Jason Bourne wrote:
For you and all the other over confident Romney haters I hope you are right. It will be hell for you all if you have to eat crow for four years or more.
my response
How have you reacted to the republicans who have obviously made it their primary goal to ensure that Obama is a one-term president, even when that entailed opposing legislation that had its origins in republican ideas? (see: ACA)
Aside from that question, of course I'll be disappointed if Romney wins. But, unlike many of our elected republicans, my primary goal isn't to keep my party in the white house, but rather to see our country do well. If Romney wins and the country does well, I'll be fine. If Romney wins and the country doesn't do well, we'll have some problems over the next four years, but in 2016 Hillary (hopefully) will be in shoe-in, and I think she would be a fine president.
I support the democratic party not because I'm blindly devoted to a party. I support them because I genuinely believe that most of their policies would be better for the country. What I want is for my country to do well. When my country does well, so do I and my family.
I'm bumping up my post with emphasis and explanation.
I was accused of being a Romney hater who would be miserable if he got elected. I defended myself by explaining that I wouldn't be miserable and wouldn't place myself in opposition to Romney and all he might tried to do from the get-go -
unlike many of our ELECTED republicans.If you all want to argue that there have NOT been many elected republicans who placed themselves in immediate opposition to Obama and every single thing he said and did, go right ahead and make that argument. I think it will be a hard argument to make. The tea party attitude infected the republican party to the extent that compromise became a bad word.
I then explained why I wouldn't be miserable if Romney were to be elected and why I would hope for the best.
I was then told I was saying that republicans don't care about their country, and somehow that spun off into people pretending that all republicans are racist nuts.
So I assumed there was some correlation between my comments and the ones that followed. I may have been mistaken.
Despite the fact that I never said, or thought, that all republicans are racist nutters I will say this. If republicans want to ensure that no one associates racist nuttery with their party, they better ask Romney to rein in his surrogates, who are going around saying incredibly offensive things like the following.
Newt Gingrich
Gingrich called Obama a “false president,” saying he has a propensity to shirk his duties.
“This is a man who in an age of false celebrity-hood is sort of the perfect president, because he’s a false president,” he said. “He’s a guy that doesn’t do the president’s job.”
Gingrich questioned whether Obama has the stamina and desire to be president.
“You have to wonder what he’s doing,” Gingrich continued. “I’m assuming that there’s some rhythm to Barack Obama that the rest of us don’t understand. Whether he needs large amounts of rest, whether he needs to go play basketball for a while or watch ESPN, I mean, I don’t quite know what his rhythm is, but this is a guy that is a brilliant performer as an orator, who may very well get reelected at the present date, and who, frankly, he happens to be a partial, part-time president.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... -presidentJohn Sununu
Mitchell asked Sununu how he thought Mitt Romney did in the debates, but rather than praise Romney, Sununu opted to sharply criticize President Obama’s performance.
“What people saw last night, I think, was a president who revealed his incompetence – how lazy and detached he is and how he has absolutely no idea how serious the economy problems of the country are and how he has failed to even address them,” said Sununu.
Mitchell gasped. “Governor, I want to give you a chance to maybe take it back. Did you really mean to call Barack Obama, the President of the United States, lazy?”
“Yes,” Sununu replied without hesitation. “He didn’t want to prepare for this debate. He’s lazy and disengaged.”
Mitchell paused again. “I think there certainly was a performance issue there and whether or not he was in his best form last night, a lot of people are questioning that,” said Andrea. “But I think to call the president lazy and disengaged is another whole question.”
“Whatever, Andrea,” Sununu laughed. “Whatever you want.”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/andrea-mitch ... e-it-back/Newt Gingrich and John Sununu, for those with short memories, are two politicians who have a long history of questionable ethics.
Has Romney reprimanded these two for these remarks, that only someone willfully blind to the dog whistles of the past century could pretend aren't racist?
