Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

[Lakhota]

No he married 2 rich women and fucked over his comrades in arms.

Why aren't you out on a "moonlight" ride with your little psycho buddy Allen West?

Seeing I live about 600 miles away from him now, I'll have to wait until early December before we get together again. Until then, I'll amuse myself here listening to you sputter and shriek every time I neg your ass.

That's interesting, considering that I ignore your daily negs.

 

[Oddball]

I stoped reading at "first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil."

Wow...You made it that far?....

 

[Ernie S.]

Why aren't you out on a "moonlight" ride with your little psycho buddy Allen West?

Seeing I live about 600 miles away from him now, I'll have to wait until early December before we get together again. Until then, I'll amuse myself here listening to you sputter and shriek every time I neg your ass.

That's interesting, considering that I ignore your daily negs.

Far from daily, though you seem to beg for a daily beat down from someone.
And if you call your post re. my friend Alan West withing minutes of me negging you, ignoring the neg, you are even more dishonest than I previously thought.
It is refreshing to see you, at least don't overtly whine any more though.

 

[GuyPinestra]

No, he’s far less qualified than Kerry; yes in that he’ll lose this November.

Oblamo supporters should probably avoid talking about "qualifications", with what little "qualifications" they required Oblamo to have in 2008, it makes them nothing more than partisan hypocrites.

I think a successful term as a senator is a little better than a complete failure term as a governor, but then again obama is black, and you are a racist.

Negged for race-baiting, you stupid bitch!

 

[Synthaholic]

I stoped reading at "first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil."

You always stop reading when you get to the facts.

 

[Synthaholic]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I disagree with the bolded. Howard Dean was a good candidate, and got sidelined by a bunch of hysterical Republicans and a complacent press that ran with a non-story that was blown way out of proportion and taken completely out of context.

 

[Oddball]

I stoped reading at "first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil."

You always stop reading when you get to the facts.

Troofer, are ya?

Way to marginalize yourself, Melvin...

 

[9thIDdoc]

Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

No, he’s far less qualified than Kerry; yes in that he’ll lose this November.

Some people may have disliked Bush but Kerry is hated by many. Other than teaching sleeze on a post grad. level I don't know what he'd be qualified for. He was very lucky to be rejected.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I actually agree with you.

But seasonal jobs won't be enough.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I disagree with the bolded. Howard Dean was a good candidate, and got sidelined by a bunch of hysterical Republicans and a complacent press that ran with a non-story that was blown way out of proportion and taken completely out of context.

Who?

 

[francoHFW]

How bout POLICY instead of stupid gossip? Ay caramba...

 

[Oldstyle]

Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

Very much so, except that Kerry wasn't a vulture capitalist.

Kerry was a career politician...Romney on the other hand was a very successful businessman...which of course to you progressives that HATE the Private Sector, automatically makes him a "vulture capitalist"...a notion which even Bill Clinton scoffed at.

So how has career politician Barry Obama been working out for you so far, Lakhota? Ready to admit that he doesn't have a clue how to get the economy going again and put people back to work?

 

[JoeB131]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I think this is a good comparison, but I will go a bit further.

Kerry lost because he tried to present himself as something he wasn't.

Bush won a second term because we were at war. Kerry's approach was to say, "Hey, I've got three Purple Hearts. I was in Vietnam. You can trust me."

And that works fine, if you ignore the parts where he spent years as an anti-war protestor or the years in Congress where he tried to hamstring the DoD and CIA at every oppurtunity. And he didn't help himself when he said stuff like "I voted for it before I was against it."

Romney is trying to present himself as something he isn't, as well. He's trying to present himself as a job creator, when really, all he was is a guy who invested. If you look closely at all the jobs he downsized and outsourced and all the plants and stores and offices he closed to make a quick buck for his investors, it's kind of like finding those old pictures of Kerry with Jane Fonda.

Just totally defeats the narrative you are trying to lay down.

 

[sarahgop]

romney is being defined by obama just like kerry was defined by republicans. the reason is the same. romney and kerry offer nothing positive so they are defined negatively.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Interesting comparison in that both are Northeastern zillionaires who, probably as a result of their wealth, seem detached and elitist, not exactly warm and fuzzy personalities.

A big difference, though, is that Kerry was disliked for things he did and said; Romney is disliked for being an Etch-A-Sketch™. Pretty easy not to be thrilled with either one.

.

 

[Stephanie]

Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

Very much so, except that Kerry wasn't a vulture capitalist.

