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.

(New York Magazine)   Romney campaign has a big, fat reason for why they lost   (nymag.com) divider line 212
    More: Asinine, Mitt Romney, Federalist Society, Eric Bolling  
•       •       •

9071 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2012 at 1:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-20 09:04:25 PM
Is this a way to make Chris Christie look good for 2016? I can't think of a better way for Romney to endorse anyone than how Romney is currently endorsing Christie.
 
2012-11-20 09:57:36 PM

monoski: He had no chance of winning NY or NJ. This is just meaningless finger-pointing. He needs to accept the fact that his message does not sell to over half of the country (you know the ones who want free stuff)


he would have had to *have* a message in the first place.
 
2012-11-20 10:48:12 PM
Christie is a bright man.

Bright enuff to avoid running in 2012 against a popular and competent incumbent.

Bright enuff to screen his calls when Mitt's veep exploration committee came a'knockin'.

Bright enuff to spend his time at the podium during the RNC talking about himself and not Mitt Romney.

Bright enuff to know when to drop petty partisan tactics roll down his sleeves and fix the problem not the blame in the wake of Sandy

Romney, FOX, Murdoch, the Teatards and RW radio blowhards are al shooting themselves in the foot trying to make him the scapegoat for the fact that Mitt was a shiat candidate,.

My guess is Christie rides this current wave of derp out and comes out of the box swinging in 2016.

Looking for reasons Mitt lost is fun but rather time consuming.

Anyone wanna try to give even one reason why he deserved to win?

Just one.

/I'll wait over here and eat some pie.
//Mmmmm, pies are good.
 
2012-11-20 10:52:46 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: monoski: He had no chance of winning NY or NJ. This is just meaningless finger-pointing. He needs to accept the fact that his message does not sell to over half of the country (you know the ones who want free stuff)

he would have had to *have* a message in the first place.


That's the whole thing about Hurricane Sandy: If Romney actually believed in his campaign themes he could have won.

All through the campaign Obama's message was, "You didn't built it (alone) / We're all in this together / government can help you." And Romney's campaign message was, "Private enterprise is superior to government / individual charity beats welfare / bootstraps, etc." Both sides have rubbed these talking points down to meaningless nubs. But then a hurricane hits and Obama goes and illustrates his campaign themes in a practical setting. Where, then, was Romney?

If I were a campaign advisor I'd have Romney roll up his sleeves, donate $5 million, get his billionaire donors to pitch in and start a 'Private Citizen FEMA'... show off the government by being there first with hot food, street cleaning, stuff like that. Even as a crass political stunt it would show some sort of initiative and at least give Christie the room to stump for GOP. It could have made Republicans for once look unselfish and inclusive. But instead the East Coast got nothing. Romney, the richest candidate in U.S. history, couldn't spare a dime.

The lesson: Obama, say what you will, actually believes his cliched campaign slogans. He practices what he preaches. Romney on the other hand is a cynical, spineless political scavenger who would laugh in my face if I suggested he donate his own money to help in a crisis. No, that's what governments are for. He *didn't* build it, and he certainly wasn't going to rebuild it either.

Romney had a perfect opportunity to prove the existence of 'compassionate conservatism.' By slinking away from Sandy he instead proved it simply doesn't exist, and that Obama's arguments have a real-world application.

It wasn't about people wanting 'free stuff' from the candidates, it was about wanting some basic sincerity.
 
2012-11-20 11:52:53 PM

dletter: it is kind of hard for Madagascar to start a war with the U.S.


He typically just shuts down everything before the war can even start.
 
2012-11-20 11:53:53 PM

dletter: That is the thing here. The GOP likes to say that the democrats play with "Class Warfare", but, I think the war started on the other side..... it is kind of hard for Madagascar to start a war with the U.S.


Technically speaking, this war goes back to the 1890's with the high water mark during the New Deal. FDR was an interesting man. He certainly wasn't the guy you would expect to stick it to the Man.
 
