has there ever been in our lifetime a worse candidate than Romney?

1. 58

   mio cidposted 12 years ago

   I try to think back and I can't remember a worse candidate than Mitt Romney.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Think Democrat.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well Santorum is worse...

         replyreport
      2. 58

         mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         maybe,  just maybe dukakis could have come close or mondale, but certainly he's got them beat.

         replyreport
   2. 58

      feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      First, it is merely your opinion that Mitt Romney is the "worst candidate." Opposite of the way you see things, millions in the U.S., including me, hold the opinion that he is a "world-class" candidate.
      
      Second, I do not know how old you are, but during my lifetime (I am 65), I have seen some real "losers" run for president -- and the most recent ones are Barack Obama, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
      
      In fact, if either Santorum or Gingrich win the nomination for president and go to run against Obama, that will be the worst Republican debacle since Barry Goldwater ran for president in 1964 and was soundly defeated by the incumbent Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gingrich...
      
      Romney should pick him as his running mate... Should Romney become president, I promise you that I personally would guard his life with my own.  I would happily take a bullet for him given the alternative.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not sure Gingrich would be a worse president than romney but as a candidate i'm sure  Gingrich is better,as a matter of fact if all candidates had the same amount of money to spend Romney would be fourth right now.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The fact that Santorum, Gingrich and Paul have failed to obtain as much cash as Romney has obtained tells a lot about that trio.
            
            That indicates that neither of the three has what it takes to get the job done. Evidently, each of them is quite lacking when it comes to gathering the resources to win.
            
            And what that translates to is Santorum, Gingrich and Paul are losers.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I agree with you that Gingrich Santorum and Paul are losers, but Romney in my opinion is the biggest loser if he is still battling it out to beat those three.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  In my opinion, Romney is not to blame for his "battling it out" with Santorum, Gingrich and Paul.
                  
                  The blame rests with all of the "true conservatives," "Tea Partyers" and Christian Evangelicals who have not awakened and smelled the coffee.
                  
                  Many, if not most, of the members of those three factions are so far out of touch with current realities they do not realize that this is not the season for the Republicans to field a "true-blue conservative" for president.
                  
                  By supporting two wild-eyed characters like Santorum and Gingrich (Paul doesn't really count at this juncture), those factions are keeping Romney from getting any real traction.

                  replyreport
      2. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Love it, Melissa! Too funny!

         replyreport
   4. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In what way do you think he is bad?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you very much for asking that question. I wish it would have occurred to me to ask it.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         In the way that I think if you force a terrorist to listen to a Romney speech in less than five minutes he would give up his whole organization,he would tell you what he knows and what he doesn't know just to make it stop.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            So, rather than having an actual, adult conversation, you just want to generically talk bad about Romney, and avoid any actual facts?

            replyreport
   5. 69

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      George W. Bush was worse than Romney in my opinion. (Also, of course Gingrich, Santorum and Paul)

      replyreport
   6. 81

      Credence2posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even the late Pat Paulsen was a better candidate, can you spell milquetoast? The GOP hates Obama so much that they will elect Satan himself as their standard bearer. They party is in downward spiral, disarry and their defeat is imminent.  Romney is the Thurston Howell of the 21st century,

      replyreport
   7. 59

      logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Obama by far.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Cassie Smithposted 12 years ago

   Yeah, Jimmy Carter.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      He didn't know peanuts about anything.
      
      Especially rescuing hostages. Reagan starred in that movie.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         he may have been a horrible president but as a candidate he was great he came out of nowhere to win the nomination I remember his campaign I was in school back then and we had a mock election in our school and he won overwhelmingly

         replyreport
3. 67

   Perspycaciousposted 12 years ago

   May I suggest the two candidates the year we had a choice of Al Gore or George W. Bush.  Appropriately there wasn't a hanging chad difference between the two!  Democrats 1 and Republicans 1.  We are likely to find out whether or not we are repeating such stellar choices this year!

   replyreport
   1. 58

      mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't mean what we think of these people and how they performed in their different positions but strictly as a candidate . this guy sucks every time he opens his mouth.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I thought people evaluated a candidate on what they think and how the candidate performed in different positions. Duh on me.
         
