Mitt Romney "most surely must be stopped"

[MobBoss]

What makes you sure they would?...

Well, the odds. We have only had 2 dems since Nixon be elected president, and both of them governors. This year, the dems only offer junior senators with not much experience. Those dont usually do to well come election time.

 

[moverred]

What super powers indeed? Maybe they bought into the anti Mormon garbage or maybe they think he is the best able to defeat the Dems come election time. What ever the case may be they certainly lost a lot of credibility with their "Mars Attacks" reaction.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually, they probably will.....

That's so 2006.

 

[Demetrias]

I think anyone who wants to double the prison at Guantanimo and isn't against torture would qualify as an evil supervillian if he was President. Those two statements alone would give credibility to the articles statements it is just the writer got caught up in everything else and so the article lost all its power and credibility. Unfortunately very few republicans would disagree with those statements as being evil. But I for one think any Republican or Democratic Nominee who is for torture or disregarding our rights in the name of security most be stoped from winning the Presidency. I do not want to live in the new Roman Empire.

 

[IglooDame]

There are elements of this article that hint at an irrational, baseless hatred of our shiny-toothed friend. I wouldn't be too worried, unless the majority of the state shares this sourceless loathing.

The majority of the state does not share the sourceless loathing - witness Romney's longstanding lead in NH state polls (until recently, when McCain has caught up to him).

The problem with the flipflops is that, while Romney (and Giuliani, and other elected Republicans in mostly-Democratic electorates) may be on the One True Path now having repented his abortion-abiding gun-banning gay-tolerating ways, one could reasonably infer that he's doing so because he's in a national Republican primary, and when the general election comes around he'll then minimize and set aside his belief in the One True Path. And then, once in office, he'll carry on with the beliefs espoused in the general election, not the Republican nomination fight.

 

[emzie]

Well, the odds. We have only had 2 dems since Nixon be elected president, and both of them governors. This year, the dems only offer junior senators with not much experience. Those dont usually do to well come election time.

Thus, lay down 7 to win 5 on a Democrat's taking the presidential oath of office 13 months from now, 2 to 1 that it's a Republican, and 20 to 1 on an independent or third-party candidate.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/23/ameria/letter.php

 

[MobBoss]

That's so 2006.

Hmmm. I didnt think I would have to explain to a man like you that running for the presidency is slightly different than running for the senate or house representative.

Thus, lay down 7 to win 5 on a Democrat's taking the presidential oath of office 13 months from now, 2 to 1 that it's a Republican, and 20 to 1 on an independent or third-party candidate.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/23/ameria/letter.php

Actually, since a third party candidate has NEVER won, I think the odds are far greater on that than merely 20:1.

 

[CaptainF]

Mitt Romney is indeed a crappy candidate, but the worst Republican running for prez has to be Ghouliani.

Clinton is the least savory Democrat.

 

[JollyRoger]

Hmmm. I didnt think I would have to explain to a man like you that running for the presidency is slightly different than running for the senate or house representative.

You don't. All you have to tell me is how steak-like your crow tastes next November.