2012-11-21 12:07:45 AM

Darth Macho: The lesson: Obama, say what you will, actually believes his cliched campaign slogans. He practices what he preaches. Romney on the other hand is a cynical, spineless political scavenger who would laugh in my face if I suggested he donate his own money to help in a crisis. No, that's what governments are for. He *didn't* build it, and he certainly wasn't going to rebuild it either.


I don't think that most of the conservative base really cares all that much about helping others, either. They're also selfish.

E.G.: "But in the days after the storm, Mr. Christie and his advisers were startled to hear from out-of-state donors to Mr. Romney, who had little interest in the hurricane and viewed him solely as a campaign surrogate, demanding to know why he had stood so close to the president on a tarmac. One of them questioned why he had boarded Mr. Obama's helicopter, according to people briefed on the conversations."

I think David Frum had a good point in his latest Newsweek article. The Republicans plays to a (selfish) white base. But that base is getting old, and they want (nay, deserve!) their entitlements, too.

So, do they continue with their small government rhetoric? Do they court non-whites and homosexuals? Or do they keep doubling down on a shrinking base?

The party of Lincoln is a house divided.
 
2012-11-21 12:49:17 AM

spiderpaz: So, by Teapublican logic (which boils down to politicizing everything and acting like an angry spoiled child), Christie is BAD because he chose to put politics aside and do what's best for his state during a crisis rather than politicizing the storm and sinking to new lows, putting his citizen's lives at risk for a chance to stick it to Obama.

Got it.


Pretty much.

Yes, in that sense, it WAS Christie's fault, because he DID step outside party lockstep and said, You know what? I don't have time for this shiat right now. My state needs a leader, not a party player; I need to be a governor right now, not a GOP drone; and the people of New Jersey need help, not business as usual. And when he did that, he showed the other GOP lockstep drones that it was OKAY to step outside the party line, and enough of them did that to make a difference in the election.
 
2012-11-21 12:51:22 AM

quatchi: Christie is a bright man.

Bright enuff to avoid running in 2012 against a popular and competent incumbent.

Bright enuff to screen his calls when Mitt's veep exploration committee came a'knockin'.

Bright enuff to spend his time at the podium during the RNC talking about himself and not Mitt Romney.

Bright enuff to know when to drop petty partisan tactics roll down his sleeves and fix the problem not the blame in the wake of Sandy


But is he bright enuff to know how to spell the word "enough"?
 
2012-11-21 01:00:38 AM

quatchi: Christie is a bright man.

Bright enuff to avoid running in 2012 against a popular and competent incumbent.

Bright enuff to screen his calls when Mitt's veep exploration committee came a'knockin'.

Bright enuff to spend his time at the podium during the RNC talking about himself and not Mitt Romney.

Bright enuff to know when to drop petty partisan tactics roll down his sleeves and fix the problem not the blame in the wake of Sandy

Romney, FOX, Murdoch, the Teatards and RW radio blowhards are al shooting themselves in the foot trying to make him the scapegoat for the fact that Mitt was a shiat candidate,.

My guess is Christie rides this current wave of derp out and comes out of the box swinging in 2016.

Looking for reasons Mitt lost is fun but rather time consuming.

Anyone wanna try to give even one reason why he deserved to win?

Just one.

/I'll wait over here and eat some pie.
//Mmmmm, pies are good.


It was Mitt's turn! Did you not receive the gold-embossed memo?

\This is what republicans named Romney actually believe.
 
2012-11-21 01:15:19 AM

Chameleon: But is he bright enuff to know how to spell the word "enough"?


Prolly.

^_^
 
2012-11-21 01:17:55 AM

Evil High Priest: It was Mitt's turn! Did you not receive the gold-embossed memo?


Nope, prolly got lost in the same batch of mail that my invite to the Royal Wedding was in.

\This is what republicans named Romney actually believe.

Well, it's nice to know that he finally believes in something.
 
Displayed 12 of 212 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report