Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

[rightwinger]

Mitt is more like a Mike Dukakis.....Dull and uninspiring

 

[Liability]

Is the incumbent the Dims' Boooooosh?

 

[Oldstyle]

Mitt is more like a Mike Dukakis.....Dull and uninspiring

As opposed to Barack Obama...who is incompetent and inspiring? Sorry, Winger but I'll take dull and competent six days a week and twice on Sunday.

 

[blackhawk]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

It's possible it really depends on how Romney responds to the attacks against him Kerry did a very poor job of that.

 

[rightwinger]

Mitt is more like a Mike Dukakis.....Dull and uninspiring

As opposed to Barack Obama...who is incompetent and inspiring? Sorry, Winger but I'll take dull and competent six days a week and twice on Sunday.

Mike Dukakis acomplished more as Massachusetts Governor than Mitt did

Romney is like a Dukakis light

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

It's occurred to me. They are different men though. Kerry served in Vietnam, has been in the Senate for a number of years and has generally been ineffective at that post. Governor Romney has been unemployed for a number of years and has been largely a failed career politician and by definition has been ineffective at that post.

Wow.. I wasn't aware!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Romney or Dukakis?

Who is more inspiring?

 

[Big Fitz]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

It's occurred to me. They are different men though. Kerry served in Vietnam, has been in the Senate for a number of years and has generally been ineffective at that post. Governor Romney has been unemployed for a number of years and has been largely a failed career politician and by definition has been ineffective at that post.

Wow.. I wasn't aware!!!

Apparently he had a hard time getting the word out.

 

[Synthaholic]

I stoped reading at "first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil."

You always stop reading when you get to the facts.

Troofer, are ya?

Way to marginalize yourself, Melvin...

He allowed it by ignoring CIA intelligence and the warnings from Richard Clarke, dope.

 

[Synthaholic]

Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

No, he’s far less qualified than Kerry; yes in that he’ll lose this November.

Some people may have disliked Bush but Kerry is hated by many. Other than teaching sleeze on a post grad. level I don't know what he'd be qualified for. He was very lucky to be rejected.

Only Rightwing fringe extremists hate Kerry.

 

[Synthaholic]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I disagree with the bolded. Howard Dean was a good candidate, and got sidelined by a bunch of hysterical Republicans and a complacent press that ran with a non-story that was blown way out of proportion and taken completely out of context.

Who?

Hysterical Republicans.

 

[Big Fitz]

You always stop reading when you get to the facts.

Troofer, are ya?

Way to marginalize yourself, Melvin...

He allowed it by ignoring CIA intelligence and the warnings from Richard Clarke, dope.

So the Intel Wall constructed by Jamie Gorelick which is directly to blame for these communications issue under Clinton had nothing to do with it, although it's been well documented to be the cause of most unshared information?

Gotcha. It's all Bush's fault. Now you gonna tell us how he pushed the detonator while reading to school children in Florida that day and the cameras deleted that out?

 

[Synthaholic]

Troofer, are ya?

Way to marginalize yourself, Melvin...

He allowed it by ignoring CIA intelligence and the warnings from Richard Clarke, dope.

So the Intel Wall constructed by Jamie Gorelick which is directly to blame for these communications issue under Clinton had nothing to do with it, although it's been well documented to be the cause of most unshared information?

Gotcha. It's all Bush's fault. Now you gonna tell us how he pushed the detonator while reading to school children in Florida that day and the cameras deleted that out?

There is only one president at a time. The WTC was still standing the day Clinton left office, and for 8 months afterward.

Bush ignored intelligence that said there was a threat from hijacked planes - he didn't place one single airport on alert.

Bush failed his #1 job - protecting America.

 

[Big Fitz]

He allowed it by ignoring CIA intelligence and the warnings from Richard Clarke, dope.

So the Intel Wall constructed by Jamie Gorelick which is directly to blame for these communications issue under Clinton had nothing to do with it, although it's been well documented to be the cause of most unshared information?

Gotcha. It's all Bush's fault. Now you gonna tell us how he pushed the detonator while reading to school children in Florida that day and the cameras deleted that out?

There is only one president at a time. The WTC was still standing the day Clinton left office, and for 8 months afterward.

Bush ignored intelligence that said there was a threat from hijacked planes - he didn't place one single airport on alert.

Bush failed his #1 job - protecting America.

So you're saying that 20 islamofascists got up one morning and said, "I think I'll crash 4 planes into buildings" and by strange coincidence it happened?



Puhleeeze!

This plan was years in the making and everybody had a piece of it, but because of the Wall put in there during Clinton's watch, nobody shared.

This logic does not stand. This is stand alone in a vacuum thinking.

 

[Synthaholic]

So the Intel Wall constructed by Jamie Gorelick which is directly to blame for these communications issue under Clinton had nothing to do with it, although it's been well documented to be the cause of most unshared information?

Gotcha. It's all Bush's fault. Now you gonna tell us how he pushed the detonator while reading to school children in Florida that day and the cameras deleted that out?

There is only one president at a time. The WTC was still standing the day Clinton left office, and for 8 months afterward.

Bush ignored intelligence that said there was a threat from hijacked planes - he didn't place one single airport on alert.

Bush failed his #1 job - protecting America.

So you're saying that 20 islamofascists got up one morning and said, "I think I'll crash 4 planes into buildings" and by strange coincidence it happened?



Puhleeeze!

This plan was years in the making and everybody had a piece of it, but because of the Wall put in there during Clinton's watch, nobody shared.

This logic does not stand. This is stand alone in a vacuum thinking.

