|
|
I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society).
|
There is very little difference between Obama and Romney or Republicans and Democrats in general. They disagree on such insignificant issues it really doesn't matter who wins because nothing will change anyway. No matter who wins, the U.S. will still be at war with the world, the federal reserve will continue to debase the dollar and debt will continue to be accumulated at the expense of tax payers.
This whole thing is a circus, do not vote. Voting illustrates both support and consent, withdraw them please.
|
On June 02 2012 03:48 Bowdz wrote:I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society).
The problem is that this isn't the limit of what Obama and his surrogates are arguing. Have you missed the ads that Obama has floated about Bain Capital shutting down the steel plant? Have you missed all of the comments about how Romney was engaging in "vulture capitalism?" All of these lines of attack go beyond drawing a distinction between private sector experience and the ability to create jobs as president. The point that these attacks are making is that Romney is a jobs destroyer. The very dangerous corollary to this point is that private equity is evil. This is why so many prominent democrats are speaking up and defending private equity.
EDIT: And by the way, here's the inherent stupidity of what Obama is arguing anyway. He's stating that profitability and jobs creation aren't the same thing. While this is technically true, the undeniable truth is that you can't have jobs creation without profitability. In other words, a company must be profitable (or have the hope of becoming profitable) if it is going to hire more workers.
|
All Bill Clinton said was that Bain Capital was a legitimate, legal business. He then said what the discussion should be is about Romney's proposed policies, and what he would do differently.
The answer: Lower taxes for the rich to 25%. Okay. How exactly does adding to the deficit by significantly lowering revenue improve the economy? Hasn't this been done before? Did it work then?
xDaunt, your histrionics is wearing thin. Try reading or watching the news instead of simply quoting sensationalistic news taglines.
|
On June 02 2012 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 03:48 Bowdz wrote:I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society). The problem is that this isn't the limit of what Obama and his surrogates are arguing. Have you missed the ads that Obama has floated about Bain Capital shutting down the steel plant? Have you missed all of the comments about how Romney was engaging in "vulture capitalism?" All of these lines of attack go beyond drawing a distinction between private sector experience and the ability to create jobs as president. The point that these attacks are making is that Romney is a jobs destroyer. The very dangerous corollary to this point is that private equity is evil. This is why so many prominent democrats are speaking up and defending private equity. EDIT: And by the way, here's the inherent stupidity of what Obama is arguing anyway. He's stating that profitability and jobs creation aren't the same thing. While this is technically true, the undeniable truth is that you can't have jobs creation without profitability. In other words, a company must be profitable (or have the hope of becoming profitable) if it is going to hire more workers.
Both campaigns are going below the belt this year. Romney up'ed the ante by seeking Trump's endorsement and keeping the Birther crap alive.
I'm hoping a Democratic Super Pac will call out Mormonism, but I don't think anyone has the balls.
|
On June 02 2012 03:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 03:48 Bowdz wrote:I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society). The problem is that this isn't the limit of what Obama and his surrogates are arguing. Have you missed the ads that Obama has floated about Bain Capital shutting down the steel plant? Have you missed all of the comments about how Romney was engaging in "vulture capitalism?" All of these lines of attack go beyond drawing a distinction between private sector experience and the ability to create jobs as president. The point that these attacks are making is that Romney is a jobs destroyer. The very dangerous corollary to this point is that private equity is evil. This is why so many prominent democrats are speaking up and defending private equity. EDIT: And by the way, here's the inherent stupidity of what Obama is arguing anyway. He's stating that profitability and jobs creation aren't the same thing. While this is technically true, the undeniable truth is that you can't have jobs creation without profitability. In other words, a company must be profitable (or have the hope of becoming profitable) if it is going to hire more workers.
