Kung Foo - Romney: 'Barack and Hillary Hate America'

Not signed in (Log In)

Random Photo

(changes every 15 minutes)

Proof positive that no matter how old you are, with enough cash, any woman will screw you!

Photo by burn2shine. Caption by .

read and rate other captions »
post your own caption »
submit a photo to caption »

Site Supported By Ads

Recent Comments

Digg This Post

Save This Page

Romney: 'Barack and Hillary Hate America'

Posted by squee on Feb 07, 2008 at 02:26 PM

Before Romney's speech this morning, I was sad to see him losing. He had been my least loathed republican candidate. But thats what you get for trying to court conservatives. You get taken down by imbecile reasoning. So he quits his campaign, and who does he blame? Liberals.

Nice try Romney, but his entire mistake was in trying to make himself a conservative niche. He could have done quite well if he'd made himself out to be the more moderate choice. Conservatives fucking hate McCain's ass, but the rest of the party is so dissatisfied with conservative leadership that his moderate image is what's making him so popular. This is really unfortunate because McCain is just another conservative crone. A couple of measly anti-torture and pro-science stances do not make up for the second most conservative voting record in the senate.

Romney would have had more street cred as a moderate republican, with his past socially moderate record, and as such been a more comfortable choice for everyone who is currently voting for McCain. I for example, appreciate things like his being valedictorian of his university class, and a very successful business career that seems based on genuine talent rather than corporate cheating. I LIKE the northeastern elite, I hate this southern good ole boy C-average 'everyman's man' crap. Am I the only person who wants the highest quality product for my money? Rhode's scholars, valedictorians, the cream of the crop are good things. My liberal preoccupation with diversity likes that he's a Mormon. All in all I think he could have snapped up McCain's niche better, and had a lot of clout with swing voters. But instead he chose to change his base which makes him forever vulnerable to flip flopping claims.

His hate speech this morning got rid of any of those delusions I had. Yeah, you're not quitting cos you're losing or anything, but because the liberal threat is such that you have to do your duty, thats what's making you quit. Make sure you can never be accepted by the only people who would have accepted you, there's a winning way to go.

go to link

Comments

BadKitty spoke on Feb 08, 2008 at 07:32 AM

I am so tired of the fear machine blaming the liberals for everything. I mean, this country is in one of the worst quagmires in history. That must be the liberals fault, I am sure. Even though we have been under the Bush Regime during all this chaos, we must be protected against evil liberals...with the gays and the women with their reproductive rights, and other nonsense like stem cell research. Oh and lets not forget the terrorists! If you let those dirty liberals get into office, terrorists will come to your house and blow shit up. Well, let's see...I think that already happened. And who was in power?

Ender spoke on Feb 17, 2008 at 07:47 PM

Romney was like Kerry in '04; a douchebag that some of us conservatives could've voted for anyway based mainly on his corporate-management acumen.

Now, the only Repubs with any credibility that are left are, in my eyes, totally untenable. Both crazy in their own unique ways, both likable fellows personally, but not people I want with their fingers on the button. Makes me kinda wish ol' Bob Dole had one more run in him. The funny, personable, smart, post-politics Dole, not the stodgy old Majority Leader.

On the Dem side, we got a choice between rehashing the 90's, only without all the silly money falling out of nutty trees, or trying for a new path. I'm not into repeating the mistakes of the past, so I'll give the new guy a try.

As to "C-Average Everymen" being inherently better or worse, I'll simply say that both the Rhodes Scholar and the Flunk-out got us into one kind of trouble or another. So the only real question becomes, what kinds of trouble do we need to avoid at all costs in the next four years, and which we can overlook.

We need to avoid a third Bush term. If we can do that, everything should be as OK as it can be, and if we want to switch gears again in four years, we have that option.

Ender spoke on Feb 17, 2008 at 07:50 PM

Correction: We need to avoid both a third Bush term and a third Clinton term.

ChePibe spoke on Mar 06, 2008 at 09:08 PM

Eh. I was fairly indifferent to Romney until it became a Romney-Huckabee-McCain race. Then Romney was the lesser evil.

Huckabee put the last nail in Romney's coffin, plain and simple. Romney didn't really help the situation, though - he was little known, almost robotic, a Mormon. Although I don't think Romney stood a chance at all in the primary, it was telling to see how quickly a Harvard JD/MBA with a string of successful business and other ventures as well as a fairly good record as governor would be torpedoed by a guy with a BA from a theological school (sorry, miracles aren't a major at most accredited universities) and a long record of voting against the base he courted, all with very little money, and all in large part because the other guy was a Mormon.

I don't think we'll see Romney as VP for McCain - he brings nothing to the table for McCain that someone else can't bring: wrapping up the Mormon vote is hardly a problem for the GOP, and there are other conservative candidates who are more likable and with more consistent records.

The DNC primary, though. Now that's interesting. The immovable object of Hillary Clinton's ego is meeting the irresistible force of Obama. I just don't see these two sharing a ticket at this point, nor do I see the DNC base being particularly happy with the super-delegates making the call on this one. The DNC's national hissy-fit about Florida and Michigan is really coming back to bite them.

squee spoke on Mar 08, 2008 at 09:07 AM

I could see them sharing a ticket if its Clinton-Obama. Maybe. Big maybe. Not as Obama-Clinton though. Having the much older more experienced candidate as the vp running the show behind the scenes brings back too many memories of Bush Cheney, no one wants to see that, Clinton supporters included.

ChePibe spoke on Mar 08, 2008 at 10:13 PM

Obama just ruled himself out as VP in a recent statement. Granted, such statements mean very little in politics, but it shows a line of thinking.

I just don't think having Clinton on the ticket is a good move at all for the DNC. There are few things that will motivate an uninterested GOP base to run for the polls more than a Clinton on the ballot. Obama is the unknown quantity here - likable, smart, quick on his feet. Most of his gaffes thus far, however, have struck home his greatest weakness - inexperience. Still, he has the charisma and - I'm gonna say it, nothing you can do to stop me - articulate nature that many will look for after Bush. If it's Obama for the DNC, he'll need to pick someone older with more experience to balance the ticket - a Lyndon Johnson to go with his JFK. I just don't see Hillary playing second fiddle willingly - but I also don't see her turning down a shot at advancement.

McCain's VP choice is really up in the air. Whoever it is needs to be young, and I would think preferably southern (his weak point in the primaries) with a stronger social conservative stance to shore up the base. Charlie Crist's name has been thrown around, but rumors that he is homosexual will not help him with the base. Crist also lacks national recognition.

For either side, it looks like a dark horse will come in as VP.

(And I'm still pissed off that there is a taboo against calling Obama articulate because he's black. He is very articulate. That's not demeaning, rude, or racist - it's fact. I wish I could speak half as well.)

Comments

Post A Comment