Hard right lol, pretty sure taxation = slavery was not a plank on his platform. I assume you're referring to Paul Ryan's dumb idea to campaign on reforming SS/Medicare.
It didn't matter who went up against Obama in 2008. The economic disaster was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans with not even a "no contest" out of Bush. The money pit that was the war on terror was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans despite every single Democrat voting for it with again a "no contest" out of GOP leadership. The race was Obama's to lose and with all the support from the former CIA director's son, they made sure it would be his turn.
It didn't matter who went up against Obama in 2008. The economic disaster was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans with not even a "no contest" out of Bush.
It makes more sense to blame it on Bush than on say Barney Frank, which the right tried do so. That said, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around.
money pit that was the war on terror was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans despite every single Democrat voting for it with again a "no contest" out of GOP leadership
But not for Iraq. The GOP allowed itself to be the stooges of the neocons and even called people opposing the war in Iraq 'traitors'. In retrospect, can people not admit that Obama was right when he said that he did not oppose wars, just dumb wars like the one in Iraq?
The race was Obama's to lose and with all the support from the former CIA director's son, they made sure it would be his turn.
Yes, Obama was very charismatic and had the media's strong backing. I don't think anyone could have won. Romney just made it easy to beat him.
Like most politicians, just more obviously in his case, Romney has no opinions. He'll take whatever position thinks will get him into office. He thought adopting that health care plan would help him by having a 'success'. That's all. There's nothing else.
Romney tacked to the left on social issues and to the hard-right on economic issues.
Social liberalism and economic conservatism has the fewest number of adherents, except among the elites.
Hard right lol, pretty sure taxation = slavery was not a plank on his platform. I assume you're referring to Paul Ryan's dumb idea to campaign on reforming SS/Medicare.
That, and the 47% crap.
Although I'm not sure even a better candidate would have beaten Obama.
It didn't matter who went up against Obama in 2008. The economic disaster was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans with not even a "no contest" out of Bush. The money pit that was the war on terror was 100% successfully pinned on Republicans despite every single Democrat voting for it with again a "no contest" out of GOP leadership. The race was Obama's to lose and with all the support from the former CIA director's son, they made sure it would be his turn.
It makes more sense to blame it on Bush than on say Barney Frank, which the right tried do so. That said, I'm pretty sure there's plenty of blame to go around.
But not for Iraq. The GOP allowed itself to be the stooges of the neocons and even called people opposing the war in Iraq 'traitors'. In retrospect, can people not admit that Obama was right when he said that he did not oppose wars, just dumb wars like the one in Iraq?
Yes, Obama was very charismatic and had the media's strong backing. I don't think anyone could have won. Romney just made it easy to beat him.
2008 Obama was an invincible force of nature, 2012 Obama could have theoretically been beaten by an actual candidate.
47% is about the only correct thing Romney has ever said.
How very Christian of you. But then again, your racial ideas aren't either.
Romney was the one who implemented Obamacare in Massachusetts. He was a neocon joke from day one.
Like most politicians, just more obviously in his case, Romney has no opinions. He'll take whatever position thinks will get him into office. He thought adopting that health care plan would help him by having a 'success'. That's all. There's nothing else.
"I'll double Guantanamo" - remember that?