The adds are pointing to the fact that romeny with his time at bain capital made money while others lost jobs. They are trying to point out that romeny job at bain was not to create jobs, but rather to create money for himself and his partners, the job growth was a byproduct of him trying to do this but not the main goal. Now when we look for a president do we really want someone whos main goal is to create money for the rich or someone whos main goal is to create jobs for the middle class? also "vulture capitalism" was coined by republicans during the primary race, you dont get to insult democrats for merely restating what people on romenys side of the isle brought up
|
On June 02 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:All Bill Clinton said was that Bain Capital was a legitimate, legal business. He then said what the discussion should be is about Romney's proposed policies, and what he would do differently. The answer: Lower taxes for the rich to 25%. Okay. How exactly does adding to the deficit by significantly lowering revenue improve the economy? Hasn't this been done before? Did it work then? xDaunt, your histrionics is wearing thin. Try reading or watching the news instead of simply quoting sensationalistic news taglines.
What histrionics? Obama floats ads suggesting that Romney was a jobs destroyer while he was at Bain Capital and his advisers have openly and repeatedly said that they are going to hammer Romney on this point. Then Clinton and all these other democrats come out and give Romney high praise for his work at Bain Capital. I don't see how you can miss the significance of that disconnect.
|
On June 02 2012 04:07 Deathmanbob wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2012 03:48 Bowdz wrote:I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society). The problem is that this isn't the limit of what Obama and his surrogates are arguing. Have you missed the ads that Obama has floated about Bain Capital shutting down the steel plant? Have you missed all of the comments about how Romney was engaging in "vulture capitalism?" All of these lines of attack go beyond drawing a distinction between private sector experience and the ability to create jobs as president. The point that these attacks are making is that Romney is a jobs destroyer. The very dangerous corollary to this point is that private equity is evil. This is why so many prominent democrats are speaking up and defending private equity. EDIT: And by the way, here's the inherent stupidity of what Obama is arguing anyway. He's stating that profitability and jobs creation aren't the same thing. While this is technically true, the undeniable truth is that you can't have jobs creation without profitability. In other words, a company must be profitable (or have the hope of becoming profitable) if it is going to hire more workers. The adds are pointing to the fact that romeny with his time at bain capital made money while others lost jobs. They are trying to point out that romeny job at bain was not to create jobs, but rather to create money for himself and his partners, the job growth was a byproduct of him trying to do this but not the main goal. Now when we look for a president do we really want someone whos main goal is to create money for the rich or someone whos main goal is to create jobs for the middle class? also "vulture capitalism" was coined by republicans during the primary race, you dont get to insult democrats for merely restating what people on romenys side of the isle brought up
Sure, I do. I thought it was as stupid of a line of attack during the primary as I do now. I didn't like Romney during the primaries (and am still lukewarm to him now), but none of my mixed feelings towards him ever stemmed from his private equity background.
|
Romney's Response to Obama: It's funny how a simpleton like Romney can still school Obama... not that it takes much.
http://bit.ly/KhPr2T
Followed by a funny video about the "birthing" controversy and the slant of the news.
http://bit.ly/LIrPGo
|
On June 02 2012 04:15 Epocalypse wrote:Romney's Response to Obama: It's funny how a simpleton like Romney can still school Obama... not that it takes much. http://bit.ly/KhPr2TFollowed by a funny video about the "birthing" controversy and the slant of the news. http://bit.ly/LIrPGo
It's not hard to defeat a fundamentally stupid argument.
Honestly, I really, really hope that Obama and his advisers share the same views as some of the posters above who think that there isn't any problem with the current attack strategy on Bain Capital.
|
On June 02 2012 04:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:All Bill Clinton said was that Bain Capital was a legitimate, legal business. He then said what the discussion should be is about Romney's proposed policies, and what he would do differently. The answer: Lower taxes for the rich to 25%. Okay. How exactly does adding to the deficit by significantly lowering revenue improve the economy? Hasn't this been done before? Did it work then? xDaunt, your histrionics is wearing thin. Try reading or watching the news instead of simply quoting sensationalistic news taglines. What histrionics? Obama floats ads suggesting that Romney was a jobs destroyer while he was at Bain Capital and his advisers have openly and repeatedly said that they are going to hammer Romney on this point. Then Clinton and all these other democrats come out and give Romney high praise for his work at Bain Capital. I don't see how you can miss the significance of that disconnect.
