Is Mitt Romney really a serious candidate?

[courseofhistory]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

 

[occupied]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

Building them up like this is surely a recipe for a gigantic let down. Zingers only work if there is at least the appearance of being off-the-cuff.

 

[Locke11_21]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

Yeah, I read your other post, thanks for wasting my time, it is about 57 seconds of my life I will never get back. And no, you did not invent those, but nothing like a little self agrandizing.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas.

Good ideas, well tell me one good idea or policy Obama has come up with. Surely adding nearly $6 trillion in debt in less than 4 years is not a good idea, and his bailout of the auto industry is such a disaster that GM wants out. I have yet to see one good policy out of Obama or any good ideas out of Obama. Oh, costing us our AAA rating, wow, that says all it needs about the good ideas and policies of Obama.

It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead"

Obama his deputy campaign manger Stephanie ****ter calling Romney a felon and making up all kinds of other lies, Romney being blamed for the death of some Obama ass-lickers wife, to the FAKE Mormon Harry Reid proving he is not a real Mormon by bearing false witness against his neighbor by lying about Romney's taxes, you have a media that if Barack Obama were to come to a sudden stop, their heads would go completely up his asshole and be able shake the hands of any polyps he might have...and you have the nerve to state that Romney says and does is for only one purpose, being president?? WTF do you think Obama or any politician running president is all about. Geez, you are so narrowminded that if you fell on a tack you would poke both your eyes out!!!!!

And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

Yeah, and Obama has no original ideas either, just borrowed old failures from Karl Marx.

 

[Londoner]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

This is actually a really good question.

When McCain picked Palin, it occurred to me that the GOP didn't want to eat the shit sandwich left by Bush. This made sense. Who wants to be in the White House during Great Depression 2.0? Better to be the opposition party who filibusters EVERYTHING and then blames the opposition.

Romney represents the Palinization of the presidency. Right? He is the symbolic admission that it is better to filibuster those trying to clean up the Republican mess than to actually govern inside that mess.

-a mess that will likely last for at least a decade.

Point is, running Romney makes certain that Obama is the one who lives in the hole that was blown in the economy when Bush ignored the housing bubble.

 

[dblack]

Romney may seriously want to be president. But I'm not convinced the Republican establishment really wanted the White House this time around. I suspect he was installed as a stop-gap to prevent the public from getting behind someone who would genuinely oppose PPACA. The established interests behind both parties have wanted to get their mitts on health care for decades and they're not going to let on election cycle get in their way.

 

[Sallow]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

This..essentially is how far right the Republican party has fallen. The very best they can come up with..is a CEO would made money outsourcing American jobs and who "huckstered" the people of Massachusettes by running as a Moderate but governing as conservative. Which is why he seldom points to his record as governor..because he left the job with piss poor approval ratings.

And this was the VERY BEST..that came out of the primaries. Because with the exception of Jon Huntsman..the floodgates were open for the lunatics and failed politicians. Gingrich? If he were a "real" politician..his career would have ended years ago. Cain? Quoting Pokemon? Seriously? Bachmann? Death panels? Getting government pork while lobbying against it? Perry? A secessionist? Really? Paul? A fruitloop nutty ex-doctor who's claim to fame is that he thought the south was right? Santorum? Who couldn't cover up his overt racism long enough to make it to the end?

It was appalling to watch. A real atrocity exhibition. It's lunacy to think any of those folks should even get near government.

Can Romney be President? Sure..I suppose. But he would probably bring back Bush economics and kill ObamaCare. And that..would royally suck.

 

[Sallow]

Romney may seriously want to be president. But I'm not convinced the Republican establishment really wanted the White House this time around. I suspect he was installed as a stop-gap to prevent the public from getting behind someone who would genuinely oppose PPACA. The established interests behind both parties have wanted to get their mitts on health care for decades and they're not going to let on election cycle get in their way.

Republicans may be engaged in a "purge"..but that's hard to say. No doubt many of the party "elders" are shocked by the Tea Party fringe. And the thinking may be..let them have their shot..let them fail..and we will come back in.

They don't understand how ingrained these folks are now.

 

[courseofhistory]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

Building them up like this is surely a recipe for a gigantic let down. Zingers only work if there is at least the appearance of being off-the-cuff.

