If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Soledad O'Brien is just asking questions about Mitt Romney's position on the recent Supreme Court immigration law decision; finds it's like nailing Jell-O to a wall   (cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 121
    More: Interesting, Soledad O'Brien, border states, yes-no questions, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

2641 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 10:41 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-26 11:15:05 AM

mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"


I would channel Newt on that one. Something about the question being "disgusting" and "irrelevant" and an example of the media war on religion. I don't know if Mitt has the chops to pull that one off, though.
 
2012-06-26 11:15:54 AM
Political world:

Republicans: We won. Suck it you stupid libs.
Democrats: No, you troglodytes, we won. You lost, get over it.
Republicans: Oh yeah? We got most of what we wanted, so you lose, goddamn hippie scum.
Democrats: Well we got most of what we wanted, so you can kiss my ass, you redneck bigots.
Dems and Repubs: RAAAUUWWWWWRRRRR!!!! RRAAAGGEEEE!!!!

Any other profession where a conflict exists:

Person 1: I feel good about this. I got most of what I wanted.
Person 2: I feel that this is arrangement is good for me as well.
Person 1: Awesome, sounds like we found something that works for everyone.
Person 2: I agree.
Person 1: Whoa, it's 4:00 already, and we're still here on a Friday. You know what that means.
Person 2: Time for beers?
Person 1: I'll meet you there.
Person 2: Assemble your crew.
 
2012-06-26 11:16:43 AM

what_now: I think the difference here is one of personality. There were a LOT of people who honestly LOVED Mother Palin, and a lot more who would have been very upset if Mean ol' Biden had taken her out behind the woodshed.


I agree. I think Biden handled that debate perfectly. He didn't go on the warpath he so ardently desired and Palin so richly deserved; instead he let Mama Grizzly talk herself into oblivion.
 
2012-06-26 11:18:08 AM

Glenford: I'd nail her Jell-o, if you know what I mean.


Damn skippy.

She has 5 siblings, and all 6 of them graduated from Harvard.
 
2012-06-26 11:18:13 AM

what_now: Mitt Romney does not have that. There is *NO* personality there, and he won't have anyone who really *LIKES* him. So in these debates, you have a likable guy who knows what he's talking about, against an unlikable guy who doesn't.


That's because Romney comes across as that asshole boss that everyone's had at some point in their working lives. The kind that shows up later and leavers earlier yet still says things like "this place would fall apart if it weren't for me," doesn't really get how things actually get done but has opinions on how to improve it without ever listening to the employee suggestions...
 
2012-06-26 11:19:46 AM

The Green Manalishi: Different theories as to why they do this:

1. Reporter is committed to being fair and impartial. To him, that means never calling anyone on anything, no matter how bogus.
2. Reporter doesn't give a shiat, would rather be covering Kardashians/is there for paycheck.
3. Reporter is afraid of being too tough and losing access to people in the future.
4. Reporter has been told by corporate owners not to piss these people off.
5. Reporter has no interviewing skills/does not know issues/cannot deviate from script
6. Reporter is simply a wimp, and has no business interviewing anyone


7. All of the above. See eg: David Freaking Gregory.

Love the handle, BTW. "Unleashed in the East" is perhaps the finest live album ever.
 
2012-06-26 11:20:56 AM

Aarontology: That's because Romney comes across as that asshole boss that everyone's had at some point in their working lives. The kind that shows up later and leavers earlier yet still says things like "this place would fall apart if it weren't for me," doesn't really get how things actually get done but has opinions on how to improve it without ever listening to the employee suggestions...


Exactly. No one *LIKES* Mitt Romney. He is actually less likable than John Kerry.
 
2012-06-26 11:21:39 AM
What makes this article even better is that she guest-hosted AC360 last night and had a Latin republican strategist (Ana Navarro I believe) and an Obama spokesman. She asked the EXACT same questions and got solid answers.

It was funny, because the spokesman did try and cast dispersions at Mitt, and Soledad pushed him to state Obama's position, which he was happy to do.

The Latin republican strategist was fuming about Mitt's lack to court the Latino vote or have a solid position, especially in light of the AZ results.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:08 AM

Diogenes: Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

I'll give it a shot, but I'm having a hard time:


I'm guessing that they'll find some Mormons who HAVE fought and come out heroes, cherry-pick their stories and use them to prove there's no reason Romney can't be commander in chief.