'High praise?' All Clinton said is that private equity is honest business. It doesn't change the fact that private equity experience has nothing to do with job creation and governing or enforcing conservative policies.
|
On June 02 2012 04:25 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:All Bill Clinton said was that Bain Capital was a legitimate, legal business. He then said what the discussion should be is about Romney's proposed policies, and what he would do differently. The answer: Lower taxes for the rich to 25%. Okay. How exactly does adding to the deficit by significantly lowering revenue improve the economy? Hasn't this been done before? Did it work then? xDaunt, your histrionics is wearing thin. Try reading or watching the news instead of simply quoting sensationalistic news taglines. What histrionics? Obama floats ads suggesting that Romney was a jobs destroyer while he was at Bain Capital and his advisers have openly and repeatedly said that they are going to hammer Romney on this point. Then Clinton and all these other democrats come out and give Romney high praise for his work at Bain Capital. I don't see how you can miss the significance of that disconnect. 'High praise?' All Clinton said is that private equity is honest business. It doesn't change the fact that private equity experience has nothing to do with job creation and governing or enforcing conservative policies.
Have you even read the article that I provided?
President Bill Clinton veered sharply off message Thursday, telling CNN that Mitt Romney's business record at Bain Capital was "sterling."
"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."
Clinton also went on to say that Romney's time at Bain Capital represented a "good business career."
The Obama campaign is in the third week of an all-out assault on Romney's time as a corporate buyout specialist — accusing the GOP nominee of bankrupting companies and laying off workers all while pocketing a profit for himself and investors.
But the negative tenor of their attacks on an influential segment of Wall Street have made some Democrats uncomfortable. Clinton is the highest profile Obama surrogate so far to show discomfort with the attacks on Bain, with the former president even praising the company and Romney's record. Newark mayor Cory Booker and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also both declined to press the attack against Bain.
In Booker's case, he released a YouTube video clarifying his comments after calling the Obama attacks (and Republican counter-attacks on Obama) "nauseating" — all while being publicly chastised by top Obama staffers.
Clinton went on to predict that Obama would carry the day in November, and would beat Romney handily.
"I still think the president will win by five or six points. I've always thought so," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, filling in for Piers Morgan.
In short, Clinton said that Romney had a "sterling business career" and is qualified to be president because of it (and his experience as governor). Compare that to Obama's ads stating that Romney was a jobs destroyer while at Bain Capital, which suggests that he is not qualified to be president.
|
On June 02 2012 04:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:07 Deathmanbob wrote:On June 02 2012 03:56 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2012 03:48 Bowdz wrote:I want to preface this by says I don't necessarily agree with Obama's angle of attack against Romney's Bain Capital experience. With that said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding exactly what criticism Obama had with Romney. During the NATO summit presser, Obama made it explicitly clear that he was not attacking Romney simply because of his time at Bain nor for his success in the industry. In fact, he affirmed that Romney was quite successful and did a great job in the field of private equity. The issue Obama was trying to raise was that Romney's main argument for his ability to create jobs is that he has private experience and that the virtue of private equity is not one that focuses on creating large numbers of jobs nor cares about the well being of the individual. Whether or not that is a valid assessment of private equity experience is up to individual interpretation, but I think all of this media frenzy about about how Obama surrogates are "going off message" is ridiculous when most of them are saying the same thing (Romney was successful in the line of work and did a great job in private equity, but that doesn't equate to having the skills, outlook, or plan to create jobs or help the lower tier of society). The problem is that this isn't the limit of what Obama and his surrogates are arguing. Have you missed the ads that Obama has floated about Bain Capital shutting down the steel plant? Have you missed all of the comments about how Romney was engaging in "vulture capitalism?" All of these lines of attack go beyond drawing a distinction between private sector experience and the ability to create jobs as president. The point that these attacks are making is that Romney is a jobs destroyer. The very dangerous corollary to this point is that private equity is evil. This is why so many prominent democrats are speaking up and defending private equity. EDIT: And by the way, here's the inherent stupidity of what Obama is arguing anyway. He's stating that profitability and jobs creation aren't the same thing. While this is technically true, the undeniable truth is that you can't have jobs creation without profitability. In other words, a company must be profitable (or have the hope of becoming profitable) if it is going to hire more workers. The adds are pointing to the fact that romeny with his time at bain capital made money while others lost jobs. They are trying to point out that romeny job at bain was not to create jobs, but rather to create money for himself and his partners, the job growth was a byproduct of him trying to do this but not the main goal. Now when we look for a president do we really want someone whos main goal is to create money for the rich or someone whos main goal is to create jobs for the middle class? also "vulture capitalism" was coined by republicans during the primary race, you dont get to insult democrats for merely restating what people on romenys side of the isle brought up Sure, I do. I thought it was as stupid of a line of attack during the primary as I do now. I didn't like Romney during the primaries (and am still lukewarm to him now), but none of my mixed feelings towards him ever stemmed from his private equity background.
