I like the part disclosed yesterday where he said the economy would magically improve if he won the election, and that he didn’t actually have to do anything.
He is also owed the presidency because he’s handsome, looks like a president, isn’t Newt Gingrich (point 2), boring, stiff and self-made. I copy the below,
from a conservative email sent to me by my father, as evidence:
Am I drunk? Those points seem to be aimed at drawing a comparison, but I must be stewpid because I just don’t get it. Am I a bit playing in Quantumn Leap or Stargate or whatever where there are all sorts of alternate worlds?
I think you can accuse Obama of many things, but an inactive policy with regards to the Middle East isn’t one of them. Go ask Qaddafi. Take a close look at his handling of the Arab Spring: “Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States,” backed by trade partnerships with Egypt and Tunisia. Al Qaeda has been “Decimated” in the words of national security expert Fred Kaplan. Bin Laden is swimming with the fishes.
Insofar as the Israeli/Palestinian situation is concerned, Obama’s policies are in broad consistency with American precedent and national interests. In contrast, Romney is a dangerous clown. Fred Kaplan: Then there was his pledge to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s true capital and to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv. Does Romney know that every American president, dating back to Harry Truman, has declined to take a position on Jerusalem’s status precisely because it’s in dispute (at the time with Jordan)? Or that the Oslo accords of 1993, in an update of this acknowledgment, stated that the city’s status must be resolved through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?
In short, does Romney realize that he’s promising to overturn 64 years of U.S. foreign policy, the 19-year-old Oslo accords, and the basic premise of a two-state solution (which most Israelis favor)?
Or, like many American politicians who make this same pledge on their brief stopovers, was he merely pandering? Now I doubt this will shift any votes. I’m just saying that today’s conservative is profoundly nonserious.
That video is big news among the people in my FB contacts list who make and respond to political posts. One thing has me scratching my head, though: Several people have posted comments and quotes that suggest that Gov. Romney actually used the word “grifters” when he characterized 47% of the populace as “seeing themselves as victims, who depend on government” (paraphrased by me).
The news reports I heard today on the radio are notable for not including any mention of him using that word, and for not playing any excerpts in which he is heard to utter the word. I’m beginning to wonder if he did at all (although I would LOVE to learn that he actually did).
Here’s the key quote: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him: who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it–that that’s an entitlement, and the government should give it to them. They will vote for this president no matter what…. These are people who pay no income tax….
** [M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.**
Emphasis added. “Moochers” and “Grifters” is implicit here. With the help of the WSJ editorial page, this POV isn’t an exotic one, however offensive and factually challenged it is. The guy from Redstate pushed this POV about a year ago.
He’d probably be smart enough to -uh cut off mid sentence, even Santorum was capable of that.
Though if they did have it, when would they release it? Immediately, in a fervour? Or release it when he addresses his black caucus for maximum effect?
