were outstanding; his peers described him as precise, convincing and charismatic. He won the high grades he craved…If Mr. Romney melded with the school intellectually, he kept some distance from it socially. He was married and a parent. In the liberal precincts of Cambridge, he and his wife, Ann Romney — pictured wearing matching sweaters at a fall 1973 business school clambake, with their two sons on their laps — seemed like they were from “out on the prairies,” Mr. Brownstein said.
The future governor abstained from things many other students were doing: drinking coffee or alcohol, swearing, smoking…
I especially note this, in contrast to Obama:
Today, Mr. Romney does not speak much about his business school degree. But he remains quite attached to the star study group he put together all those years ago, faithfully attending dinners the men hold every five years…[H]e does not miss a chance to return to that setting. Mr. Romney even showed up the year he was put in charge of cleaning up the troubled 2002 Olympic games, stopping by for an hour before flying to Athens for a meeting of the International Olympic Committee…
The men gathered most recently in 2009, after Mr. Romney’s unsuccessful presidential bid. His old friends asked him about the experience, and he pointed out how much simpler decisions are in business than in politics. “You end up taking into consideration things that wouldn’t be important in a business decision,” Ronald J. Naples remembers him saying.
****this was sent to me*** I do not have a link but it doesn't matter...the facts are the facts. Romney is much smarter than Obama....for one thing....Romney's education can be googled....Obama had his records sealed.
"We" rest our case.....no affirmative action going on for Romney.
Both Barack and Michelle were pushed along through their education course by affirmative action. I have no doubt that both of them are smart....let me be clear....however what we know is that affirmative action has a protective measure within that no matter how they score on tests...they pass....and are elevated to the next level. To me, that's an uneven playing field and African Americans should be outraged over lower standards simply because they aren't caucasion. I would be rip roaring mad if I were an African American that the educational standards had to be "lowered" for me to achieve. Bad, bad, bad, on so many levels. We are all individuals and should not be targeted as "not as smart as others" because we are African Americans.
How wrong is this AND the liberals (think Jimmy Carter) brought affirmative action to America....and, yet, these same affirmative action recipients vote as liberals. Something wrong with this picture IMO.
Diane, I so appreciate this information as it does show the true character of Romney. And I agree with you 100%. I am tired of the conservatives that continue to try to tear Romney down; at what point do we realize that this is unnecessary. For every negative comment it takes 10 positive to over come that and it is unnecessary when we know that the goal is to get rid of Obama. To continue to post comments that tear down people's confidence in Romney is giving votes to Obama, IMO. Can we not just put our personal preferences aside now and support the man who very likely will have the nomination? Would it not serve the Republican Party much better to do so. If we can't do that we are telling liberals that we have no confidence in our own Party and that is not the message I wish to send out; not when I know that the only real hope that the U.S. has is to see that Obama is not re-elected.
I do know that this would be my feeling on the matter and position regardless as to whether it were Cain, Perry, Santorum, Gingrich or even Bachmann that was the nominee; we have to stop the comments and innuendos in our posts and start to post supporting comments regarding Romney and we need to start that now. We need to spend as much time researching those things that prove he would be a better candidate than Obama and that he has the ability to help undo the damage that Obama has done.
Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, Massachusetts was bankrupt when he took over as Governor and they were out of the red when he left office, once more in the positive. That is an accomplishment and that shows he has something to offer the U.S. right now when we face staggering economic problems and a National Debt that is going to take years to overcome. He is opposed to big government and the expense of having agencies that duplicate each other and each being ineffective; he wants to eliminate that and to me that is a huge positive.
Come one people, we all can find many things that show Romney would be an excellent candidate; and we can all at least agree he has it over Obama, right!!!!
So please, join me and let's put away our negativeism and get behind the man; that is what we have to do if we love this Country. To say, "if he is the nominee I will vote for him" and mean "I don't have any choice and someone is pulling my nails out to get me to do this" is detrimental to the well-being of the Country right now. Think what we want but make an effort to keep our attitude out of our comments as that is what we are signalling to others and at this point it is all about convincing them that Romney is the person that should be elected; otherwise, Obama will be re-elected.