Romney is a legitimate threat to Obama. The next step is to criticize his governance, but that would mean pointing out how moderate and LIBERAL his stint as governor actually was.
|
On June 02 2012 04:28 xDaunt wrote:
Have you even read the article that I provided?
Watch the original interview. It's not the dick-sucking contest you're imagining. Bill Clinton clearly intended to be sobering.
|
|
|
He is actually repeating the same mistake as McCain meaning he has attached or allowed someone more popular/crazy than him to steal and keep the limelight on someone other than him. His Texas win should have been all about Romney yet who was being interviewed by all the news Networks? Trump.
So Trump shows up in the news cycle for one day and was immediately shoved off into the memory hole of that news cycle by the dueling press conferences in California and Massachusetts - and this shows that Romney is repeating McCain's mistakes by allowing the limelight to be on someone else.
Well, if that's the spin you want to put on it, fine, but it's still weak as hell. No one but Obama partisans getting the vapors cares that Mitt Romney won't dance to their tune about Donald Trump. No one but the most hard-up of political junkies is going to remember a month from now.
|
On June 02 2012 14:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +He is actually repeating the same mistake as McCain meaning he has attached or allowed someone more popular/crazy than him to steal and keep the limelight on someone other than him. His Texas win should have been all about Romney yet who was being interviewed by all the news Networks? Trump. So Trump shows up in the news cycle for one day and was immediately shoved off into the memory hole of that news cycle by the dueling press conferences in California and Massachusetts - and this shows that Romney is repeating McCain's mistakes by allowing the limelight to be on someone else. Well, if that's the spin you want to put on it, fine, but it's still weak as hell. No one but Obama partisans getting the vapors cares that Mitt Romney won't dance to their tune about Donald Trump. No one but the most hard-up of political junkies is going to remember a month from now.
The truth is, Mitt Romney not denouncing Trump or Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wackos out there is energizing the Right.
Mitt Romney, unlike McCain, has no integrity or boundaries, and more then happy to let other people fight dirty on his behalf. It allows him to pander to extremists *cough* racists while showing the rest of the GOP that he will do or say anything to win.
It's actually a brilliant strategy.
|
On June 02 2012 15:02 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 14:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He is actually repeating the same mistake as McCain meaning he has attached or allowed someone more popular/crazy than him to steal and keep the limelight on someone other than him. His Texas win should have been all about Romney yet who was being interviewed by all the news Networks? Trump. So Trump shows up in the news cycle for one day and was immediately shoved off into the memory hole of that news cycle by the dueling press conferences in California and Massachusetts - and this shows that Romney is repeating McCain's mistakes by allowing the limelight to be on someone else. Well, if that's the spin you want to put on it, fine, but it's still weak as hell. No one but Obama partisans getting the vapors cares that Mitt Romney won't dance to their tune about Donald Trump. No one but the most hard-up of political junkies is going to remember a month from now. The truth is, Mitt Romney not denouncing Trump or Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wackos out there is energizing the Right. Mitt Romney, unlike McCain, has no integrity or boundaries, and more then happy to let other people fight dirty on his behalf. It allows him to pander to extremists *cough* racists while showing the rest of the GOP that he will do or say anything to win. It's actually a brilliant strategy.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-fighting-moderate-wins-over-the-righ
It doesn't play into your more self-serving narrative, but it has the benefit of being more accurate.
