You know, here is what it all comes down to.
The best funded, more flexibly funded, most executive experienced, most accomplished, most educated, most organized, most efficient, most solid family man, and least able to be financially bought candidate we have running is not supported by our most fervent base NOT because of his positions. These folks have chosen to believe that after standing in front of numerous debate audiences and giving numerous campaign speeches about his current positions that he will reverse every single one of them once in office.
How exactly can this happen? He, Romney, will take office and draw on the party’s array of experienced administrators to staff positions. The people who will staff those positions will be drawn from exactly the same pool any of the other GOP candidates could draw on. There are thousands of political appointees that have to be appointed. They will come from the party’s pool. They will define the administration. They Will Not Differ From Any Other Candidate’s.
The only impact a president is going to have on the abortion debate will be filling the next empty justice seat. The short list he will be provided will come from that same administration staff the other candidates would select from. And after campaigning as a pro life candidate, is it even conceivable he would select a pro choice judge for confirmation, given that the staff in question would not even provide one on the list? Of course not. How could he win re-election in 2012 if he were to do such a thing?
So it really makes no sense at all to categorize Romney as . . . in Atlanta in the black community it would be called “not black enough”. He is the best and brightest of all the available candidates, and the cause for doubt about him can never come into play.
Tonight he failed High School Civics.
I'm proud of our choices.
Here’s my take on the debate:
Winner(s): Tie between Romney and Guiliani.
Second Place Tie: McCain and Thompson.
Third Place Tie: Huckabee and Hunter.
The rest in order: Tancredo, Brownback, Paul.
I’m getting real tired of all of the “looks” comments. Thompson has always had a bit of a hangdog look, but I find it endearing. He’s like a comfortable shoe to slip into. As to Romney’s “too good looks”, geez, what’s he supposed to do, put on a halloween mask? Romney is incredibly bright and worked hard to get his degrees. He’s run a private sector company, so knows what it’s like to be a businessman, rescued the Olympics and took its deficit and turned it into a profit. He is an excellent example of a capitalist. He as a Republican managed to win office as Governor in one of the most liberal states in the U.S. and still managed to make some improvements to it. He has stayed married to his wife for years, has five sons who love him and have all turned out extremely well. He didn’t dump his wife when she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and loves her to this day. And for this some jerks on this website call him slick and a used car salesman. Would that these jerks could do so well in life. I detect a certain degree of envy on their part.
Look for better reasons to attack our candidates other than their personal appearance. Both men, Thompson and Romney, are good men and each is pleasant looking in their own way, but one shouldn’t hold their looks against them, be it too ugly or too good looking. What a silly concept.