A Candidate can only fake it for so long

[California Girl]

I was thinking it, you said it.

Sad that the right has to take the bait on every thread, is it not? I've never seen such mass insecurity on a message board....weird.

Funny that certain posters assume I was being partisan. I view Bush and Obama as equally fake. Bi partisan disdain for politicians.

like

Both the Dems and the Repubs seem to struggle with those of us who see both Bush and Obama as equally ridiculous.

That's because, to them, no matter how crap their candidate, he's better than the other guy. Ordinarily, I wouldn't consider voting for Romney, but I probably will if he gets the nomination. And I will do so if - and it is still an 'if'... I believe that is in the best interests of the country.

 

[tinydancer]

I love irony in the morning. Dems are telling Republicans which candidate they should support. ROTFLMBO

So true. It's been a very interesting pattern with the left wing and the liberal media. This Presidential election cycle they aren't even being subtle in the least about it.

Too funny.

 

[uscitizen]

The republicans are just waiting to see which candidate Rove endorses.

 

[Full-Auto]

It really comes down to which candidate the GOP thinks can win against Obama. They will make sure that person wins the primaries.

HOW? The RNC doesnt operate like the DNC in allowing two votes and super delegates.

The RNC has always chosen the Republican candidate, every time.

Yes its called a primary.

Now if you have anything other then opinion..POST IT.

 

[JoeB131]

Which really makes you wonder why they don't give Huntsman a look.

Five candidates (Bachman, Trump, Perry, Cain, and now Newt) have all came at Romney from the right and all five have been or will be dispatched without Romney so much as breaking a sweat. You come at him from his left, make him take the leftward stance, then cast yourself as the centerist-right candidate which is where the GOP actually is despite the more vocal idiots on this board.

You know, I find it kind of laughable that you guys think we should "just nominate a liberal" and things will be find.

No one is giving Huntsman a look because he's Romney Lite.

Romney is where he's always been, about 20-25% of the vote. His numbers aren't moving. The "Not Romney" faction has always been at about 50%+ of the vote. Romney has been the "Frontrunner" only by virtue of this fact that the 50% who don't want him haven't been able to agree on a candidate. Once they do, he and his magic underpants are done.

With Cain imploding, the "not Romney" faction is really going to be between Newt and Perry, and Perry I don't think has the legs for it. So I think you are going to see some firming up behind Newt and after that, Romney's done.

 

[DaGoose]

yep... like dubya...

I was thinking it, you said it.

Sad that the right has to take the bait on every thread, is it not? I've never seen such mass insecurity on a message board....weird.

Funny that certain posters assume I was being partisan. I view Bush and Obama as equally fake. Bi partisan disdain for politicians.

I still remember the Conservative jubilation when the CONSERVATIVE Bush won out over the RINO McCain.

 

[DaGoose]

Which really makes you wonder why they don't give Huntsman a look.

Five candidates (Bachman, Trump, Perry, Cain, and now Newt) have all came at Romney from the right and all five have been or will be dispatched without Romney so much as breaking a sweat. You come at him from his left, make him take the leftward stance, then cast yourself as the centerist-right candidate which is where the GOP actually is despite the more vocal idiots on this board.

You know, I find it kind of laughable that you guys think we should "just nominate a liberal" and things will be find.

No one is giving Huntsman a look because he's Romney Lite.

Romney is where he's always been, about 20-25% of the vote. His numbers aren't moving. The "Not Romney" faction has always been at about 50%+ of the vote. Romney has been the "Frontrunner" only by virtue of this fact that the 50% who don't want him haven't been able to agree on a candidate. Once they do, he and his magic underpants are done.

With Cain imploding, the "not Romney" faction is really going to be between Newt and Perry, and Perry I don't think has the legs for it. So I think you are going to see some firming up behind Newt and after that, Romney's done.

Thus assuring an Obama victory in the general election.

 

[occupied]

The dirty secret that the RNC doesn't want you to know is that they do not want the presidency this time.

 

[del]

The dirty secret that the RNC doesn't want you to know is that they do not want the presidency this time.

i can always count on you for the inside scoop

 

[WillowTree]

if the repubs were serious about picking someone qualified, jon huntsman wouldn't be in the cellar....

given the field, romney can learn foreign policy... he's not an idiot. he'd moderate once the general election gets underway. and he's already shown he has no qualms about flip flopping.

and it could be worse:

Cain Appears Flustered When Asked About Libya - NYTimes.com

When asked his thoughts on the president’s policy during an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, he leaned back and appeared to search for an answer: “O.K., Libya.”

“President Obama supported the uprising, correct? President Obama called for the removal of Qaddafi — just want to make sure we’re talking about the same thing before I say ‘Yes, I agree,’ or ‘No, I didn’t agree.’ ”

Then, Mr. Cain said he disagrees with the president’s approach “for the following reasons.”

“Nope, that’s a different one,” he said. “I gotta go back and see.”

“I’ve got all this stuff twirling around in my head,” he said.

go to link for video

Why would Republicans want to elect a demonRat? We've tried that and it doesn't work..

 

[WatertheTree]

Political Animal - A candidate can only fake it for so long

The former Massachusetts governor effectively called for a trade war with China, which is hopelessly insane, and is based on Romney’s confused understanding of what’s procedurally possible at the WTO. He also called for U.S. support for “the insurgents” in Iran, apparently unaware of the fact that there are no such insurgents.

Romney went on to say he would never negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is naive and at odds with the assessments of all U.S. military leaders, and added that he’s both for and against withdrawal timetables.