         Talking about sucking, I particularly resent some elected official (obviously once a candidate) getting his hose drained in the big house by a young intern on my dime. And your dime. You know, the taxpayer's dime. I don't know why he couldn't have just gone out into the streets of D.C. and paid for it with a transvestite hooker like Obama did. No wait, that was Obama's wife.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I guess my question wasn't phrased properly because it seems nobody understood it. What I was asking since I'm a political junkie is strictly as a candidate,not as a leader or how successful a person he' or any other candidate has been in other endeavors .But as a candidate he's unbearable to listen to,  comes across as fake as can be,it sounds like every word he says is a lye,he looks weird.

            replyreport
         2. 60

            Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            A pitiful candidate would be one who's thinking is clouded by ancient myths (i.e. religion) and bases his ideas and policies on everything except common sense. For instance the "Good Christian" Bush, who insisted on placing incompetent "Good Christian" friends in positions where they had no business being in. For instance placing a horse trainer in charge of FEMA. Also Bush had the brilliant idea of not funding stem cell research because of his screwed up beliefs. But due to the poor choice of half of this country, this idiot got two presidential terms, which proved to be disastrous to this country. With Bush holding on to a 25% approval rating, I don't need to say any more.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Richard Nixon

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Xenonlitposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
               2. 58

                  feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  If it were not for President Richard M. Nixon, there is a real possibility that many, if not most, of us would not even be alive today.
                  
                  That could very have well been the case because sometime in the late 1970s or 1980s, nearly the entire U.S. just might have been blown to smithereens by massive nuclear attacks carried out by the Soviet Union's ICBM's and gigantic Bison Bombers.
                  
                  However, because President Nixon "went to China" and influenced the leaders of that country to side with the U.S. against the Soviets, that knocked the wind out of the USSR.
                  
                  All of a sudden, not only did the Soviets have to deal with the huge military threat posed by the U.S., it had to deal with about a million Chinese troops massed on their eastern border, poised to rush into, and take over, Siberia.
                  
                  And as things turned out, that move by President Nixon broke the Soviets' back which was the primary reason why President Ronald Reagan had little trouble getting Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down that wall."

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     And  related to my question  I might add as a campaigner, Nixon who was an old fox politician with a thousand battles and thousands of campaign stops was pretty , pretty good.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Here is another fact about Richard M. Nixon.
                        
                        In 1960 when he ran for president against John F. Kennedy, he lost that race by a very slim margin.
                        
                        Well, right after all of the votes were counted, it was discovered that in Chicago, about 100,000 dead people had voted for Kennedy.
                        
                        Following that, Nixon's people urged him to call for a recount, but he refused to do that.
                        
                        And Nixon told his people that the reason why he would not do that is he did not want to cause the U.S. to suffer the massive problems that would be ignited by his claiming that he had been robbed.
                        
                        It is too bad that Al Gore is not as honorable as Richard Nixon was.

                        replyreport
                        1. 93

                           habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Dead people voting for Democrats in Chicago?? Say it ain't so!

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Yeah, if that situation had been made public at the time, it would have been a far worse scandal than the one perpetrated by the "Chicago Black Sox."

                              replyreport
                           2. 69

                              Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Here's an apparently objective article about the 1960 election, entitled "Was Nixon Robbed?" It concludes that there probably was election fraud in Cook County engineered by Daley but not enough to swing the state for Nixon.
                              
                              http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ … obbed.html
                              
                              Gore was screwed by the Republican secretary of state in Florida and by the Supreme court in 2000.

