All right, it’s time to talk about supporting candidates for superficial reasons. There are many people who are basing their support for a candidate based on pure good looks and sex appeal rather than on the issues.
You know who you are. And it’s time to get over your infatuation.
Romney supporters, it’s time to face facts. You know, I know, that people who support Governor Romney claim to be doing so for a wide variety of reasons, but you know what it all comes down to: His debonair good looks.
I’m a guy, so I rarely comment on this, but you got to tip your hat: Mitt Romney looks good. The perfect hair, the perfect skin. In his younger days, he could have rivaled Harrison Ford. In fact, he could still make a killing in pictures. He’s aged far better than Sly Stallone. Rambo was a box office success, Rombo would be off the charts.
Women in their fifties swoon. And guys over forty who are honest admit there are several felonies they’d be willing to commit in order to get that hair. In brief, Mitt Romney looks like a President, right out of the movies. He could move to Hollywood and play the President and everybody would believe it.
The unknown fact about Mitt Romney is he can walk in any store in the country and just give orders. Everybody assumes he’s in charge because he looks like it.
Such superficial decision making, to back a Presidential candidate because of his Ward Cleaver chin and the hair, (did I mention the hair?) is unfitting. We shouldn’t choose a candidate based on looks, or on the fact that whenever he gives a speech, he manages to say exactly what we want to hear. No, speeches and looks should have nothing to do with a Presidential pick. I’m sure all Romney supporters will acknowledge the error of their ways now that I’ve accused them of being little more than drooling middle aged fanboys and fangirls.
Or, maybe, it’d be best not to argue that people who favor another candidate are driven by hormones. It tends to shut down debate, whether it’s Romney or Sarah Palin you’re talking about.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Funny how the only people you mention by name are Romney supporters….
In any event…yes, you are correct, many people support candidates for superficial reasons. What separates the different camps is exactly what percentage of your supporters are voting for you because of those reasons. Yeah, some people supported Romney because he looked like a President, but compared to his entire poll of supporters, they were probably a relatively small minority.
PALIN supporters on the other hand…
November 29th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Your just jealous cause your candidate, Mike Huckleberry, looks like a toad – but maybe that’s just because he acts like a toad – looks like one, acts like one, talks like one – yeah – he’s a toad.
November 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
but compared to his entire poll of supporters
Now, wait a second, is there a poll showing like 6% of Romney supporters backed him because of his looks. Do you have this poll? Or have you met every Romney supporter and asked them.
Or are you standing on the fact that nobody here has said, “I support Mitt Romney because he’s good looking?” Nobody’s said that about Palin either.
I’d suggest that Palin’s looks hurt her. If you’re a good looking woman, society automatically assumes you’re an airhead before you even open your mouth you’ve been judged, and every gaffe you commit is blown out of proportion. So, the gender and looks thing cuts both ways.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Sarcasm and satire appear to be lost arts
November 29th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I meant to say “pool”
November 29th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Oh Adam, nice try. You know very well why people support Romney (competence) and that many people love Palin because of her looks. Just ask Rush (“she’s a hot babe!!!”) Lowry (I have little Palin starbursts in my living room!”) or Kristol (“She’s my heartthrob!”)
Sorry, your “it works both ways” argument is empty.
Be honest, Adam. We’ve never had this problem before – men going ga-ga over a candidate. It’s real, the polls show it, and it needs to be acknowledged.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Adam is my favorite writer. I have not laughed this hard since I wrote that comedy piece about how anti equal marriage activists are closet gays! Bravo Adam!!! Conservatives need a sense of humor. LOL!
