Thanks for a perfectly awful candidate

~ odd man out

From the always quotable Matt Taibbi:

Romney is an almost perfect amalgam of all the great out-of-touch douchebags of our national cinema: he’s Gregg Marmalaard from Animal House mixed with Billy Zane’s sneering, tux-wearing Cal character in Titanic to pussy-ass Prince Humperdinck to Roy Stalin to Gordon Gekko (he’s literally Gordon Gekko). He’s everything we’ve been trained to despise, the guy who had everything handed to him, doesn’t fight his own battles and insists there’s only room in the lifeboat for himself – and yet the Democrats, for some reason, have had terrible trouble beating him in a popularity contest.

But let’s not be too sure Dems won’t find a way to make this race go down to the wire. Taibbi’s article is as much about the incompetence and cowardice of the Democratic establishment as it is about the Romney’s lack of charm.

Published by odd man out

6 thoughts on “Thanks for a perfectly awful candidate”

  1. Perhaps this whole presidential eletion race is just one giant conspiracy cooked up by the 1%? Knowing that Obama has been doing exactly what they wanted him to do. Also knowing that because the economy was in the toilet Obama was in a very weak position to be re-elected the 1% decided to throw the race Obama’s way by pushing Romney to the front. Romney has performed very well in his bumbling idiot roll for the 1% and will be handsomely rewarded after he loses. The way to screw the 1% is to vote every Republican out of office. Bipartisanship is a hoax used by the 1% to fool the 99% into thinking that there is a moderate middle.

  2. So Romney lacks charm and we should vote for Obama because he doesn’t? Are we back to the “who’d you rather have a beer with” measure of fitness for the presidency?

    Sure, Obama is charming. He’s also into extrajudicial killing, selling out the separation of church and state in case it nets him a few votes, making sure banks return to profit while people get hung out to dry, and the list goes on practically forever.

    That’s his agenda, not some unfortunate lapse beyond his control. When he had filibuster-proof majorities in his first two years, he was the one who did less than nothing to get the Blue Dogs to stop “obstructing” him.

    Given how appalling Romney’s promises are, I can see somebody voting for Obama anyway. But let’s stop pretending that there’s anything good about that alternative.

  3. Our elections stoop to new lows with every cycle. Romney is going to lose not because of a rejection of his policies, but because his stumbles have allowed a narrative to develop that he is losing. That horse race issue alone will dog him the rest of the way and self-fulfill.

  5. You’re right pdgrey. The “filibuster-proof majority” was just an illusion since it lasted for, what, 74 days?

Comments are closed.