/A better road for the media to explore would be how draft-dodging is okay so long as it is a GOP candidate who did it.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:28 AM

qorkfiend: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

In general, this is an easy one; toss the Mormon part a bit about freedom of religion, then talk about national security and how bad you think Obama is at it.

"One of the greatest strengths of America is freedom of religion; having religion be free from government interference. As Commander in Chief, I will secure our borders and ensure the security of America for the future; I won't weaken America, but I also won't enter into unnecessary conflicts."

I'm sure a wealthy *sniff, sniff* mule farmer like Romney would be able to bullshiat a bit better than I can.


Not bad. Although if Romney's responses are truly that lame, I'm certain only 90% of Conservatives will claim he won the debate.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:44 AM

The Green Manalishi: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

I would channel Newt on that one. Something about the question being "disgusting" and "irrelevant" and an example of the media war on religion. I don't know if Mitt has the chops to pull that one off, though.


No, he can't do Newt mean. He just comes off as being agitated and testy.

Here's my rough draft:

"America is a land of opportunity. A land that our Founders came to seeking religious liberty. America promises the free practice and expression of one's faith. We have seen unprecedented government hostility toward religion under this president. And that is something that cannot stand. Not when our enemies are driven by religious zealotry. Not when Israel's very existence is threatened by Muslim extremists. Not when Muslim fanatics in Iran are developing nuclear weapons. Our freedom, security and faith are being threatened both domestically and abroad. And as President I will not accept that."
 
2012-06-26 11:24:52 AM

mrshowrules: qorkfiend: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

In general, this is an easy one; toss the Mormon part a bit about freedom of religion, then talk about national security and how bad you think Obama is at it.

"One of the greatest strengths of America is freedom of religion; having religion be free from government interference. As Commander in Chief, I will secure our borders and ensure the security of America for the future; I won't weaken America, but I also won't enter into unnecessary conflicts."

I'm sure a wealthy *sniff, sniff* mule farmer like Romney would be able to bullshiat a bit better than I can.

Not bad. Although if Romney's responses are truly that lame, I'm certain only 90% of Conservatives will claim he won the debate.


Yeah, I predict there will be a critical mass of buzzwords. As long as he gets his digs in at Obama, most of his voters will be satisfied.
 
2012-06-26 11:25:39 AM

The Green Manalishi: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

I would channel Newt on that one. Something about the question being "disgusting" and "irrelevant" and an example of the media war on religion. I don't know if Mitt has the chops to pull that one off, though.


Good call but maybe that only works in front of a Conservative audience when you are "taking on" the evil liberal journalist asking the questions. If he tries that shiat on Obama, he will get a Chicago style beat down.
 
2012-06-26 11:26:54 AM

what_now: Exactly. No one *LIKES* Mitt Romney. He is actually less likable than John Kerry.


yep.

It's telling that even in today's political climate, fewer people came out to vote for Romney in the primaries than did McCain in 08, or in some states, Obama in 2012. I don't know how much that will effect the actual election, but that's a problem that's only going to become more pronounced when the real campaigns begin and the debates start happening.
 
2012-06-26 11:29:48 AM

what_now: The best part for Obama is that there will be NO backlash if he stands up there and tells Romney that "Unfunded mandates" is actually two words, not just one really big word.


That would be epic. I'd love to see Obama go all out against Romney. Maybe it would even antagonize Romney into an honest response.

DarnoKonrad: Sock Ruh Tease: [i.imgur.com image 480x320]

Best part... forever!

So when African American Romney gets 20 dollars he turns white and gives off an internet explorer?


No, no, when black people have money and get rid of their negative charge, they become white.
 
2012-06-26 11:30:31 AM

Diogenes: "America is a land of opportunity. A land that our Founders came to seeking religious liberty. America promises the free practice and expression of one's faith. We have seen unprecedented government hostility toward religion under this president. And that is something that cannot stand. Not when our enemies are driven by religious zealotry. Not when Israel's very existence is threatened by Muslim extremists. Not when Muslim fanatics in Iran are developing nuclear weapons. Our freedom, security and faith are being threatened both domestically and abroad. And as President I will not accept that."


Dude, that was really good. I've been listening to POTUS on Sirius the past 4 or 5 months. When I read your post it was in Mittens voice.

Good work.
 