November 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I think it’s funny that your first Romney post is completely silly. And don’t bother responding to my request to outline your opposition to Romney. Like I said, I read you loud and clear.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Kristofer, you may need to get out more.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Romney turned around Massachusetts. He turned around the Olympics. He turned around more than 150 different companies. He set Staples on the path of success before they opened their first store. Now, Staples has something like 4,000 of them. There are a lot of reasons to support Romney, but the #1 reason is competence. Of course, he was named by People magazine as one of the 50 most beautiful people in the world about 5 years ago, when he was in his late 50′s…..but that was about reason #37 to support him.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
..”I’d suggest that Palin’s looks hurt her.” I don’t see how good looks EVER hurts a politician. However giving terrible interviews that show a clear lack of preparedness (the Katie Couric interview) to be the POTUS – now that will cost you some votes.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Call me a sexist but I don’t find Palin physically attractive.
I’m not a hater like the Romney supporters, I just think we can do better with a modern conservative like Tim Pawlenty or Bobby Jindal.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
As for Palin, who ever said that a woman has to look like Maggie Thatcher or Golda Meir to be an effective leader? Why can’t a hot chick be an effective leader? She’s been effective in Alaska. Just ask anybody who’s researched her tenure there.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Adam, why are you so defensive about this? Duh, people like to support attractive politicians. The media was pretty harsh on the Mitt but they always said he looked handsome and presidential. How many pundits swooned over Obama’s good looks? I’m still seeing tons of Obama-goes-to-gym-regularly stories being written. Edwards, don’t even go there…
But Palin take the cake. Face it, the gal generates muchisimo interest because of her looks. And probably particularly so because she’s a woman- you know, there aren’t too many of those running for higher office… What other candidate spawned porno look-alikes? What other candidate was photo-shopped into swimwear? I mean seriously, have you ever googled the girl? There are literally hundreds of articles and opinions dedicated to her physique.
Now you can debate the substance or origin of this all you want, but don’t pretend that it doesn’t exist and especially that it’s not particularly strong with ms palin. People like her cause she’s hot. Deal with it.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Doug, I’m not a hater of Palin. I simply think she’s incapable of being POTUS. I actually think she has a very compelling persona, and is an interesting authentic person. I would probably like her very much if we were to meet.
Now Huck, I hate, gotta admit it.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
If you cannot laugh at your candidate, your candidate will never win. The best gift I received this year was the ‘Palin chronicals’ a humorous and respectfully mockingly look at Palin.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
As I have mentioned on here before, I think Palin’s good looks hurt her with women. When they saw there husband watching CNN instead of football, they said something like, “No way, Jose, am I going to watch my husband watch that hot babe for the next four years. Obama, you Socialistic, son of a gun, here comes my vote”.
The guys, on the other hand, when they see there wives oogling over Mitt say “Good, maybe she’ll leave me alone!” lol
Just kidding ladies.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Love the wit and sarcasm.
But is this really the best you’ve got? I know that has to be better from you.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I do believe in deed that few people either like or dislike Mr. Romney because of his looks. There are other reasons both to like him and dislike him. But than again, I am not worried that my wife will run away with him. However, looks seem to be an issue for Mrs. Palin. Some people like her because of her looks and others are jealous of her. Many people automatically assume that a good looking woman cannot be smart. I for one cannot understand this. I will gladly admit that Mrs. Palin is not the only qualified person for POTUS. I can do the math, I realize that both Mr. Huckabee have been governor of their states than Mrs. Palin has of her state. However, while experience is an important factor, it should not be the only criteria to for POTUS. People in both the Huckabee and Romney camps can jump up and down and say that candidate has been Governor of that state longer than Mrs, Palin, but neither of them are as Conservative as Mrs. Palin. I certainly have nothing against experience, but I also like to have the most Conservative candidate as possible.