                              replyreport
                              1. 93

                                 habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 Really, Ralph? According to the NYT, it's not quite that cut and dried:
                                 
                                 http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

                                 replyreport
               3. 60

                  Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  After Johnson, Nixon had it in the bag for winning the presidency, just like Obama after Bush. Like Obama, Nixon did put an end to the BS in a useless and called-for conflict that didn't  threatened the US in any way shape or form. Then the Watergate thing happened whch gave way for Carter to win in '76.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Obama is just like Nixon.  He has an enemies list as well.  Targeting private citizens that disagree with him.  They both would do anything to get reelected.

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        "Does Obama have an 'enemies list'?
                        
                        Karl Rove says he does, amid a larger fight over anonymous campaign donations. Pundits choose their sides"
                        
                        Karl Rove....yah--you can choose to believe him, I won't.

                        replyreport
4. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Romney is a great candidate, but he's a bad politician. He says things without a "political filter." Maybe that's because he hasn't spent his entire adult life in DC. Mitt has my full support!

   replyreport
5. 67

   Perspycaciousposted 12 years ago

   I think the candidates who are worse are the ones who never ran!  They had skeletons in the closet, couldn't take the heat, didn't want to make the country better badly enough to run for the office, valued their own goals in life more than service to their country, or had chosen a partner who wanted nothing to do with the glare and polish.
   How many good candidates for leaderswhip have stayed home instead of stepping up to the plate and taking a good turn at the bat?
   To me, it makes little sense to ridicule the candidates (any of them) who put themselves on the line for our country.  Each of them is a cut above the ones I mentioned.
   Trying to castigate them may be the kind of treatment that discourages the next good leader we need...oh, and by the way we DO need proven leaders who can make a difference, and don't kid yourselves that we don't.  We've been there and done that too much already!

   replyreport
6. 61

   Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago

   His honesty is questionable, and his motives were suspect. Ever hear the tale about the three bums in connection to the JFK asassination? That one guy sure looks like H.R. Haldeman. Bobby Kennedy's bid was cut short by a bullet, too, paving the way for Nixon. Ending the war (Police Action...we never declared war on VN, and they never declared war on us) it was either that or revolution here.  I know that he was just the one that got caught, but after him, it feels like we stopped being vigilant. Peace with honor? Hardly...he did a lot of damage by deserting South VN...at least that is how the rest of the world saw it. Cut and run.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Did you ever hear the one that the Mafia was behind Robert Kennedy's assassination?
      
      Back in 1968, when he was killed, the word on the streets was he got paid back for setting up those grandiose Washington, D.C. hearings that consisted of parading numerous Italian mobsters before the cameras of the "Big-3" TV networks.

      replyreport
   2. 67

      Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Nixon and Kissinger totally ignored our MIA/POWs in Laos, numberous of our pilots were known to have been alive on the ground from even just one of our carriers, but they were not included in such efforts.  Congress also cut and ran, to the point that when South Vietnam needed resupply Congress had turned thumbs down.  We live with the disgrace even today.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I served two tours of duty in Vietnam as a U.S. Army infantry soldier.
         
         And as far as I am concerned, the U.S. has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to the Vietnam War and its immediate aftermath.
         
         Furthermore, in real life, there are no Chuck Norris's or Rambo's which translates to a very significant factor: Locating and rescuing the POWs and MIAs was no easy task. In fact, it was an impossibility, just as finding and rescuing all of the POWs and MIAs of the Korean War was an impossibility.
         
         For one to say that "We live the disgrace even today" is a slap in the face of each and every one of the U.S. military personnel who served, shed blood and died in the Vietnam War.

         replyreport
         1. 69

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "And as far as I am concerned, the U.S. has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to the Vietnam War and its immediate aftermath."
            
            Most sentient people disagree. What do you think we accomplished at great cost in lives and money? The domino theory was false. Vietnam was re-united and is a basically capitalist country and one of our trading partners.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Similar to what I wrote to Druid Dude, you are obviously unaware of the real reason why the U.S. deployed military forces in Vietnam for such a long time.
               