|
On June 02 2012 04:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 04:25 Defacer wrote:On June 02 2012 04:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2012 04:04 Defacer wrote:All Bill Clinton said was that Bain Capital was a legitimate, legal business. He then said what the discussion should be is about Romney's proposed policies, and what he would do differently. The answer: Lower taxes for the rich to 25%. Okay. How exactly does adding to the deficit by significantly lowering revenue improve the economy? Hasn't this been done before? Did it work then? xDaunt, your histrionics is wearing thin. Try reading or watching the news instead of simply quoting sensationalistic news taglines. What histrionics? Obama floats ads suggesting that Romney was a jobs destroyer while he was at Bain Capital and his advisers have openly and repeatedly said that they are going to hammer Romney on this point. Then Clinton and all these other democrats come out and give Romney high praise for his work at Bain Capital. I don't see how you can miss the significance of that disconnect. 'High praise?' All Clinton said is that private equity is honest business. It doesn't change the fact that private equity experience has nothing to do with job creation and governing or enforcing conservative policies. Have you even read the article that I provided? Show nested quote + President Bill Clinton veered sharply off message Thursday, telling CNN that Mitt Romney's business record at Bain Capital was "sterling."
"I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say 'This is bad work. This is good work,'" Clinton said. "The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold."
Clinton also went on to say that Romney's time at Bain Capital represented a "good business career."
The Obama campaign is in the third week of an all-out assault on Romney's time as a corporate buyout specialist — accusing the GOP nominee of bankrupting companies and laying off workers all while pocketing a profit for himself and investors.
But the negative tenor of their attacks on an influential segment of Wall Street have made some Democrats uncomfortable. Clinton is the highest profile Obama surrogate so far to show discomfort with the attacks on Bain, with the former president even praising the company and Romney's record. Newark mayor Cory Booker and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick also both declined to press the attack against Bain.
In Booker's case, he released a YouTube video clarifying his comments after calling the Obama attacks (and Republican counter-attacks on Obama) "nauseating" — all while being publicly chastised by top Obama staffers.
Clinton went on to predict that Obama would carry the day in November, and would beat Romney handily.
"I still think the president will win by five or six points. I've always thought so," Clinton told guest host Harvey Weinstein, filling in for Piers Morgan. In short, Clinton said that Romney had a "sterling business career" and is qualified to be president because of it (and his experience as governor). Compare that to Obama's ads stating that Romney was a jobs destroyer while at Bain Capital, which suggests that he is not qualified to be president.
These aren't even necessarily contradictory points: you can be a sterling businessman who deftly and successfully destroys jobs to make money. The only disagreement is on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for being president, which really is an ideological rather than practical disagreement.
|
On June 02 2012 15:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2012 15:02 Defacer wrote:On June 02 2012 14:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:He is actually repeating the same mistake as McCain meaning he has attached or allowed someone more popular/crazy than him to steal and keep the limelight on someone other than him. His Texas win should have been all about Romney yet who was being interviewed by all the news Networks? Trump. So Trump shows up in the news cycle for one day and was immediately shoved off into the memory hole of that news cycle by the dueling press conferences in California and Massachusetts - and this shows that Romney is repeating McCain's mistakes by allowing the limelight to be on someone else. Well, if that's the spin you want to put on it, fine, but it's still weak as hell. No one but Obama partisans getting the vapors cares that Mitt Romney won't dance to their tune about Donald Trump. No one but the most hard-up of political junkies is going to remember a month from now. The truth is, Mitt Romney not denouncing Trump or Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh or any of the other wackos out there is energizing the Right. Mitt Romney, unlike McCain, has no integrity or boundaries, and more then happy to let other people fight dirty on his behalf. It allows him to pander to extremists *cough* racists while showing the rest of the GOP that he will do or say anything to win. It's actually a brilliant strategy. http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/mitt-romney-fighting-moderate-wins-over-the-righIt doesn't play into your more self-serving narrative, but it has the benefit of being more accurate.
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to.
Are you going to argue that it isn't pandering? Do you actually think Romney agrees with Trump? Or that there are extremely vocal factions of the right that aren't essentially xeno/homophobes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