People forget that Mrs. Palin did not get to be the best Governor in the country by being a total buffoon and an idiot or just by being good looking. That is what make it so insulting when elements in other camps try to claim that she is there totally on good looks. Yes she is good looking, but it is her brains and politics that make her even more appealing. It is one thing to claim that somebody has more experience than Mrs. Palin, it is another to pretend that she has none.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
#1 and #2 are horrifyingly embarrassing.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
20. This whole argument is, actually. Not that I have been above it…
November 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
If you notice Ohio, its not the Romney camp (other than Heath the Canadian that can’t vote) that trashes her. As a matter of fact, most of us point out that we like her. We do, however, point out that she is not currently ready. I’ve read enough of your posts to know that down deep inside you know that too. You may, however believe she could be ready in a couple years, where most of us believe it will take longer. Time will tell. People from some other camps trash her, and trolls come in that we’ve never heard of. I think if you’re talking about a total conservative, and not just a social conservative, Mitt Romney is more conservative than she. Its hard to tell on foreign policy for her, because she knows absolutely nothing at this point. I would venture to say that the majority of us on here knows more than she does about national security and foreign policy. We’ll see how she governs with oil prices under 70 bucks a barrel for a while. Btw, even as a social conservative, I feel they are about evenly so.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
#18:
Yes, I have better than that, but I’m not really seriously trying to make the case against Romney for President at this point. Doing so would be kind of silly. It’d be look throwing 100 MPH for 9 innings in Spring Training against somebody you don’t even know if they’ll play.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
At first I was like wow that was a lame attack against Romney, then I reread it and caught the sarcasm. I thought it was pretty funny.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Just be ready for a few grand slams off of our bats if you start hurling the old soft balls we’re used to my friend.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Adam, I seriously doubt you can make a coherent case against Romney for 2012. I’ll believe it if I ever see it. Better start writing.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Adam G from reading your past comments about Romney, it’s clear you have nothing substantial to say against him. The link I posted earlier shows that you use the same old worn out selective half-truths and downright lies about Romney.
That’s the problem. It’s hard to get any traction against him without having to fudge the truth.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
How utterly ridiculous. I doubt very much that people vote for candidates based on looks. I’m sure some people do, but not the people on this site. Get real.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I thought it was funny, but Mr. Libertarian actually WAS making the case that we should vote for Palin because of her looks on another post. Nobody said that about Romney. Still, clever writing. Much better than rah-rah reviews of the Huckabook.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
If looks are your only reason to vote for someone then you need to look at your convictions; however, if somebody takes good care of themselves and presents themselves professionally and carries themselves with dignity so that they could “walk in any store in the country and just give orders,” then I’d say that’s a big plus. Part of being a president is motivating people.
I appreciate the Romney looks the part. I appreciate that Palin looks the part. Although I have great hopes for Palin, however, she looks the part, but doesn’t carry herself with the gravitas needed for such a weighty office. I’m not saying we need an Al Bore to be President – in fact Huckabee’s humor is about the only thing that I really like about him – but Palin carries an impressive and promising resume of accomplishments with an air of a High School Student. In other words, I was very impressed by Palin when she was fist picked and I even donated to McCain for the first time and put a bumper sticker on my car out of excitement. All this based on her record of accomplishment in getting things done and not conforming herself to the way things have always been. But as the race went on she never presented herself as that person. Sure she said that she was that person, but I never bought it because the only Palin I saw was a cutesy, slogany rally leader. The chances that she had to present the serious, intellectual side of herself in interviews failed miserably. Okay, I’m rambling. Long day at work. Let me try one last time:
Apples and Oranges. Romney is good looking, but more importantly carries himself with the air of a leader, and as a result, people want to follow. Palin is good looking but carries herself with the air of a High School student, and as a result, people want to ogle but lose confidence in her.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Ooooooooh, I’m hot for Romney. I would love to run my fingers through his hair and over his big broad shoulders. And I would vote for him but for his position on ternal pay olgamy pay.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:18 am
*ternal eay
November 30th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I would hope that people who are concerned enough to read and post on a political blog would be smart enough to not vote for a candidate based on looks. We are Republicans after all, the ideas matter, not what gender or race a person is.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Can we get a ban on HearMeBeAnIdiot?
