By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 02 July 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:

And you get back to why I am not as optimistic as you.  What I see the GOP doing is running candidates who shift further and further out of the mainstream, to get the nomination, and then build product they are marketing, which most people won't be happy with, or excited about.  It is, "Well the Democrats are bad, so need ANY option".  This shift Romney has made, got him the nomination, but risks not getting him the election.  It puts him in the same category as John Kerry as being a flip-flopper.  And the policies he proposes aren't really different from what GW Bush had at all.   Romney is also a a loser, the way McCain was.  Both lost the last primary, but then built political base that enabled them to roll off key states.  The candidates, in other words, aren't the top choices of the GOP, but the ones who lost prior.

I think that's unfair to John Kerry.  I mean, John Kerry's flipflopping I think could of eaisly been explained as legitamitly changing his mind... unlike say Romney changing his mind on practically every position he had simlatniously, or Obama and his devolving-reevolving view on marriage.

I mean "I was for it before I was against it" could of been better put "I voted for it at first because I wanted out troops to be prepared for the dangers they faced, but then I realized unless changes were made our troops would be in that danger for far longer then they needed to be... and that we as congressmen should be able to craft a compromise that would keep our troops safe both in the present, AND the future."

It's just that John Kerry had both the Charisma and looks of the douchebag doctor in Reanimator. 

Or maybe that was the guy from the Reanimtor.

What I discuss isn't about fair or unfair, it is about how one is perceived politically.  Mitt has the same political baggage as Kerry did, even if Mitt's is arguably worse.  It doesn't matter if Kerry could of explained it away, the fact is it is baggage.  I believe it likely comes from Mass. being what it is.  Anyone from there would have views that are too liberal to be accepted in America at this point in time.  

In the case of Romney, he ends up looking too polished and arguably too rich.  He doesn't look like anyone the average person can associate with.  He looks too good, and is too refined, and thrown in him taking every possible stand and it doesn't look.  Good looks plus not appearing genuine with one's views, and you end up looking fake.