I know and that's part of what is so bizarre--announcing they are doing it. It's almost as bad as announcing the zingers themselves!

 

[courseofhistory]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

Yeah, I read your other post, thanks for wasting my time, it is about 57 seconds of my life I will never get back. And no, you did not invent those, but nothing like a little self agrandizing.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas.

Good ideas, well tell me one good idea or policy Obama has come up with. Surely adding nearly $6 trillion in debt in less than 4 years is not a good idea, and his bailout of the auto industry is such a disaster that GM wants out. I have yet to see one good policy out of Obama or any good ideas out of Obama. Oh, costing us our AAA rating, wow, that says all it needs about the good ideas and policies of Obama.

It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead"

Obama his deputy campaign manger Stephanie ****ter calling Romney a felon and making up all kinds of other lies, Romney being blamed for the death of some Obama ass-lickers wife, to the FAKE Mormon Harry Reid proving he is not a real Mormon by bearing false witness against his neighbor by lying about Romney's taxes, you have a media that if Barack Obama were to come to a sudden stop, their heads would go completely up his asshole and be able shake the hands of any polyps he might have...and you have the nerve to state that Romney says and does is for only one purpose, being president?? WTF do you think Obama or any politician running president is all about. Geez, you are so narrowminded that if you fell on a tack you would poke both your eyes out!!!!!

And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

Yeah, and Obama has no original ideas either, just borrowed old failures from Karl Marx.

I absolutely did "invent" most of those. I think the right on this forum for the most part is totally out to lunch and vile, mean-spirited and close minded. If you google them, you can see that they aren't on twitter like the other 7-8 are.

Why would I post a few from twitter with the # symbol indicating they were from there if I wanted to take credit for them? And I also know people can do searches to check for plagarism. But you're too lazy and prejudiced to do reasearch and see I did write most of them myself on another blog. I don't know if they will show up in a google search for certain but they are definitely mine (all but about 7-8). It infuriates me that you can't see that and don't want to. No wonder you support Romney the retard!

 

[candycorn]

I've been having fun making up zingers for both candidates (I borrowed a few for Mitt but almost all are mine) but I got to thinking about it from a more serious standpoint.

What does it say about someone's judgment, if the fact that these zingers are being created and then memorized by Mitt is true? At first I thought it was a joke or a dig at Romney type story. But it seems it is probably true.

It's almost surreal and in the vein of Saturday Night Live.

Is it all about winning only and not really taking substantive debate seriously? That seems to be where Romney is coming from with his campaign--just superficial stuff.

And, if that is the case, what does it say about his ability to really dig deep and come up with some good ways to communicate and to also come up with some good ideas. It seems like everything he says and does is only for one purpose--BEING president. Never mind the reality of it and the inability to be more than just a "figurehead". And, he has no original ideas, just borrowed old republican failures for the most part.

Building them up like this is surely a recipe for a gigantic let down. Zingers only work if there is at least the appearance of being off-the-cuff.

"Senator, You're no Jack Kennedy" would have rang hollow if it had been pre-released; you're right.

One of the ones I liked that got little run was Bush's jab at Dukakis.

The Presidential Debate : Deftly Placed One-Liners Spice Up a Sober Dialogue - Los Angeles Times

It was as their debate was wrapping up and Bush said:

"I had hoped this had been a little friendlier evening," Bush said with a wry smile. "I'd wanted to hitchhike a ride home in his tank."

 

[Locke11_21]

.

courseofhistory belligerently bellowed:



I absolutely did "invent" most of those.

You didn’t invent that. Somebody else made that happen. Given who you are supporting for president, I would expect you to be a little more appreciative of my previous rebuttal.

I think

I have yet to see a post of yours that proves this statement to be true.

the right on this forum for the most part is totally out to lunch and vile, mean-spirited and close minded

Oh, and your side is civil, respectful and courteous? What world do you live in? Wait, what country, no you don't even live in this forum, I am not sure where you live. Oh, and btw, I am Libertarian. As for the out to lunch rhetoric, that is exactly what your side is.

It infuriates me

Mission accomplished!

that you can't see that and don't want to.

In your previous post, it was proven you didn't invent most of those. But hey, you can always give yourself a moral victory.

No wonder you support Romney the retard!

