He wasn't even my first choice. The field was weak.
I thought he was a good candidate. Indeed, the exact phrase I used was "pretty good."
My disagreement is with you and others who take the opposing view to such silly extremes.
There are reasons that Mitt kicked the incumbent's ass in the first debate -- and those reasons are not limited to the fact that the President had narcolepsy that night.
feel free to enumerate them
Putting aside the fact that the incumbent narcissist was lost at sea during debate 1, Mitt did a good job in that debate. He prepared. He's smart. He is knowledgeable. He knew the Dim game plan and simply refused to be goaded into making any of the mistakes that the incumbent wanted and needed for him to make. He is actually a decent person and it came through.
If that's the best you can offer in a debate which you clearly cannot handle, you'd be better off sticking to the new 4F. It needs some work, anyway.
Even you ought to be able to grasp that the fact that a person (i.e., me) was wrong in one political calculation does not suggest or even validly go to show that he is wrong in some other political calculation.
Did Mitt vacillate sometimes? Yep. All politicians do.
Did he win the race? Nope. That does not constitute evidence that he was a terrible candidate. A losing candidate? Sure. bu a terrible one? Not on that basis, no.
Did the Obama Campaign/DNC/Soros/Lib Media actively and effectively GET OUT THEIR VOTERS? Yep. did they do so better than Team Romney and the GOP? Yep.
But most of the bullshit thrown at Mitt by the liberal media and by his opponents was bullshit. The election Laws also stymied his ability to RESPOND until he actually GOT the official nomination while NOTHING stayed the hand of the Obama campaign from smearing him while he couldn't ($) respond for a good part of the summer.
You are of course entitled to your vapid opinion. But you're still wrong.
Obama derangement syndrome claims another victim.
I cannot stand the incumbent. Just like so many leftists and "libertarians" couldn't stand Booooosh.
Of course, that has nothing to do with your empty claim that I suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Right up until the final three words, you were doing ok.
I can see how Mitt was seen as off-putting.
And I can even see it with regard to the majority of voters.
But no normal person would vote for 4 more years of the Clusterfuck Fail in Chief. So, "normalcy" is not one of the attributes of those who didn't vote for Mitt.
^Decided to become a lawyer after he failed Statistics.
^ decided to become a smirky chimp and offer stupid thoughts -- in lieu of grasping that the inability to use words within the context of their actual meaning is actually his domain.
Let me put it to you in terms so simple that even you might be able to get a handle on them: being in the majority does not define what is or isn't "normal." For example, in a case of mass delusion, the majority might share the delusion. Being in a majority doesn't make that psychologically "normal."
It is a melancholy reflection that liberty should be equally exposed to danger whether the Government have too much or too little power, and that the line which divides these extremes should be so inaccurately defined by experience.
-- James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788.
plasmaball: Yes a woman's Orgasm is like trying to spot the wild snow leopard. You must wait weeks upon maybe months and if you are lucky you might spot a small puddle from this cunning creature called the orgasm. its more like sometimes you have to fake it because
Feb 7, 2013 12:05:17 GMT -5
plasmaball: we find you boring.
Feb 7, 2013 12:05:22 GMT -5
LadyGunSlinger: Your psychobabble is just that and shows you don't know shit about a woman's body.
Feb 7, 2013 12:27:10 GMT -5
plasmaball: sigh sarcasm is lost on the stupid. dear the womans body is not a rubix cube.
Feb 7, 2013 12:37:53 GMT -5
LadyGunSlinger: As if I am suppose to be able to discern your attitude over the interwebz??
Feb 7, 2013 12:44:55 GMT -5