Just because someone says they are a Republican doesnt make them either a conservative or someone the conservatives are willing to hold their nose and vote for. Currently we have some of the same Romney cheerleaders supporting Lugar for reelection in IN while there is a younger and conservative opponent that actually LIVES in IN and not the Beltway area or is Obama's favorite GOP Surrenderer, oops that is Senator. Two of those cheerleaders are McManic and Daniels We have the alleged GOP governor of PA pushing another moderate for the Senate race against Casey and this candidate voted for Obama, has zero experience, and is a flaming rogressive. Then there is the TX GOP establishment who is supporting a left leaning candidate, Dewhurst. for Senate in that race and the establishment in KN is supporting Bruining (who is a representative but support Holder for AG) against a conservative former state AG and current Treasurer who is his opponent in the primary. We need change candidates to effect a change from the trend of the last six plus years. With this approach to the 2012 election the establishment in the GOP will manage to kill whatever enthusiasm is out there at the moment. There is the same go along, get along mentality there as there has been for a while and we are going to no solve problems that are there with that mentality.
JohnC, you may not like it, but Romney will face Obama in this election. Your constant criticism of Romney will only heighten the possibility of Obama being elected again. I'm sure you do not want Obama elected again.
It's time for republicans to get behind Romney 100%. He isn't perfect but he's a hell of alot better than Obama. Santorum didn't get the nod....and neither did Ron Paul. It's time to move past that and stand tall for Romney.
This is a serious election. We must help each other to get Obama out of our White House and that means we must support Romney. Because every time we are negative about Romney readers who were considering Romney may turn around and vote for Obama.
It's time to get serious and that means criticizing Romney publicly helps re-elect Obama.
This post was modified from its original form on 19 Apr, 6:32
John C; it is time for us to realize that we need Republicans in office, especial the Presidency; but that no matter who the president, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Cain or Romney, they will need as much support from Congress and the more Republicans there the better; especially if both the House and Senate are Republican controlled. It is not hard to deterimine this. Those few that seem to lean left will be under pressure from their Party to support the Republican actions, too. We know that there may be one or two that lean left, but there are at least 1 or 2 Democrats that will lean right. Let's not split hairs; the goal is to get Obama and his administration out of office and we have to stand together to do that.
Every negative comment that is made about Romney (most likely the nominee) is giving votes to Obama as if we can't stand behind our candidate why would someone on the fence feel inclined to do so. It matters not what our personal opinion right now, we are in the most critical election of our life and in the history of the U.S. We have to unify and get Obama out. Romney is not the enemy that we are fighting here and people need to wake up and see that. Our enemy is the current administration and those that are in the Congress supporting it; Pelosi, Reid, et al. The Republicans can take care of their own, it is the liberals that are the #1 issue. Get as many of them out as we can.
You may not realize it, but a lot of people read our comments and posts and the impression that is given when we get so negative about our own candidate is not good. If people can't write positive about him, then find another topic of interest and discuss that; good choice, post the negative about Obama and stick to that. It will do more good and benefit this election more.
I do share this with due respect for you and the others that are doing this, but please, see the reality in what all this negativity is doing and let's agree to not post that.
That's the problem, Diane. This is a serious election and we need a serious candidate which Mitt really hasn't proven to be on the issue so far. He seems to wing it when making political speeches and slam his primary opponents via surrogates in the primaries to further the usual RINO move to stifle any conservative trend in the party. In the long run it will do the country no good to replace a rampant marxist with a go along "moderate" that will not really change directions but just put a different set of Beltway technocrats and politicians in charge to "manage" things better. We've seen this with both Bushes in the domestic arena as well as Nixon (father of the EPA) and Ford. We've seen that with the campaigns of Dole and McCain as well as the continued dumb moves by the GOP leadership in the Legislative Branch and the moves to keep or increase the "moderate" (very liberal) candidates running in primaries this year like Lugar. This is looking like an 'echo" type election. My concern is putting a "moderate" in will not change things very much but just change who is pulling the levers and the left, the press, and the usual cast of "progressive' clowns will still bash them while secretly being pleased that their left wing agenda isn't being dismantled and may actually be both cemented in place and even moved along in some areas like No Child Ever Educated under GW and his move to do amnesty for illegal aliens that was pushed with a GOP congress before the base erupted. There was a reason why the GOP lost the Legislative Branch in 2006 and those were part of that reason. What is going to happen really is a revolt by the citizenry if this trend continues no matter who gets in. After 2010 (where the GOP leadership move left again in action) and if we are sold out again in 2012, it will either be the death of the GOP as a political party or worse.
