Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

Load 25 of 50 older comments
  • As a resident of MA, allow me to say this:

    DUH!
  • So subby is saying that Mitt Romney is a typical American politician?
  • Tigger: Wendy's Chili: vernonFL: My favorite Romney quote is "I can't hire illegal aliens. I'm running for President for Pete's sake!"

    "I like those fancy raincoats you got there. Really sprung for the big bucks."

    This one is yet to be beaten for me

    "One of most humorous I think relates to my father. You may remember my father, George Romney, was president of an automobile company called American Motors ... They had a factory in Michigan, and they had a factory in Kenosha, Wisconsin, and another one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin," said Romney. "And as the president of the company he decided to close the factory in Michigan and move all the production to Wisconsin. Now later he decided to run for governor of Michigan and so you can imagine that having closed the factory and moved all the production to Wisconsin was a very sensitive issue to him, for his campaign."


    I just learned of this one yesterday:

    "If I'm the godfather of [Obamacare], then it gives me the right to kill it."

    cinesism.files.wordpress.comView Full Size
  • very true smitty. what you left unsaid is that makes him exactly like obama. pandering before he gets in, then shoving shiat down everyone's throat that he promised he would fight against before he got there. see public option, individual mandate, transparency, keeping troops in iraq, the power of the president to unilaterally begin a war without congressional consent, fisa, habeas corpus, indefinite detention, gitmo, etc, etc etc.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    Adaptability is fine, but doing a 180 degree turn(and sometimes BACK again) on pretty much every issue in existence is just pandering. There's a difference.
  • DeltaPunch: If you're looking to anger conservatives, however, just keep referring to Romney as the "inevitable nominee".


    And complementing him about his similarities to Obama.
  • sprawl15: Diogenes: Kittypie070: Hey Diogenes, I love that windsock.

    And you know what? If Romney had a real sense of humor he'd sell them, or Romney campaign branded Etch-a-Sketches.

    Own the tools being used against you.

    Kind of like the "Made in America" coffee cups that had Obama's birth certificate plastered on them.


    Bingo
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    Yes - it really is bad. The whole point of representational democracy is to entrust government to a set of folks empowered to do the right thing, regardless of popularity at the moment of decision. To merely reflect the majority of the moment on every decision concedes the ability to think in the best interest of the country, regardless of political palatibility. It's the whole "Profiles in Courage" scenario, where an unpopular decision is ultimately required because it's morally the right thing to do, and often times, becomes very popular in hindsight, once the wisdom is revealed to the masses.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    No, backing policies that your constituents demand is not flip-flopping, even if you held a different position before.

    Romney though is a political windsock, and has projected an air of insincerity since 2007, and probably earlier than that, but that's when I first heard of him.

    His policy changes seem to be based not on adopting to new information or nuanced situations, but what will garner him the most support from the Republican base.
  • Romney was the weakest candidate in '08, but finished in the top tier, making him the next guy in line. Santorum is the weakest in the field now and will be seen as the top guy going into 2016.

    Republicans have gotten really, really bad at picking nominees.
  • meat0918: His policy changes seem to be based not on adopting to new information or nuanced situations, but what will garner him the most support from the Republican base.


    To be more precise, what will garner him the most support from the Republican base in the state he's current speaking in.
  • bobbette: Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)


    There is a difference between changing one's position in, say, light of new information or world experiences.

    And changing one's position with THREE farkING HOURS.
  • gameshowhost: Nadie_AZ: Bush Jr

    What the fark has that mongoloid been up to lately?


    Laying low and watching the primaries.

    Perry made him look smart
    Santorum made him look sane
    Gingrich made him look ethical
    Romney made him look like he had a good personality

    This primary is a legacy builder.
  • Anyone who'd vote for a candidate who stands for nothing would also probably fall for anything he said.

