adaher, you’re doing what I expect a lot of GOP voters to do over the next few months: trying to talk yourself into voting for Romney and liking it. Democrats went through this with Obama four years ago.
The problem is, Romney’s a stupid ornament. And by ornament, I mean putz.
Romneycare wasn’t his idea, and in fact he tried to line-item veto a lot of it and was overridden in every case.
At the Olympics, and in Massachusetts, his biggest idea was “let’s hit Washington up for money.”
His foreign policy team is a bunch of old Cold Warriors who a) make Dick Cheney look moderate and b) think the Soviet Union still exists :eek:.
He’s really really dumb, but hey, at least he speaks French (badly).
The sad thing is, the GOP are so bad off, that this is really the caliber of candidate they can put up now. When the class of persons you draw your candidates from is, “[del]WASP’s[/del]White “western European criollo” types who stayed around after Watergate, then Iran-Contra, &* then* the Bush II deficits and wars embarrassed the party,” well, you’re left with a shallow pool of shallow minds. Really, John McCain may have been the last hope to pull the GOP back from being nothing but a corrupt decadent party that enshrines corruption and decadence. But a corrupt decadent party that enshrines corruption and decadence can still win, more’s the pity.
[Yes, I know Rmoney’s a Mormon–but he’s culturally sort of elite-WASPish. See any Jewish candidates? Paul Ryan’s a Catholic I guess, did he run? Brownback doesn’t count, he’d probably join the Sikhs if it got him votes…]
I’ve been registered as Republican forever. It isn’t that “this is really the caliber of candidate that they can put up” so much as they think that people like me will vote for any dumb rock just because there is an R and millions of dollars in ads behind them. Bush turned out to be incredibly stupid and easily manipulated, I thought I’d never see a bigger sock puppet among the ranks of candidates again.
Then they put Palin up for VP? OMG, she should aspire to match the intelligence of a rock some day, but at least she had personality.
Now, there is Romney who doesn’t even have personality to suggest him for the position and turns an easy photo-op into a rolling gaffe contest.
Romney is a walking field IQ test. So, I guess this is the year that the GOP will find out that genuine conservatives are not idiots who’ll vote for any dumb fu**er just because he has an R behind his name. It makes me sick how the GOP has indulged every conspiracy nut-job on the continent for the sake of pushing their clueless golden boy.
The last election we declined many candidates with extremely impressive resumes in favor of the most likeable, best campaigner.
I would hope that we would have learned something from that. Mitt Romney’s resume and record are impressive. If he sucks as a campaigner and gaffes a lot, that’s something intelligent voters will look past. For those that prefer the glitz and smoothness, there’s always Barack Obama. I hear he’s still around, although he hasn’t done much recently.
Who were the unsung stars of 2008? Gu911ni? Fred Thompson?
Romney’s impressive record? For what? Romneycare? Begging Congress for money for the Salt Lake games? You’ve set some very low bars for your boys to jump over. Maybe you ought to consider raising them off the ground.
We can only hope that, as the conventional wisdom always says, the election comes down to who people would rather have a beer with.
I’m a fan of the President on a personal level–that is, if he weren’t the President and he were just another prof in my department or something, I think we’d be friends. And I think McCain is mostly a tool whose good qualities are highly overrated. And I still have to admit that having a beer with McCain would probably be pretty cool.
A beer with Mitt Romney would be a chore to be endured, and not just because his Mormon lips wouldn’t touch the stuff and he’d sit there with his glass of milk or whatever and judge me.
Bill Richardson for starters. But he just wasn’t as interesting as the three junior Senators. Every time liberals call us conservatives crazy or out to lunch, I just remind them that they rejected a successful two term governor, Secretary of Energy, and UN ambassador in favor of three candidates whose experience was about on par with Sarah Palin’s. That’s a special kind of stupid.
On preview: Bill Richardson is a ankle-deep in various corruption trials currently winding their way through the courts. Personal charges have been dropped at this point, but you can bet they wouldn’t be if he were in the White House. You might as well have said the Democrats should have nominated the charismatic Southerner populist.
On a personal level I actually don’t really mind Mitt Romney. He has a lot of the persona flaws of the born rich, but nothing that makes me think he’s a “bad person” - just a slightly dorky and highly clueless one. I certainly prefer his personality to the other GOP candidates this time around (except maybe Paul or Pawlenty).
Really the only character trait I really can’t stand is his ability to tell a bald-faced lie directly to an interviewer or the public. While that’s pretty standard for politicians these days, he is far more brazen than most (and on a completely different plane from Obama).
I think he’s more of a panderer than an outright liar. I’ve noticed that Democrats overuse the word “lie” a lot, to mean pretty much anything that is in disagreement with their analysis of the facts.
Say what you want about Romney and lying, but for all the pandering he does, he didn’t break any of his promises when he was governor of Massachusetts. Obama has broken a lot of them.
Don’t forget the self-righteous, slightly indignant tone as he tells the bald-faced lie! “You have a lot of nerve asking such a question of such a lofty, highly moral person such as myself! Really, now!” Very important.
Some do. I use it to mean a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts with an intent to deceive. Something like this: “This is a president who has failed … to communicate that military options are on the table and in fact in our hand. And that it’s unacceptable to America for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
I don’t see how. Notice he’s not saying that the President has taken force off the table, only that the President has failed to adequately communicate such. And given that many of Obama’s supporters seem blissfully certain that he’d never in a million years attack Iran, it’s easy to understand why they might be under that misconception.
Um, your source is full of dishonesty. First off, it doesn’t tell us the party affiliation of all those testimonials. Second, it says when Romney left, Massachusetts was 47th in job growth. That is wrong. Massachusetts was 28th, up from 50th.
They act as if jobs just fled MAssachusetts. If so, how come unemployment went down?
It’s pretty obvious that Obama’s supporters have no confidence in their guy. That site is pathetic.
You honestly don’t think that Obama has communicated either that force is on the table or that Iran getting a nuclear bomb is unacceptable to the United States? You want me to cite the various times he has said both of these things?
Or is your claim that because some Obama supporters think Obama doesn’t mean it when he says it that Romney is justified in claiming that Obama never said it?
Surely you can’t mean that it’s not a lie to claim your opponent hasn’t said something just because you don’t believe him.
Here’s a direct quote from just before the Romney lie:
[QUOTE=Obama]
In the conversations I’ve had over the course of three years, and over the course of the last three months and three weeks, what I’ve emphasized is that preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon isn’t just in the interest of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States, and that when I say we’re not taking any option off the table, we mean it … I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.
[/QUOTE]