2012-06-26 11:31:37 AM

qorkfiend: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"

In general, this is an easy one; toss the Mormon part a bit about freedom of religion, then talk about national security and how bad you think Obama is at it.

"One of the greatest strengths of America is freedom of religion; having religion be free from government interference. As Commander in Chief, I will secure our borders and ensure the security of America for the future; I won't weaken America, but I also won't enter into unnecessary conflicts."

I'm sure a wealthy *sniff, sniff* mule farmer like Romney would be able to bullshiat a bit better than I can.

Not bad. Although if Romney's responses are truly that lame, I'm certain only 90% of Conservatives will claim he won the debate.

Yeah, I predict there will be a critical mass of buzzwords. As long as he gets his digs in at Obama, most of his voters will be satisfied.


Obama needs to force a divide by zero error in Romney's core subroutines. Remember the journalist that asked Romney, "what do you think is the most common misconception about you?" You could literally see the "error, error, error switches lighting up" with the failsafe follow-up "you ask the questions you want, and I'll give the answers I want".
 
2012-06-26 11:33:26 AM

qorkfiend: gilgigamesh: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Not to the degree she did, though. Sometimes the answer to a question is yes or no. If you answer every question with a word salad rant about lipstick and molecules and the joys of motherhood and grizzly bears, even the beleaguered and jaded American press is going to get fed up with your insulting BS eventually.

Well, yeah. It takes some chutzpah to just come out and say "I'm going to ignore all your questions and just speak", which is something I don't think Romney will do. It's also pretty unlikely that there would be yes or no questions in a presidential debate.


He did exactly that at least a couple times that I saw in the Republican debates.
 
2012-06-26 11:33:44 AM
Willard Romney is going to try to avoid taking positions for as long as possible. He blamed his loss to Kennedy on having to get specific.
 
2012-06-26 11:38:11 AM

Dwight_Yeast: /A better road for the media to explore would be how draft-dodging is okay so long as it is a GOP candidate who did it.


It's even worse than that with Mitt. With some draft dodgers, you could at least argue that they had a strong moral compass or something that they thought breaking the law was worth it to maintain their principles.

Mitt went so far as to dodge the draft and still protest in favor of the war he was trying to avoid.
 
2012-06-26 11:38:16 AM

qorkfiend: I agree. I think Biden handled that debate perfectly. He didn't go on the warpath he so ardently desired and Palin so richly deserved; instead he let Mama Grizzly talk herself into oblivion.


letustalk.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-26 11:39:26 AM
Romneybott 3000 has a cascading inner-join running and cannot determine how to proceed.
 
2012-06-26 11:44:04 AM

mrshowrules: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Pretend you are Romney and give it shot. My question: "How do you reconcile your Mormon faith never allowing its followers to fight in a war considering your will be Commander in Chief?"


That's an easy one: "While I certainly commend the efforts of our volunteer armed forces, there are many ways to support the objectives of this great country. The continued effectiveness of our military depends upon the tools provided through those other means of support....blah blah importance of the economy...blah blah job creators..."
 
2012-06-26 11:46:15 AM

apoptotic: qorkfiend: gilgigamesh: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Not to the degree she did, though. Sometimes the answer to a question is yes or no. If you answer every question with a word salad rant about lipstick and molecules and the joys of motherhood and grizzly bears, even the beleaguered and jaded American press is going to get fed up with your insulting BS eventually.

Well, yeah. It takes some chutzpah to just come out and say "I'm going to ignore all your questions and just speak", which is something I don't think Romney will do. It's also pretty unlikely that there would be yes or no questions in a presidential debate.

He did exactly that at least a couple times that I saw in the Republican debates.


Did he actually say that? I'm not sure what's worse; the politicians who do that or the voters who let him get away with it.
 
2012-06-26 11:46:21 AM

fatandolder: CPennypacker: My grandfather didn't come all the way here from the Ukraine to share the country with a bunch of immigrants.

He came here illegally?


Applying the standards and laws when he came or now?
 
2012-06-26 11:50:45 AM
"But my question, sir, was not about President Obama. My question was about Mitt Romney and specifically this one provision of SB1070. Does he support it as it now stands?"

Wow, a real farking journalist for a change.
 