Seriously, would you guys tolerate this if it were your faith? No, you wouldn’t. She’s been a broken record now for far too long.
Please do something about her.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Why do rombots want to ban everyone and have all the fpp fired? It just motivates is to irritate you more! LOL!
November 30th, 2008 at 12:57 am
#4 – Adam – Saracasm – A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. Satire – the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc. I caught your weak attempt at sarcasm – I chose to respond in kind.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Adam there is no nice way to say this – you are an idiot if you think we support Romney because of his looks.
As for Palin – do you honestly think if she looked like Janet Reno or Gov Napolitano a) she would have picked and b) would have half the support she does?
And no it’s not a contradiction – look at their records!!!!!!
November 30th, 2008 at 1:22 am
Slow news day?
November 30th, 2008 at 1:24 am
The fact of the matter is, in this day and age, candidates need to be telegenic and attractive in order to be viable. Abe Lincoln would never rise above single digits in the a GOP primary today.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Romney does look like a president. Huckabee looks like a chipmunk. Newt looks like a potato. Jindal looks like a weird freaky skinny guy that grinns like he doesn’t have any muscles in his face. Sarah Palin looks, well hot, Duh. Pawlenty looks like a big eared elf. Sanford looks kinda ugly. Okay, lets get back to the facts.
Even though he looks like a president, I don’t think anyone actually supports Romney because of that. Hell, Reagan looked like a president too, but it wasn’t his looks that won america over, it was his conservative message that resonated with the core of america. So, lets put this to bed. Anyone from now on, that suggests a candidate is loved more for their looks than their policies, well it’s just a dumb argument. Look who i supported in 08. Huckabee, now that’s not a guy you support because of looks
lol
November 30th, 2008 at 1:35 am
I think Giuliani, Huckabee, McCain, Paul and Thompson supporters can be confident that looks had nothing to do with their support.
They were the ugly step-sisters of the Republican primary.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Kristofer, wasn’t it you that wanted me banned a few times for doing absolutely nothing wrong other than make you mad? HearMeRoar has been ridiculing my faith for months. She doesn’t contribute one thing to the conversation but bigotry. You wouldn’t tolerate it if it was against blacks, Jews, etc.
Making fun of Mormons seems to be the last acceptable prejudice.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:42 am
It’s true that HeMeRoar is obsessed about religion. We shouldn’t ban her. We should just let her idiocy be made fully known. In fact, she should be a front page and be embarrased on a routine basis.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:47 am
It’s so cool seeing some sarcasm trash generated already on a candidate this cycle. Can we do it on all candidates without reprimand? This would be fun. j/k
November 30th, 2008 at 2:22 am
*** Calling out front page posters that have a crush on Sarah Palin ***
November 30th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Are you going to get Romney v Sarah v Huck supporter fights for the next 1000 plus days!
I admit it can be fun but really. Each of the big 3 appear to hate the other two and their supporters even more so!
It could be a blood bath!
November 30th, 2008 at 3:19 am
#46:
Nope, probably only 1 or 2 of the Three will run.
November 30th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Let me guess you think Huck will be one?
I bet all 3 run.
Obama will have to fall off his pedastol eventually and the “big three” have a monopoly on support, big egos, and want to run.
Why wouldn’t all 3 run?
November 30th, 2008 at 8:07 am
First of all, it is obvious that this FPP writer is from the old guard, and thinks that in-fighting is good for our party and future. And repeating history, by worshiping one candidate while bashing others is a worthwhile endeavor. I wish you luck with that strategy. It is a true Huckabee-crowd characteristic – to campaign by derision, whining and enmity.
I finally figured it out, why I don’t enjoy Adam’s posts. Other writers, whom I occasionally disagree with, (Alex, Kristofer, Jason, Kavon, etc.) write from their convictions, from their deeper thoughts, from issues they are impassioned about.