JohnC, it is your opinion that Mitt Romney hasn't proven himself. I believe just the opposite. His sticktoitiveness to his convictions haven't wavered. He has an excellent educational background and he was a governor.
It will be naysayers like you, I fear, who will help Obama to get re-elected in November. Is that your goal? It is my opinion that there's no room for negative comments being lodged against the one person who can beat Obama.
Perhaps you should consider switching political parties, JohnC, since you aren't happy with anything the republicans have done over the decades.
POSTED AT 7:16 PM ON APRIL 18, 2012 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
Whole lot of stories about the tea party having fizzled will need to be rewritten if
Indiana state treasurer Richard Mourdock leads Senator Dick Lugar by one point according to a poll commissioned by the Mourdock campaign. Conducted between April 16 and 17 by the firm McLaughlin and Associates, the poll surveyed 400 likely Republican primary voters and found Mourdock in the lead, 42–41, against Lugar. The poll had a 4.9 percent margin of error.
Since January, Lugar’s favorability rating has fallen ten points, from 57 to 47 percent, while Mourdock’s has risen by eleven, from 35 to 46 percent. “These results clearly demonstrate that Richard Mourdock has the momentum to win,” a memo from pollsters John McLaughlin and Stuart Polk notes.
Mourdock and Lugar held a televised debate just six days ago, so if the internal poll is correct and his numbers are surging, there’s one likely explanation — Indianans finally had a good look at him and liked what they saw. I’m amazed, frankly, that Lugar would do him the favor of raising his name recognition by sharing a stage with him. He’s been winning walkover primaries for more than 30 years; if he ignored Mourdock entirely, it’s a safe bet that some chunk of Indiana Republicans wouldn’t be able to pick RM out of a lineup and would pull the lever reflexively for the incumbent on election day. In fact, according to the Indy Star, while Mourdock outraised Lugar in the last quarter, nearly three-quarters of his donations came from out of state compared to a little more than half for Lugar — an ironic counterpoint to the charge that Lugar’s left Indiana behind by going native inside the Beltway.
Anyway. They had a debate and Mourdock’s suddenly outraising the incumbent and
Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) will roll out two heavy-hitting surrogates in his next round of ads: Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Daniels is one of the most popular politicians in Indiana, and is especially beloved by the Republican base. He told The Hill in September that Lugar was a “mentor,” “icon” and “extraordinary public servant” — his support could help Lugar in a big way.
Hard to believe Mourdock can survive both Lugar’s institutional advantage and an endorsement from Mitch the Knife, but since this is tea partiers’ best shot at flexing conservative muscle this year, maybe they’ll take it as a challenge. I’ve got nothing against Lugar, who by all accounts is a lovely man, but the careerist inertia involved in an 80-year-old fighting desperately for six more years at a job he’s held since the late 1970s makes me shudder. If this sad, sclerotic spectacle doesn’t make you think twice about term limits, nothing will.
John, I think that maybe you might want to do a little more investigation and read a little more as this was right out there today. This should show that the conservatives that feel as you do, and probably rightfully so, as I have not studied a lot about Lugar, but it appears he is not a "shoe in" as you would have had us believe. People are making their opinion known. Of course he will call in the big guns, that is to be expected, but the people will prevail if that is what the majority wishes.
However, this should take care of one of your concerns or at least give you something positive to consider, please.
I would, however, have to agree with Diane, if the GOP so upsets you, why not go Independent or Democratic Party? Do you honestly feel that they are that much better or that there is that much better chance with them?
