bullshit - buyers. Bullshit is a seller's market now. A spontaneous accretion of garbage.
This is the biggest lost chance that conservatives ever had. "We"ll win by putting up a Manchurian Conservative. What a disaster.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Did you intend to add to my dataset?
I finally looked now at the Coulter interview you linked to. What's so "garbage" about it? Yes, she had (and surely still has) reservations about Romney, but she mustered up the best defense of Romney she could: “Romney has been magnificent in these debates… you’ve got to go with what you have.” She added, “even the nut candidates [this year] are better that John McCain.”
Which is true. Also,
Coulter told Sean Hannity she was “Romney/Cain 2012… with Christie in 2020.” Coulter refrained endorsing Herman Cain for the top of the ticket, she noted, because “he has never held elected office before, and I really want to defeat Obama.”
Garbage, according to Mr Rot. Yeah, sure. If your first name is Axel.
Romney hasn't been magnificent at anything other than looking like a know-it-all with zero character.
But at that he has been magnificent.
Coulter talks explicitly about Romney being magnificent in these debates. Just about any barely impartial observer has agreed that was the case--you'd be hard-pressed to dispute that with a straight face, provided words still have meaning, and we don't go into some kind of Pepean la-la-land, where statements are totally divorced from empirically observable reality.
Now, as to your second assertion, that Romney looked like a know-it-all with zero character (again, presumably you refer to those 4 debates).
The part about "know-it-all" I can't dispute, though it's more of a value judgment made by someone jealous of someone else's mastery of detail and debating abilities than anything disqualifying, especially if one thinks of these debates as being an audition as to who is best to go up on that podium next October and debate with Obama. I'd rather have a know-it-all (like Romney or Newt) there than a bumbling nincompoop (like Mac in 2008 of Perry now).
As for the part about "zero character", I don't get it. First, do you mean that at the debates per se Romney showed an utter lack of character? How so? Or do you mean that he showed an utter lack of character throughout his career as a politician, or perhaps all through his lifetime? Sure, he's been a flip-flopper, especially in his early political career, but not extraordinarily so, not in the same league as, say, that WVa Senator who started in the Klan and ended up as a top pinko guy.
But to say that Romney displayed "zero character" at the debates is a rather extreme statement. Can you back it up with a semblance of logic and facts, or is this one of of those throw-away snarky lines a la Pepe, devoid of any real meaning? To put it another way: Does your comment really reflect on the character of a man like Romney, which character you so cavalierly impugn?
Barney talks explicitly about Romney being dreamy in these debates.
And that's your proof that Romney has "zero character"? Hmmm... I hope you use better arguments when writing papers.
Post a Comment