For all the jokes about the clowns that make up this year’s Republican presidential field, the conventional wisdom is flawed. Romney, we’re told, is the “serious” one, in large part because he speaks in complete sentences, and isn’t bad at pretending to be credible. Ultimately, though, Romney’s efforts don’t change the fact that he’s faking it — and those who understand the issues beyond a surface-level understanding surely realize the GOP frontrunner just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Worse, Romney keeps failing these tests. Remember the time Romney told ABC News he would “set a deadline for bringing the troops home” from Iraq — but only if it’s a secret deadline? How about the time Romney, more than four years into the war in Iraq, said it’s “entirely possible” that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 invasion? Or the time Romney pretended “Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” were all the same thing? How about my personal favorite: the time Romney made the bizarre assertion that IAEA weapons inspectors were not allowed entry into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq?

More recently, Romney tried to trash the New START nuclear treaty in an op-ed, prompting Fred Kaplan to respond, “In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and — let’s not mince words — thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney’s attack on the New START treaty.”

None of this may matter much to voters, whose attention is focused on the economy, but for voters who take foreign policy seriously, Mitt Romney is a bit of a joke.

Trade war with China, military conflict with Iran, continuing the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

This guy lives in a fantasy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Political Animal - A candidate can only fake it for so long

The former Massachusetts governor effectively called for a trade war with China, which is hopelessly insane, and is based on Romney’s confused understanding of what’s procedurally possible at the WTO. He also called for U.S. support for “the insurgents” in Iran, apparently unaware of the fact that there are no such insurgents.

Romney went on to say he would never negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is naive and at odds with the assessments of all U.S. military leaders, and added that he’s both for and against withdrawal timetables.

For all the jokes about the clowns that make up this year’s Republican presidential field, the conventional wisdom is flawed. Romney, we’re told, is the “serious” one, in large part because he speaks in complete sentences, and isn’t bad at pretending to be credible. Ultimately, though, Romney’s efforts don’t change the fact that he’s faking it — and those who understand the issues beyond a surface-level understanding surely realize the GOP frontrunner just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Worse, Romney keeps failing these tests. Remember the time Romney told ABC News he would “set a deadline for bringing the troops home” from Iraq — but only if it’s a secret deadline? How about the time Romney, more than four years into the war in Iraq, said it’s “entirely possible” that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 invasion? Or the time Romney pretended “Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” were all the same thing? How about my personal favorite: the time Romney made the bizarre assertion that IAEA weapons inspectors were not allowed entry into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq?

More recently, Romney tried to trash the New START nuclear treaty in an op-ed, prompting Fred Kaplan to respond, “In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and — let’s not mince words — thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney’s attack on the New START treaty.”

None of this may matter much to voters, whose attention is focused on the economy, but for voters who take foreign policy seriously, Mitt Romney is a bit of a joke.

Trade war with China, military conflict with Iran, continuing the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

This guy lives in a fantasy.

it would be interesting to have debates...ala Lincoln-Douglas style...between Romney and Gingrich on foreign policy....as well as domestic policy...

 

[SAT]

Political Animal - A candidate can only fake it for so long

The former Massachusetts governor effectively called for a trade war with China, which is hopelessly insane, and is based on Romney’s confused understanding of what’s procedurally possible at the WTO. He also called for U.S. support for “the insurgents” in Iran, apparently unaware of the fact that there are no such insurgents.

Romney went on to say he would never negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which is naive and at odds with the assessments of all U.S. military leaders, and added that he’s both for and against withdrawal timetables.

For all the jokes about the clowns that make up this year’s Republican presidential field, the conventional wisdom is flawed. Romney, we’re told, is the “serious” one, in large part because he speaks in complete sentences, and isn’t bad at pretending to be credible. Ultimately, though, Romney’s efforts don’t change the fact that he’s faking it — and those who understand the issues beyond a surface-level understanding surely realize the GOP frontrunner just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Worse, Romney keeps failing these tests. Remember the time Romney told ABC News he would “set a deadline for bringing the troops home” from Iraq — but only if it’s a secret deadline? How about the time Romney, more than four years into the war in Iraq, said it’s “entirely possible” that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the 2003 invasion? Or the time Romney pretended “Hezbollah and Hamas and al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood” were all the same thing? How about my personal favorite: the time Romney made the bizarre assertion that IAEA weapons inspectors were not allowed entry into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq?

More recently, Romney tried to trash the New START nuclear treaty in an op-ed, prompting Fred Kaplan to respond, “In 35 years of following debates over nuclear arms control, I have never seen anything quite as shabby, misleading and — let’s not mince words — thoroughly ignorant as Mitt Romney’s attack on the New START treaty.”

None of this may matter much to voters, whose attention is focused on the economy, but for voters who take foreign policy seriously, Mitt Romney is a bit of a joke.

Trade war with China, military conflict with Iran, continuing the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.

This guy lives in a fantasy.

He's had years to learn this stuff, but he hasn't bothered. What's he been studying? How do contract himself without blushing?

 

[Stephanie]

Some of them fake it all the way to the White House.

yep, with a fake slogan like HOPE AND CHANGE baby..

 

[kwc57]

The republicans are just waiting to see which candidate Rove endorses.

Perhaps, but the conservatives aren't.

 

[SAT]

True. The conservatives are changing favorites about once every six weeks.

Trump

Bachmann

Perry

Cain

Gingrich

Who's next?

 

[kwc57]

True. The conservatives are changing favorites about once every six weeks.

Trump

Bachmann

Perry

Cain

Gingrich

Who's next?

No, I said conservatives........you know, Paul and Johnson. Real conservatives.

 

[SAT]

True. The conservatives are changing favorites about once every six weeks.

Trump

Bachmann

Perry

Cain

Gingrich

Who's next?

No, I said conservatives........you know, Paul and Johnson. Real conservatives.

No, I don't know. You're all claiming to be real.