To the Obama supporters, you are a connundrum. You would walk with the swagger of an intelligent thinker, but your actions run counter to good judgment. We have had four years of failure and yet you still said "give me more of that!"
As you rush to retort with that same tired s***, lemme just stop you and ask, how many Bush era ideas did Obama continue? Yeah. Your party claims to abhor war, but Obama is as rapacious as Bush ever was. You hated bail outs when it was Bush doing it, but when BO does it it's cool.
It's more of a snarky thing than anything else because, honestly, if you voted for him enthusiastically and not out of fear of Romney, you have a serious problem. Either you are into a cult of personality, you have no clue how reality works, you are mad and vindictive because you think you are owed something and he's the candyman or you are just plain stupid.
If, however, you voted for him because Romney scared the hell out of you, I think you are giving him more credit than he deserves, but I can understand. He was pretty ****in bad.
Now, Romney supporters, piggybacking off my closing remarks to the lefties, I'll open with the same olive branch for you. If you voted for Romney because Obama scared you, I understand. I admit, I voted for McCain last cycle mainly for that reason.
Much like what I said to the Obamniacs, though, if you voted for Romney thinking he was the promised one, um, what the hell were you thinking? He was as shallow as Obama on issues. He didn't have detail one about how he would deliver on his grandiose promises. He promised to cut taxes, increase defense spending and yet still balance the budget, all while starting a war with Iran? Seriosly, people, WTF were you on?
This guy somehow managed to not only repulse any moderates or centrist democratic types who maybe were rethinking Obama, but also piss off the militant conservatives in his own party; FAN-TAS-TICK!
He was weak in 2000, but wouldn't take no for an answer. he was weak this go around too, but this time the GOP made sure he "won." They learned nothing last time and hitched their wagon to a dead horse again. Fine, that was their decision, but it's important to make sure they remember it was THEIR DECISION.
They wanted Romney, that was obvious from the first. They didn't like him, but they knew they were probably going to end up with him. Along the way the hard core kooks self destructed and the ones that were talking about real solutions, Paul, Huntsman, Johnson, were marginalized and pushed off the stage. Why? I have a theory. Either the GOP knows they suck and they can't afford to have any Republicans talking sense lest it cast a stark contrast to the rest of the party or two, they think it would be preferrable to lose. What? Lose on purpose? Yup, I said it.
Let's go with me for a second here. Through the four years of Obama, the only thing that has sucked worse than him is congress. Both houses, both parties, they suck bad. Squabbling over bills, playing fast and lose with procedures when possible and useful, settling scores, failing to even agree on budgets, it's all a s*** snadwich and Harry Reid and John Boehner are the chefs. One thing that serves you when the other party has the white house, though, is the ability to blame everything on the president. Yes, Obama is terrible and yes, he has done terrible things, but to let congress blame him for their failings is BS. Obama caught a lot of hell for stuff he wasn't really responsible for.
As BS as it is, though, it works. the Republicans are just as inept, childish, and greedy as the Democrats, but while vitriol against a president is 24/7, congress only feels heat every now and then. If you are a sitting congressman or senator, the life is pretty good. If you fly low and only associate your name with popular stuff you are pretty safe and can get all sorts of nifty perks for your time and some for life.
Now, here comes a presidential election. If you win then people will start to expect you as a member of the winning party to, you know, work! If, however, you lose, you can blame the president and his or her party for not working in a spirit of bipartisanship. Yeah, if your candidate loses, you still win! Cool deal. Pick a weak candidate who has a proven record of underwhelming people and throw him into one of the most polarized no holds barred battle to the death (of our country) races and watch him get torn apart. Wait, he's sucking a little too much. Let's inject the furby in there. He has some clout with the hardliners. That should get the ticket just close enough to look like we tried, like about 49%.
Yeah, Romney supporters, you just got handled. You can scream to the heavens and throw whatever insults you want. I don't care because, in the end, you let them use you, chumps. Well done.
Why write this? I'm obviously no Obama shill, I'll let Howie fly that flag. I write this because as I expected, the sour grapes are starting to make themselves apparent. You see, in much the same way that an Obama supporter needs to pump his guy up by inflating your guy into this achillean threat to make the win more impressive and cover for the fact that he sucks, you will need to cover for the fact that your sucktastic candidate was DOA by blaming the voters who either didn't vote or voted for someone else.
"Those Ron Paul supporters are childish and stayed away because they are sore losers."
"(insert any third party) are stupid idealists"
"They cost us the election!"
Let's pretend for a moment that we are adults with a modicum of intelligence, shall we? Candidates are just products in a consumer market. Is it a free market? Hell no it isn't. One need only watch the process to know it's stacked within the respective parties and if you are not a Republican or a Democrat in the general you are DOA. They won't even let you in the building to debate.
Regardless of this truth, it is a market and market forces are in play. Anyone with some understanding of marketing can tell you that you can sell anything to anybody if you market it right. Don't think so? Take Coke. It's a can of sugar water that makes you obese and eats the enamel off your teeth. In spite of that, it's an 8 billion dollar a year business, that's with a "B" folks. A campaign's job is to convince you their candidate is the answer just like Coke wants to convince you that you want a soda and that that soda should be a coke.
The difference between Coke and Romney is, other than the greater nutritional value of the 12 ounce can, Coke doesn't try to demonize the consumer for not buying the product. They improve the marketing or, if that fails, improve the product. Those of us that didn't vote for Romney didn't do it to help Obama or to spite Romney, we voted for someone else because ROMNEY SUCKS! Someone else had a better idea and earned our votes or nobody did and we recused ourselves.
I got an email from the Gary Johnson campaign thanking me for my support. I replied that that was not necessary, he earned my support. He earned it by having good ideas and a willingness to fight for my attention and then to explain his ideas and how he intended to get there. HE f*** IN EARNED MY VOTE!
I could forgive a whiny race-baiting, entitlement-demanding, excuse-copping liberal for effecting such a victim mentality, but this is the GOP. You Republicans are supposed to stand for hard work and earning what you have. How about you walk the damned talk for once and own your mistake. let me remind you.
I didn't do that. I was one of those "Paulbots" that thought "it's the economy stupid" and that fiscal solvency was important. Yeah, We spend more than we take in and neither of the mainstream guys want to talk about it. They don't want to talk about it because they got no plan. I saw that, we saw that, we rejected Romney. you told us we were kooks. Still feeling sure of yourself?
In summation:
Romney sucks
You did that
Regarding the failure of his candidacy, the only thing you Romney whiners need to do is quote Obama in regards to our involvement in YOUR failure.
Now go **** yourselves.
