Slog Comments

 

Comments (13) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Where did the anti-war crowd go?
Posted by cliche on March 5, 2012 at 12:32 PM
2
@1: Are you referring to the war on women, the war on drugs, the war on the middle class, the war on science, the war on education, or the war on homosexuality?
Posted by also on March 5, 2012 at 12:41 PM
3
The war on TERROR!! The stinky hippies. Where did they go?
Posted by cliche on March 5, 2012 at 12:44 PM
Fnarf 4
Brains? Ron Paul supporters, brains?

Romney is far and away the smartest Republican who's not also bonkers (Gingrich is modestly smart but immodestly crazy). Romney's problem isn't lack of smarts. Romney's problem is a lack of empathetic social skills outside of his own group. Realistically, that's not a hindrance to being president, though it is one to running for president. The other, related problem Romney has is that he's forced to pretend to be something he's not in order to run. But that doesn't mean he really is that thing.

Before 2012, remember, Romney came up with Obamacare, supported a higher level of gay equality than Obama, and was within shouting distance of reason on taxes and deficits. Now, of course, he's none of those things anymore -- but I don't think he's going to remain a Khristian Kook Konservative if he wins. He's too realistic.

That said, he's still a disaster, because he's part of a system of disaster, the Republican Party. One almost has to feel sorry for the schmuck in his predicament. Settle down, I said "almost".

Travis, Ty, Potato and Charm Bracelet, or whatever their names are, are just idiots. But remember: the classic division between R and D is, R is evil, D is stupid. Not the other way around. When you get a smart D, like we have now, you've really got a thing.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on March 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM
5
@3: Fuck, I forgot that one. Sorry.

@4: Is it possible to be so cynical and dishonest that one qualifies as "bonkers"? If so, I'm not sure Romney counts as "not bonkers."
Posted by also on March 5, 2012 at 12:56 PM
undead ayn rand 6
As a Mormon, doesn't he have a lot of relatives as it is? 5 Paultards would be normal for any extended family that large.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 5, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Fnarf 7
@5, no, that just means "presidential candidate". They're all cynical and dishonest and desperate.

Remember, the good thing about a Romney victory (and a loss in November) is that it will drive the Republicans further to the right, and further towards the crazy. They will probably have to abandon even more of the veneer of dishonesty etc. that's covering their lizard skins, which might actually destroy the party once and for all.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on March 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM
DOUG. 8
Mitt Romney probably has dozens and dozens of second cousins. I bet some are even Democrats.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on March 5, 2012 at 1:33 PM
undead ayn rand 9
@5: "Is it possible to be so cynical and dishonest that one qualifies as "bonkers"?"

I dub it the Crass - Bonkers Axis.

Insincere Newt on one side, "well-meaning" asshole Paul on the other.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM
undead ayn rand 10
@7: "They're all cynical and dishonest and desperate."

With narcissistic tendencies.
Posted by undead ayn rand on March 5, 2012 at 1:40 PM
11
@8: Not if they're all Mormons.
Posted by MLM on March 5, 2012 at 5:58 PM
DOUG. 12
@11: Harry Reid is a Mormon.
Posted by DOUG. http://www.dougsvotersguide.com on March 5, 2012 at 6:31 PM
Will in Seattle 13
Let them eat cake, as Mitt Romney's wife would - and did - say ...
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on March 5, 2012 at 11:43 PM

Add a comment