2012-06-26 11:56:07 AM

qorkfiend: apoptotic: qorkfiend: gilgigamesh: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Not to the degree she did, though. Sometimes the answer to a question is yes or no. If you answer every question with a word salad rant about lipstick and molecules and the joys of motherhood and grizzly bears, even the beleaguered and jaded American press is going to get fed up with your insulting BS eventually.

Well, yeah. It takes some chutzpah to just come out and say "I'm going to ignore all your questions and just speak", which is something I don't think Romney will do. It's also pretty unlikely that there would be yes or no questions in a presidential debate.

He did exactly that at least a couple times that I saw in the Republican debates.

Did he actually say that? I'm not sure what's worse; the politicians who do that or the voters who let him get away with it.


Yeah, the instance I was thinking of in particular was during the CNN debate in South Carolina. That was the same debate that John King lost control of right at the start when he brought up Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's interview.
 
2012-06-26 11:56:13 AM

CPennypacker: fatandolder: CPennypacker: My grandfather didn't come all the way here from the Ukraine to share the country with a bunch of immigrants.

He came here illegally?

Applying the standards and laws when he came or now?


When he came here .
 
2012-06-26 11:56:18 AM

Glenford: I'd nail her Jell-o, if you know what I mean.


por-img.cimcontent.net

I bet she is a nasty, dirty freak in the sack. Or at least, I like to think that she is. When I think about her. Like I am right now...

/be right back
//fap fap fap fap
 
2012-06-26 11:58:01 AM

gilgigamesh: Good.

Far be it from me to believe that the press will start doing its job anytime soon, but they can't just let Romney and his representatives follow through on their strategy to take no position on absolutely anything until November.

It's getting tiresome watching them blatantly dodge answering a direct question and get away with it. Start nailing these farkers down for chrissake.


I think the debates will end this strategy, but it will be a little while yet.
 
2012-06-26 12:03:23 PM

bgddy24601: Glenford: I'd nail her Jell-o, if you know what I mean.

[por-img.cimcontent.net image 400x400]

I bet she is a nasty, dirty freak in the sack. Or at least, I like to think that she is. When I think about her. Like I am right now...

/be right back
//fap fap fap fap


Bunk. I'll be in it.
 
2012-06-26 12:03:38 PM

qorkfiend: gilgigamesh: qorkfiend: Diogenes: Take every question and direct it toward a preplanned, scripted answer.

Any decent politician does this every chance they get already; you pivot to what you want to talk about as fast as possible.

Not to the degree she did, though. Sometimes the answer to a question is yes or no. If you answer every question with a word salad rant about lipstick and molecules and the joys of motherhood and grizzly bears, even the beleaguered and jaded American press is going to get fed up with your insulting BS eventually.

Well, yeah. It takes some chutzpah to just come out and say "I'm going to ignore all your questions and just speak", which is something I don't think Romney will do. It's also pretty unlikely that there would be yes or no questions in a presidential debate.


I really wouldn't put it past him to just go with option a and answer the questions he wants to, instead of the questions that are asked.
 
2012-06-26 12:06:02 PM

firefly212: It's getting tiresome watching them blatantly dodge answering a direct question and get away with it. Start nailing these farkers down for chrissake.

I think the debates will end this strategy, but it will be a little while yet.



It is frustrating that there is little but opposition to any issue that gets thrown on the table (or that is where the coverage gets weighted) no matter where a person stands on an issue someone is against it. Hell, there were a-holes willing to come out against the killing of Bin Laden and some media outlets actually paid them some attention.
 
2012-06-26 12:09:25 PM
Prediction about the Romney campaign's new tactic in a few weeks: talk about the liberal media and "gotcha questions" like a bunch of spineless farking chickenshiats.
 
2012-06-26 12:09:47 PM

Dwight_Yeast:

/A better road for the media to explore would be how draft-dodging is okay so long as it is a GOP candidate who did it.


Still waiting for the evil MSM to even remotely breach this question.
While my 19 yr. old uncles were getting shot at by men in black pajamas, Rmoney was toodling around France on a bicycle handing out pamphlets.
Although I will be glad when candidates will be young enough to not have to explain their military service or lack of it.
 
2012-06-26 12:20:01 PM

monoski: Romneybott 3000 has a cascading inner-join running and cannot determine how to proceed.


WARNING: ++REFERRENTIAL INTEGRITY BREACHED!++
WARNING: ++REFERRENTIAL INTEGRITY BREACHED!++
ACTIVATE ROUTINE 'GUY SMILEY'...
 
