Earlier I posted the comment below on a popular web site that gets a bit more traffic than mine.
“Republicans have one overriding strategy: say it first and get it out there. Let it run for a period of time and see how it polls. When negative response hits certain threshholds, certain specific responses are fed to the media. Different responses for different outlets. The usual comments are what we hear everyday: some version of apologizing for our misunderstanding of their remarks. Why anyone would vote for the representatives of this party escapes me. I try, I really do try to understand but can only conclude that they will say anything and with no shame whatsoever take it back the next day. Why would I believe anything they say? Any position they claim? Really, someone tell me why I should believe them.”
Anyway, I got a number of responses and many were from presumed Republicans It is possible that I am wrong on that. You decide.
wobrien861: “You have just described liberal Democrats with one exception; they SHOUT it out.”
Rusty Spitfire: “Wow. exactly the same thing I would say about democrats.”
mikenc is a slightly different response: “and they are no different than the democrats. everyone who is an incumbent should be sent packing no matter what party. its the only way to get our country back.”
And then there were the lectures like this one from grgfld1: “When cheering for someone turns into adulation, something is wrong. Excessive adulation is indicative of a personality cult. The cult of personality is often created when the general population is discontent. A charismatic leader can seize the opportunity and project himself as an agent of change and a revolutionary leader. Often, people, tired of the status quo, do not have the patience to examine the nature of the proposed change. All they want is change. During 1979, when the Iranians were tired of the dictatorial regime of the late Shah, they embraced Khomeini, not because they wanted Islam, but because he promised them change. The word in the street was, “anything is better than the Shah.” They found their error when it was too late. Just as we are with Obama”
Nobody gave one argument FOR Romney. Is that because they can’t? Because they just won’t? Is their reading comprehension level so low that they can’t understand the basic question I am asking? The consistent response is always some variation of: I know I am but what are you? Open question to all Romney voters: Is that really good enough for you?
We could talk policy forever but really, really–does policy matter if there is absolutely no reason to believe anything that the candidate says? All three debates were fact-checked extensively. It seems that the only time when Romney wasn’t lieing or just making up stuff was when he was copying Obama’s ideas nearly word for word. But if he wants to conduct foreign policy exactly the way Obama is conducting foreign policy, how can he criticize Obama’s foreign policy? Seems awfully simple to me. And so, if Romney were to be elected, why should anyone expect Romney to do anything other than exactly what his donors and handlers tell him to do. His own personal beliefs seem to have such shallow roots.
Why should I believe anything Mitt Romney has to say? Everything he stands for changes with his audience. If he were a Hasbro Romney Action Hero he would be marketed as “having more positions than the Kama Sutra.” No we’d better not use that one. How about “more positions than the yoga chart on Jane Fonda’s wall.” With the story-telling (greatgrandmother’s term for lieing) so prevalent, if he was my own child I wouldn’t believe him. If he was my student I wouldn’t believe him. If he was my teacher I wouldn’t believe him. If he was my neighbor I’d be making a lot more money than I do right now. So, here’s your chance Republicans: Can you give me one reason why I should believe him as a candidate for President of the United States of America?