That is a smear. He isn’t anything like Kerry. He doesn’t go from one wife to the other. He doesn’t live off his wife’s wealth. He has never lied about the military. He has never undermined his country. He isn’t pompous in his delivery. He hasn’t been a do-nothing in his endeavors. It appears to me that, because you despise the guy, even his positives look negative to you.
>> That is a smear.
Just an observation. I’ve got no disdain for Mitt Romney ... this is not a “smear”, its more of a tip on how to craft his image a bit better.
>> He isn’t anything like Kerry. He doesn’t go from one wife to the other. He doesn’t live off his wife’s wealth. He has never lied about the military. He has never undermined his country.
I didn’t say he was John Kerry ... I said he was a little Kerry-esque. These are obviously not the characteristics I was speaking of.
>> He isn’t pompous in his delivery.
He’s a little bit pompous.
>> It appears to me that, because you despise the guy, even his positives look negative to you.
Who said I despise Mitt Romney? Read through my posts on this thread ... I specifically said I’d have no hesitation in voting for Romney were he to be nominated. I like Romney fine. However, he’s got an image problem he needs to work on ... and its somewhat the same image problem Kerry had.
Romney is an erudite, northeastern politician (from Massachussets, no less ... the home of Kerry and Dukakis, not a great record of political victoris there). He comes off as slick, over-rehearsed, and overhandled. He delivers lines and arguments as if he’s reading from a script, and flows directly into contrived “Law and Order” references.
The “Law and Order” line was funny, and didn’t bother me at all ... except as a microcosm for an aire of disingenuousness I get from Mitt. He seems like he’s acting ... and it makes him look as if he’s pandering - telling GOP voters what they want to hear - rather than giving his genuine positions on issues.
I say this, not as an attack on Romney - but as a suggestion for him should he get nominated. People in middle-America, the South particularly, don’t care for “slick” politicians ... which is why the only Democrats to get elected since 1975 were both southern “Good-ol-boy” types (Clinton and Carter). Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Bush I, and even Dole somewhat ... all of them were slick politicos, and all got beaten by opponents that were percieved as “real” people ... Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush.
Likewise, Reagan, Bush II and Clinton were guys-guy types ... and all won over their more erudite oppnents. Bush I was the exception ... he was a northeastern politician that beat an even more out-of-touch northeastern politician (Dukakis), but lost to the good-ol-boy Southern Democrat the next time around.
Image is important - and the image Romney’s giving off isn’t great right now. Thompson and Giuliani are doing a much better job at crafting an image that will sell in middle-America.
Luckily, it looks like the Democrats will nominate Hillary Clinton ... the most out-of-touch and dislikable northeastern politician I’ve ever seen.
H