Oh, didn't you mention something about close minded? Well, this statement just proves exactly who really is close-minded. Romney is far from being a retard, he refused his father's inheritance and attained his riches all on his own. Only a close-minded imbecile would think a retard could have done that. If you want to know the definition of close-minded, walk to your bathroom and look in the mirror where you will find it staring out you right in the face.

As for Romney, he was the last person I wanted to see be nominated to run against Obama. However, I will easily vote for Romney over Obama, because this is not even an election of the lesser of two evils, because there is only one evil and that is Barack Hussein Obama.

 

[courseofhistory]

Oh, and your side is civil, respectful and courteous? What world do you live in? Wait, what country, no you don't even live in this forum, I am not sure where you live. Oh, and btw, I am Libertarian. As for the out to lunch rhetoric, that is exactly what your side is.

I do not pass judgment on people or call them out UNLESS they do it first to me. I try to debate without swearing and putting the other person down. But if you go first and accuse me of things such as my not writing the zingers myself, I WILL respond.

I'm and independent voter and I agree with a few (very few) thing on the right such as most of their ideas about illegal immigration (but even they don't do enough IMO--worried about the Latino vote also) and a few other things.

I didn't suport Obama in 2008 but I do this time given the candidate he is running against.

So, although you will still probably not see it, I do not stoop to your (and other righties') level here in the name calling, hit and run talking point posts, etc.

In your previous post, it was proven you didn't invent most of those. But hey, you can always give yourself a moral victory.

If you are too dumb or close minded to see that what you said above isn't true, then there is no point in arguing with you or discussing anyone. No one proved anything about my not writing most of those zingers myself. It's absolutely mind boggling you are still hanging onto that lie!

Why don't you start a similar thread to this one about Obama, instead of invoking supposed examples of him on this thread as deflection since you can't discuss what is actually posted?


Too bad you jump to erroneous conculsions and cannot see the good in some things and cannot lighten up!

 

[JoeB131]

Romney may seriously want to be president. But I'm not convinced the Republican establishment really wanted the White House this time around. I suspect he was installed as a stop-gap to prevent the public from getting behind someone who would genuinely oppose PPACA. The established interests behind both parties have wanted to get their mitts on health care for decades and they're not going to let on election cycle get in their way.

Here's where I think the problem is.

Institutionally, the GOP is set up to make nice safe picks.

All of their candidates since 1960 have been either 1) A sitting Veep (Nixon, Bush-41), 2) Someone who has run before (Nixon, Reagan, Bush-41, Dole, McCain, Romney) or the son of a former president (Bush-43 and I suspect, Jeb Bush in 2016)

"Democrats fall in Love, Republicans fall in line"

or

"Republicans pick the next in line, Democrats shoot their wounded."

Now, I think the GOP is still suffering the one time they didn't follow that pattern, which is when in, they nominated Barry "Crazy as Batshit" Goldwater in 1964 and lost 44 states.

Guys who've run before or been vetted. Romney seemed safe because he ran in 2008, and no one found out Ann had sister wives locked in the basement of his mansions.

 

[candycorn]

.

courseofhistory belligerently bellowed:



I absolutely did "invent" most of those.

You didn’t invent that. Somebody else made that happen. Given who you are supporting for president, I would expect you to be a little more appreciative of my previous rebuttal.

I think

I have yet to see a post of yours that proves this statement to be true.




Oh, and your side is civil, respectful and courteous? What world do you live in? Wait, what country, no you don't even live in this forum, I am not sure where you live. Oh, and btw, I am Libertarian. As for the out to lunch rhetoric, that is exactly what your side is.



Mission accomplished!

that you can't see that and don't want to.

In your previous post, it was proven you didn't invent most of those. But hey, you can always give yourself a moral victory.

No wonder you support Romney the retard!

Oh, didn't you mention something about close minded? Well, this statement just proves exactly who really is close-minded. Romney is far from being a retard, he refused his father's inheritance and attained his riches all on his own. Only a close-minded imbecile would think a retard could have done that. If you want to know the definition of close-minded, walk to your bathroom and look in the mirror where you will find it staring out you right in the face.

As for Romney, he was the last person I wanted to see be nominated to run against Obama. However, I will easily vote for Romney over Obama, because this is not even an election of the lesser of two evils, because there is only one evil and that is Barack Hussein Obama.

I think you just like voting for your own kind.