Skip to main content

View Diary: Romney's Latest War Effort (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not really fair.... (0+ / 0-)

    There are plenty of reasons to snark about Mitt, but this isn't one of them (other than his implication that to want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to win is to hate America and to surrender to terror).

    John Edwards used similar language when he suspended his campaign.  It's just what you say so you don't have to say "You don't want me.  I lost."

    That he couldn't do it without being nasty is the problem, not framing at as "for the good of the country."

    Even if that's true.  ;) Stomping monsters since 2004

    by hackwriter on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:02:14 PM PST

    •  If he had simply stopped at (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crisis Corps Volunteer

      "for ... our country" I wouldn't have written a rant on it.  Besides, now I'll have to hold my breath when i drive through Belmont, the stink will be too much to stand.

      Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything. --- Frank Dane

      by Memory Corrupted on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  too kind (0+ / 0-)

      I think it's the combination that makes one want to vomit. Saying "for the good of the country" when you mean "for the further destruction of everything this country ever stood for so we rich people can grab more money" is just hard to watch without the gag reflex. Pun intended. Well not exactly intended but since it happened I'll let it stand.

      Of course, that's why I'm on this blog and not the ones who actually believe he means the first version.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site