Were they really worse than Romney? Or did the marketing machine sell you on that premise to the point you believed it?
Romney was a twerp, a real pig apparently -- yet the conservative/Republicans were all chanting the mantras of "good, decent" by the end of it. And defending his character (his sacred honor) after the fact (which has caused some problems from what I've seen). Some of them have even started to act like Mitt and Ann (who by the way, is a completely "nice" lady...and a real piece of work -- there were those who would have filled you in, but but Ann is a brave soul and victim...).
And the truth is this: in a former job, both my husband and I dealt day in and day out with some really "bad" kids, Trayvon Martins actually. Most of them, the majority even, once put in a place that didn't put up with any bullshit and yet gave them a different setting, were heads and shoulders more compassionate, more respectful, less punk ass creepy than what that article described Mitt and his merry band of followers as being. And yeah, the same goes for the liberals, who really showed themselves during the Bush years.
I'd rather work with the n'er do well kids, they were more adult. What does that say? I don't think it says anything good, but I'm probably more truthful than Bill Clinton, even if I can't turn a phrase as well.
Romney was the least damaged of the bunch (that is not saying a lot). And I find it hard to believe that the best the GOP had to offer was Romney, Gingrich and Santorum in the end. That is a troika of losers.
Romney was one of the most damaged of the lot -- it's just that a lot of people ran interference for him, and got other people to do the same. He was such a nice guy after all. Take Bill Clinton's word for it.
Bill Clinton nailed Romney's problem with this comment...
ReplyDeleteThe problem the GOP had was going with Newt? Santorum? They were worse than Romney. Cain and Perry both imploded on their own in the primaries.
Why did no one want to run?
Yet Trooper Pork hates Christie. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteWere they really worse than Romney? Or did the marketing machine sell you on that premise to the point you believed it?
ReplyDeleteRomney was a twerp, a real pig apparently -- yet the conservative/Republicans were all chanting the mantras of "good, decent" by the end of it. And defending his character (his sacred honor) after the fact (which has caused some problems from what I've seen).
Some of them have even started to act like Mitt and Ann (who by the way, is a completely "nice" lady...and a real piece of work -- there were those who would have filled you in, but but Ann is a brave soul and victim...).
And the truth is this: in a former job, both my husband and I dealt day in and day out with some really "bad" kids, Trayvon Martins actually. Most of them, the majority even, once put in a place that didn't put up with any bullshit and yet gave them a different setting, were heads and shoulders more compassionate, more respectful, less punk ass creepy than what that article described Mitt and his merry band of followers as being.
And yeah, the same goes for the liberals, who really showed themselves during the Bush years.
I'd rather work with the n'er do well kids, they were more adult.
What does that say?
I don't think it says anything good, but I'm probably more truthful than Bill Clinton, even if I can't turn a phrase as well.
PW
Romney was the least damaged of the bunch (that is not saying a lot). And I find it hard to believe that the best the GOP had to offer was Romney, Gingrich and Santorum in the end. That is a troika of losers.
ReplyDeleteRomney was one of the most damaged of the lot -- it's just that a lot of people ran interference for him, and got other people to do the same.
ReplyDeleteHe was such a nice guy after all. Take Bill Clinton's word for it.
PW