2012-06-26 12:20:54 PM

jayhawk88: It's such a smart move by the Obama camp. Just take stands on issues. Doesn't even really matter what. The media and Romney will take care of the rest for you.

I can't wait until the general election debates. Romney's going to look like Max Headroom up there.


Sure, if there were still undecided votes.

I bet that if we held the election today, the outcome would be identical to the one held in November.
 
2012-06-26 12:22:33 PM

Rann Xerox: monoski: Romneybott 3000 has a cascading inner-join running and cannot determine how to proceed.

WARNING: ++REFERRENTIAL INTEGRITY BREACHED!++
WARNING: ++REFERRENTIAL INTEGRITY BREACHED!++
ACTIVATE ROUTINE 'GUY SMILEY'...


ERROR: INVALID ARGUMENT 'SMILEY'. DO YOU WISH TO PROCEED? Y/N
 
2012-06-26 12:23:40 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-26 12:24:36 PM

Aarontology: what_now: Mitt Romney does not have that. There is *NO* personality there, and he won't have anyone who really *LIKES* him. So in these debates, you have a likable guy who knows what he's talking about, against an unlikable guy who doesn't.

That's because Romney comes across as that asshole boss that everyone's had at some point in their working lives. The kind that shows up later and leavers earlier yet still says things like "this place would fall apart if it weren't for me," doesn't really get how things actually get done but has opinions on how to improve it without ever listening to the employee suggestions...


That is the best description of him I've seen yet. I'm going with that one.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:24 PM

apoptotic: Yeah, the instance I was thinking of in particular was during the CNN debate in South Carolina. That was the same debate that John King lost control of right at the start when he brought up Newt Gingrich's ex-wife's interview.


I hope that moment haunts King for the rest of his life. He looked like a giant pussy on national television. I hope he has kids and that they saw it, and I hoped they went up to him when he got home and said "I am ashamed that my father is such a pussy."
 
2012-06-26 12:29:51 PM

thornhill: Time after time the Romney campaign has failed to develop what their talking points are to likely questions they're going to be asked. Early on it was questions about Mitt's wealth. Now it's about Supreme Court rulings. Weeks ago they should have developed what their message would be on all likely rulings by the court.

If this is how inept his campaign staff is, they've got serious problems in the fall.

(or, they simply don't care and their strategy comes down to Super PAC TV buys).


I think this is the strategy. I think this is intentional and planned.
 
2012-06-26 12:34:31 PM
Any chance of getting Soledad to moderate one of the debates in the Fall? I'm tired of moderators that make zero attempt to actually make the candidates answer the question that was asked. The John King debate was a complete joke.
 
2012-06-26 12:37:32 PM

Bontesla: thornhill: Time after time the Romney campaign has failed to develop what their talking points are to likely questions they're going to be asked. Early on it was questions about Mitt's wealth. Now it's about Supreme Court rulings. Weeks ago they should have developed what their message would be on all likely rulings by the court.

If this is how inept his campaign staff is, they've got serious problems in the fall.

(or, they simply don't care and their strategy comes down to Super PAC TV buys).

I think this is the strategy. I think this is intentional and planned.


I agree. I don't think the GOP (with the exception of Romney himself and Adelson) really wants to win the Presidency. They'd rather take control of the Senate and still be able to blame Obama for anything that comes up less than roses for another 4 years, and be able to claim that, since they tossed a crapload of money at the election and still lost, Citizens United isn't the democracy killer that "the libs" are portraying it to be.
 
2012-06-26 12:41:31 PM

Aarontology: what_now: Mitt Romney does not have that. There is *NO* personality there, and he won't have anyone who really *LIKES* him. So in these debates, you have a likable guy who knows what he's talking about, against an unlikable guy who doesn't.

That's because Romney comes across as that asshole boss that everyone's had at some point in their working lives. The kind that shows up later and leavers earlier yet still says things like "this place would fall apart if it weren't for me," doesn't really get how things actually get done but has opinions on how to improve it without ever listening to the employee suggestions...


Someone on Fark made the comparison to an 80s movie villian. The corporate jerk who ends up being the reason why the nerd and the beautiful girl unite. They must save the high school, or old lady Miller's farm, or the local grocer from the banker who is foreclosing.
 
