Well, Reagan never lied! He believed every word, not his fault none of it was true!
He looked like a stoned version of Enzyte Bob. He swung and hit a weak grounder to first. You can’t separate the speech from Eastwood’s colossal failure. They had a nice slick video about him which a lot of people didn’t see because they moved it before the network coverage in order to show Eastwood. Then they showed Rubio offering a nice speech about himself. Finally, after a 10 minute walk through the crowd, Romney comes up and gives a dull speech, rotating his head throughout like a robotic lawn sprinkler. This is the best the Republicans have?
We already tried the “Oh, he speaks so well!” candidate. I’ll take the candidate with a long record of success as a leader instead.
Who’s that? McCain? Bush? You keep sending out these utterly inarticulate 'tards and claiming “Well, he can’t actually express himself, but in his heart you know he’s right.”
Romney expresses himself just fine. He speaks competently, but no beautifully or inspirationally.
what’s stupid is inferring that Romney isn’t a quality candidate because he’s dull. We tried Mr. Once in a Generation Excitement Guy.
So your complaint about Obama includes “He speaks well”?
He’s also tall. Go piss blood over that, too.
No, my complaint is that ever since he opened his mouth on prime time TV for the first time back in 2004, democrats have been declaring politicians to be basically unqualified if God forbid their speaking style is dull.
And you’re arguing that dullness is a virtue?
No, but neither does it say anything about a candidate’s suitability for office. It’s about as relevant as height or having a nice smile. Those things have political value, but in terms of how someone would perform in office as irrelevant. Romney has a proven record. He could be worse than GWB as a speaker and it wouldn’t change that. He’s DONE things.
A proven record of what? Making money for rich people? Sending people to the unemployment line? Putting American jobs overseas? Gaming the system for his own advantage?
And in case you haven’t noticed, only one candidate in this presidential election has any experience being president of the United States. So the other guy has “done things” too.
When a dull candidate insists he doesn’t want to make the election about style points, or personalities, or attacks, I think he has a certain responsbility to discuss his record–his record as pro-health care Governor of Massachusetts, or his record as job-killing CEO of Bain, or his record as prevaricating filer of tax returns. Mitt seems to want to run for President, but not discuss his past, his positions, his scary cult, his dullness or anything really. His policy seems to consist of “Elect me! I’m white!” which in turn seems acceptable to about 48% of the population. Luckily for me, the number of white people in this country is declining, and maybe the Pubs will try a substantial platform in the future if they get their asses kicked firmly enough this time.
I just prayed to a god I don’t believe in. Look, I don’t know how old you are, but what you just said was exactly what you guys sold us in 2000. You said that he may be functionally retarded, but he would surround himself with smart people.
Please, please, for all our sakes, find another formula. People who have to surround themselves with quality people in order to succeed are fuck ups.
And after writing what I just wrote, I came across this piece which suggests that Romney is surrounding himself with THE SAME PEOPLE that Bush did.
Please don’t let this happen to us again!