I don’t remember Romney saying our troops were killing woman and children in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Kahn. Or as Kerry said it, Jen-gis Khan.
Mitt Romney 2012 = John MCain / Sarah Plain 2008.
Mitt Romney 2012 = John MCain / Sarah Palin 2008.
Clearly a huge difference is that Bush while not a great President was not a total failure like Obama is, the better comparison is to 1980 and the Carter reelection, while Romney is no Reagan, ultimatly re election campaigns are about the incumbent and that is the underlying fear of the lefties this year. It is also why Obama is trying to run as an outsider with the class warfare fear based campaign.
I wouldn`t agree there`s a comparison between the two candidacies. Kerry`s `04 run almost produced a victory vs. Bush, while Romney won`t even be in the same ballpark. Obama will slice through him like a hot knife through warm butter on a summer day.
Romney generates no excitement and has no base of support. Bob Dole in `96 at least had veterans backing him. Who really gets revved up about Mittens? November`s result is going to resemble more like the LBJ-Goldwater blowout — with Mittens on the short end — than any of the recent close elections.
It`s Virgil Goode and the Constitution Party for this voter!
Kerry was a traitor during Vietnam days.. he is merely a gigolo now.. and a seditious malefactor..
Romney is merely a liberal drooler from Massachusetts...
Good friends with Barney the “Woodchuck”.. who likes wood whether its stiff or flaccid..
They wish!
1) Romney made his own money while the pussy Kerry married it.
2) Kerry is a traitor. Romney is not.
3) Kerry is dumb as a rock. Romney aint dumb.
In terms of electability and platforms, it isn't necessary to include 2012 or 2004.
Romney = Kerry, period. To the detriment of the republic.
Well, they certainly are both notorious flip floppers. I still can’t believe we’re stuck with Romney. Here’s a sample of what we’ll see. The DNC already has a Mitt vs. Mitt video out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g
It’s a great analogy.
Bush was easy to beat in 2004, but Kerry was the perfect foil.
Obama is easy to beat in 2012, but Romney is his designer dream opponent.
Along with Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy, both courtesy of the Massachusetts electorate. Should tell you something right there.
Totally agree.
> Mitt Romney 2012 = John Kerry 2004?
No way. Although I will never vote for RINO ROMNEY, he is not in the same class as a full blown traitor like Kerry.
You have to go outside the country for this one, to our neighbors in the Dominion of Celine Dion and Maple Syrup. This is John Tory vs. Dalton Mcguinty in the 2007 Ontario election. The only difference, other than citizenship, is that John Tory was not Mormon.
Dalton McGuinty = As Liberal Party leader and premier (equivalent of governor) of Ontario, he was to left of Obama, and less charismatic. He was running against Tory for a second term, and was a shoe-in to lose to Tory given how far left McGuinty had moved the province, destroyed the economy, pushed an abortion and gay agenda in schools (despite claiming to be a Christian), and presided over the legalization of same-sex marriage not only in the province, but in the country. With apologies to conservatives everywhere, Dalton made Obama look like Reagan.
John Tory, leader of the Ontario “conservative” party was a wealthy corporate executive and establishment CINO from the most liberal city in the province. He had beaten out his less wealthy conservative opponents. He had two predecessors, Mike Harris, who had been elected premier on a hard conservative mandate, was great for his first term, but went soft during his second term and became very unpopular (spent first term as Reagan, his second term was similar to Bush’s). Between Harris and Tory, the party had been led by Ernie Eves, a long-time party establishment squish a la McCain. Eves would then lose to Liberal Dalton McGuinty. Tory promised to chart a moderate course, and won the establishment and media support because he was the most “electable”.
As party leader, John Tory attacked pro-lifers, rural conservatives and gun activists. He blamed a lack of gun control (and his predecessor Mike Harris) for gun crime in Ontario’s big cities. He openly mocked social conservatives and Christians, while marching in the Toronto Gay Pride Parade - the largest in the world.
His platform was for the most part indistinguishable from McGuinty’s. He even instructed his candidates to downplay the name of the party, which contained the word “Conservative”, having them run as “John Tory candidates” on signs, campaign literature and when giving press interviews.
Tory basically promised to implement the same leftist policies as Dalton, but said he could do a better job implementing them because he had corporate experience whereas his opponent was a life-long politician and political activist. His only other policy difference (intended, believe it or not, to appease social conservatives threatening to stay home because of Tory’s pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and pro-gay agenda policies) was a promised to provide public funding to religious private schools (excluding Catholic, which are already publicly funded), which in Ontario are predominately Muslim, but only if they would agree to opt-in the pro-abortion and pro-gay public school curriculum.
This would become the dominant theme of the campaign as there was little else to distinguish John Tory from Dalton. Needless to say, John Tory got hammered from all sides. The left accused him of undermining public education in promising funding for religious schools. The secular right accused him of promoting religious extremism since the religious schools in question were predominately Christian or Muslim. Christians and Muslims accused him of being a Trojan Horse for cultural Marxism in tying the funding to a public school curriculum that promotes abortion and the gay agenda.
Despite very low approval rating, Dalton not only won a second term, he increased his seat majority.