2012-06-26 12:45:30 PM

Bontesla: Aarontology: what_now: Mitt Romney does not have that. There is *NO* personality there, and he won't have anyone who really *LIKES* him. So in these debates, you have a likable guy who knows what he's talking about, against an unlikable guy who doesn't.

That's because Romney comes across as that asshole boss that everyone's had at some point in their working lives. The kind that shows up later and leavers earlier yet still says things like "this place would fall apart if it weren't for me," doesn't really get how things actually get done but has opinions on how to improve it without ever listening to the employee suggestions...

Someone on Fark made the comparison to an 80s movie villian. The corporate jerk who ends up being the reason why the nerd and the beautiful girl unite. They must save the high school, or old lady Miller's farm, or the local grocer from the banker who is foreclosing.


He's like the real-life version of every Ronny Cox character in the 80s and 90s.
 
2012-06-26 12:50:43 PM

apoptotic: Bontesla: thornhill: Time after time the Romney campaign has failed to develop what their talking points are to likely questions they're going to be asked. Early on it was questions about Mitt's wealth. Now it's about Supreme Court rulings. Weeks ago they should have developed what their message would be on all likely rulings by the court.

If this is how inept his campaign staff is, they've got serious problems in the fall.

(or, they simply don't care and their strategy comes down to Super PAC TV buys).

I think this is the strategy. I think this is intentional and planned.

I agree. I don't think the GOP (with the exception of Romney himself and Adelson) really wants to win the Presidency. They'd rather take control of the Senate and still be able to blame Obama for anything that comes up less than roses for another 4 years, and be able to claim that, since they tossed a crapload of money at the election and still lost, Citizens United isn't the democracy killer that "the libs" are portraying it to be.


I disagree. I think they realize their odds of winning the presidency are low, so they're trying some poli sci. It's actually quite exciting: knowing every tride and true political theory will not help, you're forced to get creative.

I think they're employing the Casey Anthony strategy. Throwing everything at the wall in hopes of confusing enough people to make a difference. Maybe the goal isn't winning votes but simply discouraging people not to vote because the political circus is insulting.
 
2012-06-26 01:01:36 PM

Bontesla: apoptotic: Bontesla: thornhill: Time after time the Romney campaign has failed to develop what their talking points are to likely questions they're going to be asked. Early on it was questions about Mitt's wealth. Now it's about Supreme Court rulings. Weeks ago they should have developed what their message would be on all likely rulings by the court.

If this is how inept his campaign staff is, they've got serious problems in the fall.

(or, they simply don't care and their strategy comes down to Super PAC TV buys).

I think this is the strategy. I think this is intentional and planned.

I agree. I don't think the GOP (with the exception of Romney himself and Adelson) really wants to win the Presidency. They'd rather take control of the Senate and still be able to blame Obama for anything that comes up less than roses for another 4 years, and be able to claim that, since they tossed a crapload of money at the election and still lost, Citizens United isn't the democracy killer that "the libs" are portraying it to be.

I disagree. I think they realize their odds of winning the presidency are low, so they're trying some poli sci. It's actually quite exciting: knowing every tride and true political theory will not help, you're forced to get creative.

I think they're employing the Casey Anthony strategy. Throwing everything at the wall in hopes of confusing enough people to make a difference. Maybe the goal isn't winning votes but simply discouraging people not to vote because the political circus is insulting.


Rubio's interview on last night's Daily Show was interesting. Stewart kept pushing about the GOP being obstructionist and prioritizing making Obama a one-term president, and Rubio's basic response is "both sides are bad". And that's how I'm sure they'll be spinning it in November. "We only doing what we can. The obstructionist Democrats force us to be be obstructionist."
 
2012-06-26 01:05:51 PM
In Romney's defense, if he stands up for things, people who disagree with him may not vote for him. How is he expected to win an election that way?
 
2012-06-26 01:16:40 PM
ps69: 'I think this is the first time I have seen someone report during this entire campaign (other than perhaps the Daily Show) that he won't answer a simple question.'

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/10/video-axelrod-dodges-cnn-questi o n-on-private-sector-doing-fine-three-times/

We have short memories in this country, don't we? I have posted an example here. I watch interviews with surrogates from these candidates everyday and I see non-answers everyday. This one happens to be one of my favorites.
 
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report