Perrys Gaffe, what of Barrys?? Obama and the 57, or was that 58 states of America

[candycorn]

I fail to see any comparison between Perry's gaff and Obama's.

Obama simply meant he's traveled through states on more than one occassion.

Perry's mistake was a center piece of his supposed economic policy, of which he had no clue.

Big difference.

If I understood it at the time, the celebrated number "57" was the number of contests he was involved in (I guess adding in DC, Guam, Am Samoa, etc...). Still no where near as embarrassing as Perry's latest reverse peristalsis.

That's debatable.

Nah...context.

 

[Intense]

If I understood it at the time, the celebrated number "57" was the number of contests he was involved in (I guess adding in DC, Guam, Am Samoa, etc...). Still no where near as embarrassing as Perry's latest reverse peristalsis.

That's debatable.

Nah...context.

 

[rightwinger]

Romney can defeat Obama in a bad economy. All the others are unelectable regardless of how bad the economy is

Your approval means so much.

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

 

[Intense]

Your approval means so much.

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

 

[candycorn]

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

Chuckle.

 

[rdean]

Your approval means so much.

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Plus, there isn't a single American who hasn't agreed with Romney at least 50% of the time.

 

[rightwinger]

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

Good

Go with that

Run a Bachmann, a Perry, a Paul

And convince Americans that they are Presidential

 

[candycorn]

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

Good

Go with that

Run a Bachmann, a Perry, a Paul

And convince Americans that they are Presidential

The sad thing is that they would still get 33% of the vote if all they did was have their name on the ballot.

As would any 3 democrats you would want to name.

 

[rightwinger]

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

Good

Go with that

Run a Bachmann, a Perry, a Paul

And convince Americans that they are Presidential

The sad thing is that they would still get 33% of the vote if all they did was have their name on the ballot.

As would any 3 democrats you would want to name.

Very true

But it is that other 33% that decides elections. They are the ones you have to convince that you are "Presidential"

 

[elvis]

Rightwingers plea.


Give us a liberal............

You don't need a liberal

What you need is someone who can meet the vague definition of being "presidential". By that, you have to convince the majority of American people that you can be trusted in running the country. You have to get people to say...Yes, I could live with that guy running the country

Of the current group of misfits currently running for GOP candidate. Only Romney has consistently shown that he can be "Presidential"

Considering that Anyone up there now has more Integrity than Obama, that is something you should have thought of before 2008.

cheating on your wife when she has cancer? Integrity? Really?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But it is that other 33% that decides elections.

Democrats, moderates, and independents, most of whom won’t vote for Perry, Gringrich, or Cain.

Romney stands a better chance with moderates and independents, but won’t get the needed democratic votes.

Otherwise, I saw a clip of Perry on Letterman – I didn’t think it possible, but Perry actually made things worse.

 

[Teals_Of_Wonder]

well the best thing about a Perry Presidency, two for one drink specials and ladies nights will be more frequent at our local bars, and we will go back to having 50 states. {at least it's an even number}

 

[candycorn]

Good

Go with that

Run a Bachmann, a Perry, a Paul

And convince Americans that they are Presidential

The sad thing is that they would still get 33% of the vote if all they did was have their name on the ballot.

As would any 3 democrats you would want to name.

Very true

But it is that other 33% that decides elections. They are the ones you have to convince that you are "Presidential"

You're 100% right of course...but I just a lament that we've become so indoctrinated to this obviously failed two-party system that a can of Spam would get one in three votes.

Few are speaking up for the sensible center.