Kerry is a vulture gigolo instead

 

[JoeB131]

Is Mitt the reps John Kerry?

Very much so, except that Kerry wasn't a vulture capitalist.

Kerry is a vulture gigolo instead

Perhaps...

But he didn't have a bunch of broken families in his wake like Romney does.

 

[Stephanie]

Very much so, except that Kerry wasn't a vulture capitalist.

Kerry is a vulture gigolo instead

Perhaps...

But he didn't have a bunch of broken families in his wake like Romney does.

spare us the dramatics

 

[Seawytch]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I disagree with the bolded. Howard Dean was a good candidate, and got sidelined by a bunch of hysterical Republicans and a complacent press that ran with a non-story that was blown way out of proportion and taken completely out of context.

Dean, the charismatic and energetic candidate was not the establishment candidate, Kerry was. So what we ended up with was a candidate people weren't all that enthusiastic about. (sound familiar?) People that voted that election were voting against Bush and not FOR Kerry. (again, sound familiar?)

The end result will be the same for Willard as it was for John Kerry.

 

[Oldstyle]

Remembering back to the 2004 elections the Dems were running against a rather disliked republican incumbent. Bush had done some really poor things in his first term and people were really against him. first he allowed an attack on a civilian target on US soil. he then lied about WMDs and went to war with an uninvolved country costing billions of dollars. He was ignoring the boogieman of 9/11 which he created. The tech bubble had burst, and he was helping his friends get cheap labor overseas. It seemed like the Dems could not lose as long as they did not run someone completely fucked up.

And so they had a lackluster primary with a bunch of fuckwits. john kerry came out on top. John was a truly boring candidate with no ideas and a shitty connection to the voters. His main selling point was anything but bush, which was a pretty big selling point for the left. John showed the US the problem with a campaign that is run on the problems of the incumbent. yes, there was bitter fighting over who would get there, but when the election came around John had a supposed plan he never got into details about, he could only inspire the core of the party which was going to vote no matter who ran, and Bush squeeked by.

now we have another boring MA leader who is running on an anything but the incumbent platform. he has no defined plan, he is boring as hell, he is disconnected from the people, and even in his own party he is an oddball. Just like in 2004 america is being beaten to death on a couple of issues, but it is not electrifying the party candidate slamming the incumbent. Mitt had a boost when his party rallied around him, but he is not firing america up. just like john he doesn't even fire up his own party. By the time the election comes around people are not going to want to hear about the decided obamacare, just like they didn't want to hear about the quagmire of iraq anymore. The economy and jobs will pick up as they do every year between halloween and christmas, people will feel good, and hate for the fuck ups of the incumbent will subside because people are in a better mood.

So who thinks Romney is the republican's John kerry?

I think this is a good comparison, but I will go a bit further.

Kerry lost because he tried to present himself as something he wasn't.

Bush won a second term because we were at war. Kerry's approach was to say, "Hey, I've got three Purple Hearts. I was in Vietnam. You can trust me."

And that works fine, if you ignore the parts where he spent years as an anti-war protestor or the years in Congress where he tried to hamstring the DoD and CIA at every oppurtunity. And he didn't help himself when he said stuff like "I voted for it before I was against it."

Romney is trying to present himself as something he isn't, as well. He's trying to present himself as a job creator, when really, all he was is a guy who invested. If you look closely at all the jobs he downsized and outsourced and all the plants and stores and offices he closed to make a quick buck for his investors, it's kind of like finding those old pictures of Kerry with Jane Fonda.

Just totally defeats the narrative you are trying to lay down.

That's AMAZINGLY stupid, Joe...Bain Capital was responsible for creating hundreds of thousands of jobs here in the US but because some of the companies that they backed financially outsourced a few jobs (most of which took place AFTER Romney had turned over control of Bain) to China you paint him as a "job outsourcer"? It's a charge that's so ridiculous that even other Democrats like Bill Clinton have been candid enough to admit that it's not a fair thing to say about Mitt Romney...but of course you've still got your whole "Mormon Phobia" thing going on so you buy into this horseshit.

Obama is trying to frame Romney in this fashion because he's scared to death of having HIS record of economic accomplishment compared to Romney's. The Obama camp's refrain is "Yes, he was successful...but only because he out sourced jobs...which is a total joke considering the man that Barry had as HIS Jobs Czar, Jeffrey Immelt outsourced far MORE jobs than Bain ever did as the CEO of General Electric.