for "change", you need the WH, Senate, and the House. for "big change", you need 60 in the senate, and dead senators don't count.

willard's not that dumb. he knows even "change" won't happen if he wins. the regressives will have the house, and the dems will have the senate.

big change? it's just some words he decided to say toady.

When Mitt Romney uses the phrase "Big Change," I can't help but think of Big Love.

I'll take that as an unintended association coming from our first presidential candidate who belongs to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Am I a bad person for briefly really enjoying the image of Romney flinging handfuls of coins at Midwesterners?

Awww. I was hoping for a story about Romney hucking coins by the fistful at a crowd. You're a tease, Paul Constant.

Politics being basically sports is why I don't pay more than minimal attention to national politics, except on a theoretical level. I don't give a shit about some blowhard's claims about change or hope or etc, just like I don't give a shit about who won the superbowl last year. The particular team isn't the point, it's the effects.

I have a picture in my mind of Rmoney dressed as a Roman emperor, tossing coins to the crowd of citizens dressed in rags.

"Change" is why back-up quarterbacks are so popular, even though there's a reason they didn't win the job in the first place.

@ 3, 4, 6 - Same here.

Oh well... It's a lovely mental image, isn't it?

"Let them eat change!"

I assumed Mitt Romney was throwing nickels and dimes at the crowd in the hopes of getting some more votes. After reading the article I was disappointed.

The Republican candidates lately are always sleazy liars, but their campaigns always play the game better.