               I will just say that if it were not for the long presence of U.S. military forces in and around Vietnam, there would have been Soviet aircraft-carrier fleets setting just off the coasts of such cities as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle.
               
               The Soviets did not have any carrier fleets, you might be saying to yourself.
               
               Well, if not for the long U.S. presence in Vietnam, the Soviets would have been able to construct, assemble and launch gigantic carrier fleets.
               
               And that is all I have to say. I do not want to get into anymore trouble with the C.I.A. than I probably already am.

               replyreport
               1. 69

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  "Similar to what I wrote to Druid Dude, you are obviously unaware of the real reason why the U.S. deployed military forces in Vietnam for such a long time.
                  
                  "I will just say that if it were not for the long presence of U.S. military forces in and around Vietnam, there would have been Soviet aircraft-carrier fleets setting just off the coasts of such cities as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle."
                  
                  Where do you get that crapola! Just about every objective historian and foreign policy pundit recognized long ago that our costly adventure in Vietnam was a big mistake. Did you happen to read Robert MacNamara's mea culpa book?
                  
                  War Made Easy--Norman Solomon
                  
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr8DIF6sKOw

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I will just say, The truth about some incidents is never revealed through such mediums as newspapers, history professors, foreign-policy pundits, and best-selling tell-all and "mea culpa" books.
                     
                     Furthermore, a whole lot of top-secret things have occurred in this world that you will never know about, and that you do not even want to know about.

                     replyreport
         2. 67

            Perspycaciousposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Beg pardon feenix, you didn't read what I wrote, so I repeat it here: "Nixon and Kissinger totally ignored our MIA/POWs in Laos, numerous of our pilots were known to have been alive on the ground from even just one of our carriers, but they were not included in such efforts" (refering to the Paris Peace Talks, and to Congress' freeze on any further help to SVN). I was also in Vietnam and meant no disrespect to those who served, only to the leadership that settled for an incomplete accounting and abandonment.  I'm sure you are not defending their actions!

            replyreport
            1. 58

               feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Perspycacious, I apologize for spouting off the way I did. It is just that many years ago, I grew sick and tired of hearing all of the criticism of the Vietnam War.
               
               And so far as the "leadership that settled for an incomplete accounting and abandonment," I, personally, do not have a problem with that -- because I am quite certain that there was a lot more to that than what was revealed to the public.

               replyreport
   3. 58

      feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Druid Dude, are you aware of THE REAL REASON why the U.S. fought so long and hard in Vietnam?
      
      If you knew the real reason, you would take back every word you typed in the comment above.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Another history lesson? CAREFUL GUYS!

         replyreport
         1. 58

            feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hey, what do I know about history? You said that I'm ignorant.

            replyreport
7. 0

   idratherbeposted 12 years ago

   I guess one could consider him a great candidate if they like outsourcing, job eliminating, and his strong support of wall street. I thought he would defend women's rights but I don't see that either. Just another good ole boy wall street insider. And some claim he's not a DC insider? maybe not, but with all these large campaign donations he's promising someone something? Just don't know if his promises involve the average working guy or not.

   replyreport
8. 65

   maxoxam41posted 12 years ago

   The difference between you and I is arrogance! Weren't you pretending to know the real reason? Go ahead let us all know! Or are you afraid to ridicule yourself?

   replyreport
   1. 58

      feenixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey, I was born and raised in Hollywood, so I have a flair for the dramatic.
      
      And if I do end up ridiculing myself, it will not be the first time I did that and it will not be the last time.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         maxoxam41posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Did you know that you can correct that? Hollywood!!! I see!!!

         replyreport
9. 81

   Brett Winnposted 12 years ago

   Don't get me wrong, Romney is awful ... but Obama was even worse.

   replyreport
10. 60

    Evan G Rogersposted 12 years ago

    Bush

    replyreport