Of course, but they are Republican advisors, so that’s a hard competency hurdle to get over.
Yep – the slightest show of competency is an instant disqualifier.
Of course he does. He is advised by Job Creators and Real Americans. I pity you that you don’t know that.
Eh, its not like Republicans never get elected. Obviously they aren’t bereft of competent election advisers. Team-Romney does seem weirdly scatter brained compared to other GOP campaigns.
Its doubly weird since Republicans have a go-to talking point for stuff like this. Say the President comes across as “weak”, and blame the violence on that. The claim of “weakness” is so vague that it doesn’t actually mean anything and yet it appeals to a certain class of voter that thinks the US can overcome foreign policy problems via pure willpower, “weakness” isn’t a moral failing, so you avoid making it sound like your saying the President is some how evil or in leauge with the terrorists, and it plays to an already popular stereotype of Dems as weakwilled peaceniks.
Instead Romney thought he’d try a different script by calling the President a terrorist sympathizer before the bodies were even cold.
No, it’s best if he keeps talking about it, now.
If he doesn’t, he might get elected, and start actually ACTING ON his stupid beliefs. Then he’ll get you guys embroiled in another war, and that might get us caught up in one, and if not, we’ll have to deal with 4 more years of bullshit like ‘invade Canada, they like Muslims!’ from Coulter and her ilk.
And amusingly, this appears to be exactly the line Paul Ryan is following.
As I said, its bizarre Romney didn’t stick to the tried-and-true GOP line for stuff like this. Even his running mate knows the drill.
Uh, so did the White House stand by the statement, or did they distance themselves? Romney, it looks like you’re the one giving off mixed signals.
Uh, whoosh? The point is, what the fuck were his political advisors thinking? How could they have not known that even most Republicans would repudiate such appalling statements?
Or something.
Romney criticizing Obama for taking both sides of an issue? I thought that was an underlying principle of Mitt’s world-view.
Romney didn’t politicize the 11th anniversary of 9/11 yesterday; today, however, Romney politicizes the events in Egypt and Libya.
:smack:
This recent quote from Obama is a good one though I like the way he framed it, and it’s a GREAT sound bite:
Well, I don’t know about a whoosh as such, but surely you recall the fun we had four years ago with the same statement (replacing Romney with McCain, of course).
We need a replacement meme for the “Five and a half years!” too.
Good lord, now Sarah Palin wants to talk about the President’s dick! :smack:
Heh, understood.
No need, Romney done fucked his own bad self.
All he had to do was shut his pie-hole & look sad, & Obama would have been whupped.
Romney bailed Obama’s ass out.
That’s how I read it.
And what’s her expertise on the situation? It’s not like she can see Libya from her house.
Worse, for a man who wants to be President, he did this even before he knew WTF had happened. Ready, fire, aim indeed…
The NYT reported a few days ago that, except for the Aurora shooting, President Obama always waits a day to repond to events.