But most importantly, they write (most of the time) as if they are talking to a group of peers to be reasoned with, to discuss with. They assume you have a certain amount of intellect. (with some exceptions of course, but at least it isn’t EVERY post like Adam).
Adam continually writes from a self-erected pedestal, as if he is addressing a crowd of less stature, less capacity to reason, less information. He assumes he is in a superior place, and talks to the uninformed masses that need superficial swaying to see things his way. He uses mis-information, cause and effect without merit, convenient blanket judgments and candy-coating. He is a true representative of Huckabee, he imitates Huckabee’s methodology. I can see why he is so drawn to him – and wishes to push him forward. He may claim it is altruistic principles, but clearly Huckabee and Adam are of the same genre.
November 30th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Illinoisguy: I take your point that most in the Romney camp are respectful of Mrs. Palin and refrain from trashing her. I further take your point that one of the trashers is not even a citizen of our country. However, I still believe that there are at least a few comments (from a few people) that are not productive.) As for Mrs. Palin and Conservatism, I believe that you for one are just giving your honest opinion rather trashing her. My opinion differs. First of all, while I admit that she could stand to gain more knowledge about foreign affair, I do think it is unfair to sell her short. She is no slouch and I think that she is aware of many international issues outside her own borders. While many of us keep up on International affairs, I believe she does too. Furthermore, while I do not mean to trash your candidate or any other candidate for that matter, I believe that all candidate can stand to also gain more knowledge about international affairs, not just her.
On economic matter, Alaska is one of the few remaining states to run a balanced budget. Yes, Oil prices are now going down, but Alaska’s economy still remains strong due in part to Free Martket principles. It may be comparing Apples to Oranges, but I wish that Ohio, my county and community were run more like Alaska. I think it would be better for our economy.
November 30th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Romney would be great for 2012. I supported him in the GOP primary after Giuliani dropped out. I even voted for him in my late Texas Republican primary.
But I’m a little more reluctant now, knowing that he supported the “No” side on the legalization of Medical Marijuana initiative up in Michigan to the tune of $300,000.
Mitt Romney needs to SERIOUSLY EXPLAIN to the libertarian wing of the GOP why he did that, if he EVER hopes to gain our support again. It was a MAJOR, MAJOR, MAJOR slap in the face.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:00 am
For those who claim Mitt Romney did anything other than govern 100% pro-life as Governor of Massachusetts, I’m borrowing from an article posted on mymanmitt.com. Contrary to your assertions Alex, this is one of several times that he had an opportunity to impact the issue as Governor..
This is a letter written to the Massachusetts legislature in July of 2005.
Why I vetoed contraception bill
By Mitt Romney | July 26, 2005
YESTERDAY I vetoed a bill that the Legislature forwarded to my desk. Though described by its sponsors as a measure relating to contraception, there is more to it than that. The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception: The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.
Signing such a measure into law would violate the promise I made to the citizens of Massachusetts when I ran for governor. I pledged that I would not change our abortion laws either to restrict abortion or to facilitate it. What’s more, this particular bill does not require parental consent even for young teenagers. It disregards not only the seriousness ofabortion but the importance of parental involvement and so would weaken a protection I am committed to uphold.
I have spoken with medical professionals to determine whether the drug contemplated under the bill would simply prevent conception or whether it would also terminate a living embryo after conception. Once it became clear that the latter was the case, my decision was straightforward. I will honor the commitment I made during my campaign: While I do not favor abortion, I will not change the state’s abortion laws.
I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state’s democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.
For all the conflicting views on this issue, it speaks well of our country that we recognize abortion as a problem. The law may call it a right, but no one ever called it a good, and, in the quiet of conscience people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America”
The article continues if you would like to continue reading it.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
#50 Ohio Joe – “Furthermore, while I do not mean to trash your candidate or any other candidate for that matter, I believe that all candidate can stand to also gain more knowledge about international affairs, not just her.”