I have not given up hope on the Republican Party; for all your arguments against them, I can think of at least 10 positive things and further, I would suggest that you not continue to put so much stock in the liberal media as you are beginning to sound like a repeat of what I hear from them; when my Democratic son can listen to them and see that they are twisting and spinning and that he has been mislead and takes time to investigate the GOP and sees that they are the better choice, hands down and the hope for the future, maybe you are missing something.
Linda, thanks for posting this information. It's time the republicans stepped up to the plate to support Mitt Romney 100%.
Linda/Diane: Apparently you didn't read what I wrote. It isn't if Lugar wins the primary or not but the continued GOP establishment (of course we hear there isn't an "establishment") support for "moderate" candidates as in the Lugar case where Daniels and other "leaders" are the ones supporting him as they did with McCain in 2010 and Specter in his last primary as a GOP candidate or Jumpin' Jim Jeffords in his last GOP election. These were the same people at the national level who failed to support GOP Senate candidates in DE and NV in 2008 (giving us a reelected Harry Reid in the later) and overturning the results of a primary in AK by supporting the incumbent as a write-in in that election also lost that primary because THEY were in a snit since those weren't THEIR choices. Sorry, but "party loyalty" is a two way street which is what has me upset. This is especially true since the "establishment" seems to go out of its way to support those with a history of stupid policies or actions like the coauthor of McCain-Feingold. These are the same "leaders" who allow an election to be stolen like the Coleman-Franken election in MN. Perhaps you see why I'm not "impressed" by the GOP Party leadership based on past performance. From rumblings I hear there are quite a few people that are getting tired of their performance and the "lesser of two evils" approach and there may be a new party coming along since there is a rigidity to the GOP leadership that appears to be only interested in conservative or TEA Party movement votes and money support but not any input on actual policy or action. The problem is it is the GOP leadership that is out of touch with most of the country as is the Dems and seems to be exhibiting the same elitists persona as the "progressives" now in charge. BTW, tell be that you are happy with the performance of Boehner and Mcconnel over the year plus? Keep in mind that the Dems were much more effective in opposition in a more difficult environment in 2001-2002 when they just controlled the Senate my a slim margin.
True, John, that the progressives have infiltrated both parties. It has distorted the parties in such a way that should be of concern to everyone. However, Mitt Romney is our man, hopefully, for change. As adults, we know we can't change things overnight. It took awhile to get where we are and it will take awhile to implement a reversal. My only point is that we must stand behind Mitt Romney because we have to start somewhere. This election is critical to turning the corner. It took the election of someone like Barack Obama to get Americans up on their feet. If we, as republicans, are negative about our presidential candidate we literally "hand over our power" to the democrats who will seize the moment and re-elect Obama. There are many Americans with "buyer's remorse" and they are taking a hard look at Romney. If we are negative about Romney these voters will stay with Obama.
That was my point. I stand firm on how I feel. Although much of what you are saying can be a strong talking point but now is not the time IMO. We need to turn the corner. If we are united we will win in November.
Diane and Linda...Perhaps it's time for some in the Republican Party to take a different attitude. What happened to the chant "anybody but Obama". Isn't that what it was all about? Isn't that what the Tea Party supporters were preaching about. Isn't it time for the Republican Party to quit acting like Liberals? Isn't it time to drop all the "name tagging". So far this year we have heard about -- "Moderates" like it's a bad taste in the mouth. Some of us who are "Moderates" have heard that mantra until we've HAD IT! All of us who are Moderates are also Republicans FIRST!
And we essentially believe in the same principles that the "true" Republicans chant. What exactly is a "true" Republican? Are they really any different - Moderates believe in less government, etc. All the usual Republican ideals are ours also. RINO -- is a totally wasted piece of verbage dreamed up by some Republicans who are not aware that the title RINO was actually dreamed up by the media to make Republicans look ridiculous. And they do look ridiculous each time they march in line with the media.
We cannot go back over the years and keep beating our breasts for past mistakes. We need to look forward. And we must have patience. Mitt Romney will not be able to repair the damage inflicted on the American people with a snap of his fingers. But, we must give him a chance. Why? Because we cannot go on with the false hope and change we've experienced for the past 3 years.
