Discussion for article #232001
Maybe they’re not “sold on him” at this point in time. However, once he’s running he and his 1% buddies will simply “Buy them”…and then they’ll be sold. Looks like it’s time to buy stock in Etch-a-Sketch again. Invert, shake, and start drawing again.
7 Likes
Outside of somebody voting for a democrat, he did the one thing Republicans hate. He lost the election to a ni(CLANG!)
2 Likes
Issa:
“Mitt Romney was not well-defined in ‘what do you stand for and how will you lead’ in my opinion, because had he been fully defined, then I think he would have won the election,” the congressman said.
If he still had that problem after two runs for President and $1 billion in spending, someone who can breathe the air outside the GOP bubble would conclude that Romney has been fully defined and fully rejected.
9 Likes
The next generation of the McCain syndrome has arrived. Only worse thing he could do is give bubble brain barbie another shot at vp because she was so misunderstood the first time around…
That would be fun to watch. lol lol
2 Likes
You nailed it.
Romney lied every day for 17 months. He does not have the capacity to learn from defeat. But I hope the repugs pick him so he can be a 3 time loser.
1 Like
[quote] House Republicans are skeptical of a Mitt Romney re-run in the 2016 presidential race, [/quote] Neither are the rest of the 99%ers.
Now there’s a surprise. . He is a two time loser who wears magic underwear. That might have something to do with why they are less than enthused.
One of the biggest negatives from his 2012 campaign was that he changed positions on issues so often and rapidly that it would make a weather vane in a hurricane dizzy. Now these people are saying “Can’t be that same guy, got to run it entirely differently”, and Romney is saying “just tell me what you want changed and its changed”…
Exactly the same Romney.
6 Likes
NOBODY is sold on this greasy perennial loser.
2 Likes
Ah, but you’re missing the point, my friend –
In 2012, he was a complete and utter neophyte at the job of unseating a sitting president who nobody he knew ever liked or would ever vote for. Yes, it’s true he ran for president in 2007-8, but just for a while and not completely seriously. It was almost entirely aimed at doing my, uh, his darnedest to get the party’s chosen nominee in fighting trim, quick on his feet and sharp. And it might have worked, too, if they hadn’t picked a loser military stiff who spent the entire time when he was supposed to be listening attentively to his chosen vice president’s first public appearance leering at her backside and drooling like an ungelded Irish Setter.
And yes, I did, uh, he did serve for a while as a state governor but that was because the state party was completely desperate to stop the Democrats from ruining the state. They pleaded and pleaded with me - him, and finally … he … gave in to all the pressure and community spirit. And sure enough, before long the press there turned on m- him because a lot of them are insane. Just imagine - drunken Irish liberals and African immigrants collecting welfare checks while living in shantytowns. Look, I expect, uh, HE would have won again if I’d, he’d run for re-election, just ask the Boston Herald, but that state was so obviously a lost cause.
Now, after that jolly sporting run in 2012, and with all the lessons of that hard-won experience etched deeply into the minds and backs of all those people on that campaign who failed him - repeatedly, AND they’ve been disciplined, be assured - Iiiiii HE’s that much more fully confident that President Obama WILL be defeated, this time for certain!
“He has to tell Republicans how he’s going to run a campaign,
what he’s going to stand for and how he’s going to get their buy-in,” Issa said. "
That will depend on the day, recent events, and the audience to whom he is lying.
jw1
1 Like
Mitt is running on the “third times a charm” theory, unfortunately the three times and your out rule is very much in play.
Wow! What racist, bigoted POS.
In the last election cycle Romney was for the 1% and called 47% of the population as takers. In his remarks about a possible Presidential candidacy in 2016, now he’s going to focus on poverty??? What??? Isn’t that called flip flopping or, at the very least, political transvestism?? What a sleazy opportunist…again!
“it cannot be identical to last time because many people were disappointed in his ability to properly define who he was and what he would do.”
I think he did exactly that. And that’s why he’s whining now.
he’s going to focus on poverty…
don’t be shocked when it turns out that the way he focuses on it is to once again say something like -
‘The problem with poverty is that… those people - well - they are something like 47% of the population … and they are takers… and they need to stop being poor … and stop taking …and they need to put back what they have taken’
1 Like
It’s okay. House Republicans aren’t sold, they’re bought.
3 Likes
“Mitt’s image has been very good post-campaign. He’s been proven right on a lot of issues. And the MITT movie did a lot to show who the real person is.”
WOW! Mitt’s former advisors still haven’t come out of the bubble, have they??? Either they are completely out of touch, or they are kidding themselves. More likely, they’re just saying that in hopes of riding that grift train for a few more years.