Can you site anything, anywhere that show Mitt Romney to be anything other than extremely knowledgeable and articulate on foreign policy, Islamic terrorism, or other national security issues? The man is a walking encyclopedia on the matter. So, I don’t think you could trash my candidate on this issue if you tried. I’m still waiting for you to be a supporter of this great man.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:03 am
oops, cite*
November 30th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Heath, is someone equally an idiot if he says that those who oppose Romney do so because they are jealous of his looks?
That’s what your pal Illinoisguy said a few months back.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:37 am
To all who have posted previously: do you not understand that Adam’s article was purely satire!? Apparently the real problem in the Republican party is acolytes with absolutely no feel for nuance and all which that implies about our intellects.
November 30th, 2008 at 11:39 am
#37:
I find it odd how many people can miss that a post is written tongue in cheek to make a point about attacking people who support Palin. Sarcasm is wasted on people on the right.
That’s why I could walk up to Elizabeth Dole and say, “Heck of job as NRSC Chairman a few years back.” And she would think I was sincere…
November 30th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Well said, Adam Graham!
November 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Mitt’s Hair 2012!!
November 30th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Adam Graham = douchebag
November 30th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
57. I just think this whole thing is ridiculous and makes the site look sophomoric.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
IL Guy #54:
Is he conversant in Arabic?
Look: People can be extremely knowledgeable and articulate on any given set of issues and still disagree with others who are no less so.
I’ve put the past primary battles behind me, and I’m open-minded about Mitt. But just like any other candidate I might wind up backing, I don’t figure on giving up skepticism about any of them or their individual positions. I mean, we’re all fallible and mortal, right?
November 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
57. And I don’t mean this post, I just mean this whole argument.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
#62, Arabic? No, and he sure as heck doesn’t need to be!
November 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
It is not that we don’t appreciate satire. We do. it’s just that this isn’t good satire. it is a poorly disguised attack with no sense of comedic timing or cadence. It goes on too long and loses the satire in its disdain.
It is also a poor comparison.
November 30th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I didn’t miss your point, Adam G. You tried to deny reality. But, you didn’t get away with it.
There is a huge sex appeal factor with Sarah Palin, and it is responsible for a great deal of her support. If a man were governor of Alaska for 18 months, had an ethics investigation hanging over his head, had a big history of pork, and private email accounts, etc. — well, there’s no stinkin way McCain would have chosen him, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Trying to compare Romney and Palin in this regard is silly and useless.
I’m waiting for a respectable post from you about Romney — the front runner. Hello? How long will you be able to avoid the subject? I know it’s going to be difficult because we’re not going to let you get away with the same type of comments you’ve made in the past about Romney.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Sorry, I didn’t laugh. It just wasn’t good satire to me.
November 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I thought it was funny, just didn’t make the point he was trying to make with any conviction. Humorous though.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I didn’t think it was funny or had any point at all. Adam Graham is avoiding the subject of Romney. The only time he mentions him, it is not in a serious way. He can’t because then he would have to acknowledge Romney’s frontrunner status.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:18 am
I think religious affinity is also a superficial reason to support a candidate, and this wasn’t listed in the case of Romney supporters. Many LDS people were drawn to Romney because of the faith we share in common, only to be convertered later to his competence and message. I was very pro-choice and open to same sex unions, after listening to Romney I became very pro choice and very anti same sex unions.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I am pretty sure Romney’s support, which seems to be quite rabbit among his cores supporters has more to do with his experience and competence than his looks. Looking presidential is surely a factor, but definitely not the most important.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Hmmm, I wonder what Freud would say about this posting?
Romney’s resume is unmatched in education, and success in business, yet a Huckabee supporter (closet liberal) has the audacity to suggest that Romney supporters support him for trivial reasons.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 am
Do you think he might say something about cigars?
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
Romney’s resume and track record are what get my pulse racing. Maybe in four years people will begin to respect competence and expect results again? Ya think so?