    The one thing Romney did right in his whole political career is the one thing he'll have to run away from the hardest in order to satisfy the RW derp brigade who've taken charge of the asylum. There's a big difference with evolving political positions over time and shamelessly pandering to whatever group you are talking to at the moment and Romney's campaign illustrates that difference every day.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    I have no problem with a person (including a politician) being flexible in his views, and adapting to new realities; I see it as a real virtue like you do. What galls about Romney is that he's "on your side" on one issue or another to your face, and denies that he ever held a contrary view before, when it is ever so easy to document what he claimed to believe before. Then to another group he panders to what they want to hear. His MA health plan was a model he should be proud of, but he abandons all reason to be the uber-Nobama. Got no time for that BS.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.



    You are correct that that is not a bad thing. However there doesn't appear to be a shred of evidence that Romney switched positions due to new information coming to light. It literally looks to everyone that he switches positions to pander to whomever he's talking to.

    The real test will be when the primaries end and the general starts. He can't keep up the rhetoric in any hopes of winning the national election; he's got to pull back left of he's going to get creamed. Unfortunately he'll get creamed regardless, because if he does pull back left, the right will melt down.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    Changing your mind based on the evidence is one thing. Changing your mind in virtually every policy position to advance your career is another.
  • Corvus: DeltaPunch: It's a bad move for Democrats to criticize Romney at this stage. That's the best way rally the conservative base around him. Instead, let them attack him -- there will be plenty of time for attacks once he's the nominee.

    If you're looking to anger conservatives, however, just keep referring to Romney as the "inevitable nominee".

    Heck Bush's "endorsement" was pretty much that. It was really pathetic. Like "We better get behind Romney because things will only get worse if we don't" type remarks.

    I like to point out how Romney was the architect of Obamacare myself to them.


    Here is Rubio's shining endorsement:

    "It's increasingly clear that Mitt Romney's going to be the Republican nominee... we've got to come together behind who I think has earned this nomination and that's Mitt Romney."

    Wow! What conviction! He went on to say "I will endorse Mitt Romney". I love the future tense, it's so fresh!
  • He is awarded no points and may God have mercy on his soul.
  • None of this matters. The second he wins the nomination, the GOP will start on his personality cult, and all the righties will band together to declare him the perfect choice for president, with nothing wrong about him. Heck, they'll probably claim Obama is the flipflopper, and Romney's never once taken anything but a firm stance on policy.

    Basically, the same thing they did to Reagan, Bush II, and McCain/Palin. their ideology is driven by personality cultism, and as a result, nothing the leader says can be anything but true. Any sort of fact checking of contrary news reports will be blasted as liberal media, MSM lies, democratic propaganda, etc.
  • I hear his commitment to magic underpants and shameless pandering is unwavering.
  • Crapinoleum: bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.

    I have no problem with a person (including a politician) being flexible in his views, and adapting to new realities; I see it as a real virtue like you do. What galls about Romney is that he's "on your side" on one issue or another to your face, and denies that he ever held a contrary view before, when it is ever so easy to document what he claimed to believe before. Then to another group he panders to what they want to hear. His MA health plan was a model he should be proud of, but he abandons all reason to be the uber-Nobama. Got no time for that BS.


    Exactly. No one cares if you change positions. They care if you do it, and then claim never to have supported the previous one. Romney has been shown to do this time and time again.
  • bobbette: Devil's advocate:

    Is it really so bad for a politician to be responsive to what the electorate wants? To change his mind after discovering new information or sides of an issue?

    Demonizing someone for flip-flopping effectively means you want politicians to never adapt or change based on changing circumstances or public opinion. Some of the worst decisions in American history occurred because politicians felt bound by their previously stated objectives and absolutely could not adapt to new information or nuanced situations (for example, LBJ's escalation in Vietnam.)

    Didn't we already go through this sh*t with John Kerry? Back then, all the U.S. liberals were saying adaptability was a virtue.


    There is nothing wrong with changing your mind in the face of new information.

    There is everything wrong with lying through your teeth based solely on what sells to the people you're talking to.
  • Load 25 of 90 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.