I personally don't care who the Tea Party likes or dislikes. I have been very disappointed in the wrangling and posturing the Tea Party movement has shown in their organization. They need to take a good hard look at themselves and decide to come together instead of the split that is appearing in the "groups" - it's time for them to come together and unite behind the Republican candidate NOW. Unite together instead of pulling apart.
And speaking of Dole's campaign and even trying to compare him to Romney is laughable. Dole was running against Clinton - he didn't have a chance especially when Clinton took his swing to the middle. As for John McCain - nice man who I had the utmost respect for, personally - I wasn't sold on him politically and certainly not Sarah Palin. But I voted for him because long before others were saying "anybody but Obama" I was already in that camp.
So if some of the Republicans want to continue with their "name tagging" and garbage about Mormonism and continue to talk about Romany as "unreachable" - get a life. We are talking about defeating Obama. We are talking about taking this country back. We are looking for a man who truly loves this country. We are looking for a man to help restore the economy who knows about business and how to conduct it. We are looking for a man who knows about how to get people back to work. We are looking for a man who respects the military. Who respects the family unit. We are looking for a man who will lead from the Oval office not on Air Force One! We are looking for a man who keeps both feet on the ground - not propped up on the desk in the Oval office - when he is there.
We are looking for a man who can find valuable, intelligent people to serve in his administration - people with business backgrounds -- not academics!
It appears that that man will be Mitt Romney - I think he has all those attributes.
Said so much better than I could and thank you Tara Jane. Romney in 2012!!!!!
I am not a fan of Romney but with Acorn busted I lost my chance to cast my illegal vote. The thing is the longer the muck continues - the worse this becomes for the Republican party. I still really like Gingrich and he would have been the one who would have brought about the most change.
However the one with the most money wins in your American political arena. The way it has been for a long time now. Just the facts. Actually have come to really hate the way your system works. Used to think two parties was a good thing but not anymore.
Regardless, it is time to get on with it. Gingrich will not win. Ron Paul will not win so Romney - it is. Obama has been running against him ever since he took office so you are four years behind. Time to move forward or I am going to have to listen to Obie for another four years AND I CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE!
CAN I GET AN "AMEN" FROM THOSE AMERICANS WHO WILL ENCOURAGE OTHERS AND ENDORSE MITT ROMNEY? Excellent posts from Dr. Tara Jane and CamV. This is serious business as it impacts all of our lives. The time has come to put Mitt Romney on a pedestal. I mean, WHO, in their right mind has the courage and fortitude to step out into the presidential arena KNOWING that they'll be pummeled by the left wing media, take the personal hits, spend their own wealth to campaign and stand....facing our country with a straight back and tell us they want to be president of our country so that they can make a difference? This takes a tremendous amount of courage and Mitt Romney will put his life on hold for four years, hopefully, eight years...to SERVE US.
It's time to back this courageous man and his courageous wife. They can beat Obama and send him packing but he needs US to support him.
Cam-----I appeciate your post but I must disagree with you as to the "person with the most money wins". Actually "people with the most money" didn't start to happen until Kennedy! I guess you mean "most money personally". Truman, from what I've found wasn't a wealthy man - in fact he was a shoe salesman before he ran for office. He conducted his cam paign from a train that he took across the country. Eisenhower wasn't wealthy - just a retired military man. And, actually, Clinton didn't have gobs of money either.
It's the Pac's in this country. They don't have to answer to any candidate but after they choose a candidate they can spend boo coos of money to get him there. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum all had Pac's behind them -- not to sure about Paul. And the Pac's can run spots without approval of their candidate. And some of them are pretty nasty. One thing for sure you can't be a putz and run for President because you know the kitchen sink will be thrown at you.
Personally I don't know how these men can take the schedules. It's really harrowing. Money raisers, ralies, meetings, etc. daily. Not for the faint of heart. And I admire the wives of all the candidates - they have to be "on" at all times.
There has been talk of a third party in this country. As of right now, it doesn't seem to be gathering enough steam but possibly, in a couple of years it will become a reality. It will be very interesting to see who their candidate will be. I have my doubts that it will happen. But you never know!