You are trying to persuade me that Clinton is the only deceptive politician here? Please advise me which politicians are not “’sefl-serving’, narcissistic. . .power-addicted; virtueless man (politician) whose life is defined by how he defines the meaning of ‘is’. He (The politician) chose politics for personal agrandizement, power and monetary enrichment.
Romney may look like teflon; would offer that he does, in fact . . . .” Your definition of Clinton covers almost all politicians.
I think you are trying to compare turds here. In politics, very often the choice is not between good and bad, the choice is between bad and worse. Clearly, Romney is a politician’s politician and as such is bad, however Clinton is worse. You may be perceived as naive if you hero worship politicians, whether their name is Romney or Clinton.
PS: Large numbers of Bushbots have finally realized the truth about Jorge after years of work, donations, and hope after the amnesty sellout - don’t be deluded about Clinton, Kyl, Romney, McCain, JulyAnni either - they are all slick double-tongued untrustworthy politicians. IMO,Romney is the best politician for thinking on his feet, I had to admire him in the debate for his skills in talking his way out of hardball questions - and leaving McCain to take the ricochet. For indepth analysis of politicians, google “Why Bad Men Rule” by Professor Hoppe.
I think you are trying to compare turds here. In politics, very often the choice is not between good and bad, the choice is between bad and worse. Clearly, Romney is a politician’s politician and as such is bad, however Clinton is worse. You may be perceived as naive if you hero worship politicians, whether their name is Romney or Clinton.
You are making a huge jump from my not equating the 'badness' of Clinton and 'therefore' Romney by virtue of their own politics. No hero worshipper here; but see no reason whatsoever to lump all politicians; candidates or presidential wannabe's into one large common dirtball.
If you are right in your assumptions of the 'equal playing field' of dirty politics and those who play the game; then why even bother to concern yourself about the 'better' candidate. . .the superior idiology that underscores one's political focus.
By your analysis; or so it would seem; it does not matter whether we have Romney or 'another Carter. . .or a 'John Kerry' or another round of the Clinton's or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson or even McCain. . . They are tainted. . .self-serving and dishonest; if only be degrees of separation; and our politcal fortunes are dismally cast, no matter who wins.
I don't buy it; and I am not naively looking for perfection of 'the man' or imagining it; and never entertain myself with the folly of the 'perfect candidate'.
But there is certainly a mountain of differences between that which nourishes Bill Clinton; his character; and the legacy he imagines for himself - his myth in the making - and the ideas and motivations that move Mitt Romney; his character; and his potential legacy as President, should he so rise. . .
(. . .and not unlike that which separates ANY Leftist candidate from any Repub; be it Fred, or Rudy or even our insufferable John McCain...)