Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Mass debates
Never before has so much free media been spent on so many useless wingnuts. There was nothing like this in 2004, when Democrats competed to take on a Republican incumbent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It’s quite simple. There is so much attention on the Republican primary because the winner WILL be the next President. There was little fanfare about the Democrats in 2004 because there is never any contrast when Democrats run in a primary. It’s just one scoundrel against another.
Does fantasy help you sleep at night? Or is your sleep aid just the forgetting you do? At this stage of 2004, Duhbya was very unpopular, and he looked sure to lose. Yet Duhbya was able to bullshit his way to a second term because John Kerry was such a poor candidate.
Now your extremist party has a bunch of poor candidates, and President Obama could slide through because of it - because there are no adults in the room when the Republicans debate. Well, Huntsman is actually a grown-up (with a childlike view of the economy), a consequence of which is that he can't be elected.
Yeah, the candidates in 2004 were awesome.
Lieberman- left dems in disgust.
Edwards- great family morals.
Howard Dean- 5 minutes of fame. Where'd he go anyway? Even the liberals are ashamed of him now.
Clark- He might as well be named dubya 2.
Kucinich- Commie
And, as you said it, Kerry was a poor candidate. Now your last breath lies with Obama. Gulp. Hope he doesn't run on his record.
Lieberman, not extremist, except in self-regard. Edwards, not extremist, only one mistress, fewer than Romney's grandfather had wives. Dean, as chair of the DNC, kicked the holy hell out of the wingnuts in 2006. Clark, do you wingers always hate on the military? How could he be "dubya 2" if he never was elected? That's a really silly comment. Kucinich, perhaps a little to the left of liberal, but hardly and extremist.
President Obama has a far better record than any of the no-account extremists in the GOP. One word of warning: You know that Mitt Romney is going to tack back to the center after he wins the nomination, right? You're going to be furious.
Everyone can already tell that Romney will say anything to get elected. He's completely untrustworthy.
Except that you can always count on him to look out for ... Mitt Romney...
WOW! There is some truth here concerning Romney. There truly is a first time for everything.
An error on my part: Romney's great-grandfather, not his grandfather, had five wives. What a piker - his great-great-grandfather had twelve.
More here.
(Note to wingnuts: See how easy it is to admit a mistake. Really, all it takes is the willingness to learn. Of course, you'd have to learn that.)
I'm not a Romney fan. I'm a Ron Paul fan. Anything is better than the Anti-American Neo-Colonial Hating Enemy Apologist that we have in office now.
I'm sure Romney's grandfather's wives knew about each other. They were polygamists. There is nothing unethical or immoral when the polygamy was consensual. Nice try.
-ToeJamm
Hey, Toe, so you're in favor of gay marriage, then? That's consensual too.
You're a colonialist? But you like Ron Paul, and he's an isolationist. Another incoherent conservative who has no idea what he's for, he's just agin that KenyanMooslimSociaFasciaCommunistColored guy.
Who ordered bin Laden killed, big guy? Who ordered the Somali pirate rescue on the high seas? Who ordered the Somali pirate hostage rescue (with some breakage, all among the bad guys)?
Apologist? Some fucking apologies...
Post a Comment