Considering that I thought Mitt Romney was the biggest compulsive liar that I have ever encountered in any facet of my life, and considering that I really do not like liars, I most assuredly do not miss that man.
I do acknowledge, however, that taking apart Romney was like shooting fish in a barrel. Half the time, he was shooting himself.
But, I don’t miss him.
His only competition in the compulsive lying department came from his running mate. What a pair.
What continues to mystify me is that none of those around me, 99% of whom voted for Romney and are conservative/Republicans, and who put so much store by honesty and integrity didn’t see this. I’ve now concluded, given what aspiring GOP Presidential candidates have had to say this week to stay true to the base, that they knew Romney was a blatant liar, but their objections to Obama and Dems just won’t allow them to admit even to themselves what major character flaws their candidates have. The Republican party is truly sick and I sincerely hope it dies. No rebirth for that party.
wow – 99% of the people around you voted for Romney? Do you live in the dorms at Liberty University? Or in Utah?
Maybe I exaggerated a bit, but the overwhelming numbers of voters who live in my area did vote for Romney.
It all depends on how you define “truth.” You’re probably thinking something like “matches reality,” and the 99% who surround you (condolences, btw) use it to mean “matches conservative dogma.”
Barack Obama: an outstanding President, a titan of the Democratic party, and as the first black Prez a world-historical figure.
Mitt Romney: an appalling person, a joke outside of the horrific Republican party, and a soon-to-be-forgotten footnote of history.
Sorry, Mitt.
I just hope that he’s found a place where the trees are all the right height.
Surely you have lived such a sheltered life that Romney stands apart as a unique liar. Or that you’re so repulsed by liars that it disqualifies them from any consideration to vote for a liar. For example, Obama lies all the time. And for total whoppers, did Mitt ever top Hillary’s “ducking from sniper fire?”
Romney is so narcissistic and socially awkward that he’s really bad at lying. Unlike,
However, compared to Obama, Hillary is a piker.
>did Mitt ever top Hillary’s “ducking from sniper fire?
uhhh … only every time he opened his mouth. Go through that famous first debate that he supposedly did so well in. Everything he said was an obvious lie.
What kind of nonsense is this? The article announces that the Democrats are missing Romney, and then in support of this proposition it quotes all of two anonymous sources. Is The Hill always this silly?
my question also. and what about when they point out the tiredness and far fetchedness of attacking the Koch bros?
Is “The Hill” always this silly?
Yes!!!! They were Drudgico before Drudgico.
Yes. “Tis a silly
placesite.”All hail the Narrative; the Narrative must be spread.
Not unlike a certain bovine-generated fertilizer.
Ukraine’s Shlapak Sees U.S.-Backed Bond Sale Before Vote.
Wonder which US Wall St brokers have figured out how to make some bucks on this deal.
George Soros no doubt.
But I am not a fan of Putin either.
Soros isn’t a bond trader.
I try not to be a fan of any politician. Easier that way to engage in meaningful and fact based discussions/arguments of his/her job performance.
Was just watching the Calif wildfires that are raging across San Diego County and thinking how unpleasant it must be to have your elevator power shut off just when the smoke is permeating the house. Of course his power could still be on as the fires are north of him a bit but it does feel lovely to let the mind wander when it comes to the Romneys.
Gawd, I hate articles like this. There’s no there there. It’s not even a horserace article; it’s an article about the narratives in a horserace, and even then there’s nothing substantive at all about the narratives – let alone any acknowledgement of actual issues that real people care about. Advertising Age does a way better job of writing about marketing campaigns.
You have to live in a pretty insular Beltway bubble to take the following seriously:
Setting aside the anonymous source with an axe to grind nonsense, the Dems’ problem isn’t a lack of targets – it’s too many of them. Democrats don’t need wealthy villains like the Kochs except to explain why the lunatics are getting so much traction in our political system. But it’s the lunatics that people are reacting to. From old standbys like Rush and the echo chamber to a small army of wingnut backbenchers, every day you can find a dozen or more examples that these people have lost their fking minds. For the vast majority of low-info voters who aren’t already attached to the GOP, that, not some obscure plutocrat, defines Republicans in 2014.
Of course, The Hill can’t acknowledge that, because if someone has a title in DC you can’t just go around pointing at their naked bodies and suggesting that not only are they not wearing fine suits, but the underwear on their pointy heads is kind of embarrassing. Ex officio, the lunatics’ ideas and pronouncements must be taken seriously. So if half a country thinks they’ve lost their minds, it cannot, under any circumstances, be acknowledged. You can’t even acknowledge that this is a widely shared opinion, let alone a key electoral narrative.
Which is why you get unadulterated horseshit like this.
looks like the hill forgot that real journalists never post bullsh*t articles with declarative headlines. the proper headline is always a question, such as:
“are democrats now missing romney?”
or
“is the hill even pretending anymore?”
actually, that second example wouldn’t be a bullsh*t article …