#1 - Bush received intel that terrorists were looking to use planes. Condi Rice testified that they received this intel, and said (paraphrasing) "they never imagined it would be used to fly into buildings". Their thoughts were that there would be the usual hijackings.

Yet, they never put any airports on notice, or upped the security level, or put any LEA on alert.

#2 - you're a liar. And not just a liar, but a fucking liar.

The "wall" was erected in the mid-1970s, following the findings of the Church Commission.

 

[Big Fitz]

There is only one president at a time. The WTC was still standing the day Clinton left office, and for 8 months afterward.

Bush ignored intelligence that said there was a threat from hijacked planes - he didn't place one single airport on alert.

Bush failed his #1 job - protecting America.

So you're saying that 20 islamofascists got up one morning and said, "I think I'll crash 4 planes into buildings" and by strange coincidence it happened?



Puhleeeze!

This plan was years in the making and everybody had a piece of it, but because of the Wall put in there during Clinton's watch, nobody shared.

This logic does not stand. This is stand alone in a vacuum thinking.

#1 - Bush received intel that terrorists were looking to use planes. Condi Rice testified that they received this intel, and said (paraphrasing) "they never imagined it would be used to fly into buildings". Their thoughts were that there would be the usual hijackings.

Yet, they never put any airports on notice, or upped the security level, or put any LEA on alert.

#2 - you're a liar. And not just a liar, but a fucking liar.

The "wall" was erected in the mid-1970s, following the findings of the Church Commission.

Whatever helps a troofer sweep at night. Would you like a tinfoil nightcap or blankie?

 

[JoeB131]

Kerry is a vulture gigolo instead

Perhaps...

But he didn't have a bunch of broken families in his wake like Romney does.

spare us the dramatics

NOthing dramatic about it at all. People lost their jobs, their health insurance and their pensions.

Might be "dramatic" if it happens to you. But frankly, I couldn't imagine thinking highly of someone who does that to people so his wife can buy another $77,000 Polo Pony.

 

[JoeB131]

Let's see how many things DogStyle can get wrong!

That's AMAZINGLY stupid, Joe...Bain Capital was responsible for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the US but because some of the companies that they backed financially outsourced a few jobs (most of which took place AFTER Romney had turned over control of Bain) to China you paint him as a "job outsourcer"? It's a charge that's so ridiculous that even other Democrats like Bill Clinton have been candid enough to admit that it's not a fair thing to say about Mitt Romney...but of course you've still got your whole "Mormon Phobia" thing going on so you buy into this horseshit.

Obama is trying to frame Romney in this fashion because he's scared to death of having HIS record of economic accomplishment compared to Romney's. The Obama camp's refrain is "Yes, he was successful...but only because he out sourced jobs...which is a total joke considering the man that Barry had as HIS Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt outsourced far MORE jobs than Bain ever did as the CEO of General Electric.

Bain didn't create any jobs. Romney isn't even trying to claim it did at this point. and understandably so. Most of the companies that expanded payrolls like Staples did so when they got Bain out of their lives.

Jeffrey Immelt isn't a job Czar. He hold no government position and he is not receiving a government paycheck. He isn't even a Democrat.

Bain worked with companies that SPECIFICALLY showed companies how to offshore and outsource work. And they did this when Romney was there. Now, can't blame Romney. He was doing his job. But the question is, does he understand that his job hurt a lot of ordinary Americans, and his role in the decline of the middle class in this country. If he doesn't, I don't want him in a job where he'll be working for his rich clients.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits

I could care less whether or not Kerry was a "boring candidate". I'll take competent over boring any day.

Did you see those 3 debates Kerry had with Bush? Kerry completely made Bush his little bitch, especially in the first debate. I've never seen an incumbent President get his ass handed to him like that EVER.

I was pleased that Kerry thrashed him...but it also made me sad. I was TRULY ASHAMED to have such an inarticulate, stuttering fuckwit such as George W. Bush as our President. How anybody could vote for that fucking imbecile is beyond me.

And Kerry DID win the election. Ohio Exit Polls -- Kerry 54%, Bush 45%. Even Fox News reported at 8 pm on election night that Kerry was going to win the election if the exit polls were correct.

And the exit polls were correct, there has never been a SHRED of evidence produced that they were wrong. There was massive, well-documented fraud conducted by Repug election officials in Ohio and Nevada, which was also stolen from Kerry.

Read Was The 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? by MIT professor Steve Freeman. It most certainly was.

 

[Qball]

I could care less whether or not Kerry was a "boring candidate". I'll take competent over boring any day.

Did you see those 3 debates Kerry had with Bush? Kerry completely made Bush his little bitch, especially in the first debate. I've never seen an incumbent President get his ass handed to him like that EVER.

I was pleased that Kerry thrashed him...but it also made me sad. I was TRULY ASHAMED to have such an inarticulate, stuttering fuckwit such as George W. Bush as our President. How anybody could vote for that fucking imbecile is beyond me.

And Kerry DID win the election. Ohio Exit Polls -- Kerry 54%, Bush 45%. Even Fox News reported at 8 pm on election night that Kerry was going to win the election if the exit polls were correct.

And the exit polls were correct, there has never been a SHRED of evidence produced that they were wrong. There was massive, well-documented fraud conducted by Repug election officials in Ohio and Nevada, which was also stolen from Kerry.

Read Was The 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? by MIT professor Steve Freeman. It most certainly was.

Except for the fact that they were exit polls. Polls aren't meant to be conclusive, nor are they falsifiable.