Romney

[Pheidippides]

I would have guessed 6'2 or 6'3 for Romney and 6'0 for Obama. When you look at most actors' heights, 6'2 is really tall. Clint Eastwood and Ronald Reagan were both tall actors. Most of those guys are midgets, probably because a lot of guys (not all of course) over 6 feet are sometimes not as well proportioned or too skinny at a young age as guys that are average height or even a little shorter.

I knew Obama was 6'1" because that's how tall I am - easy to remember. I was hoping Mitt was not a Michelle Bachman-like 5'1" or something.

[kccougar]

Hmmm, that seems really benign. So he owns a couple high prices cars....so what? Everyone already knows he owns a couple houses as well. I'm not seeing this one as a big issue.

Maybe you agree since you wrote boom instead of BOOM!

It actually works in his favor. When Santorum released his taxes it was made public that he drives an Audi A6 and not the Dodge pickup he touted in Iowa. Romney, with twenty times the wealth of the other candidates, owns only american cars.

[Moliere]

It actually works in his favor. When Santorum released his taxes it was made public that he drives an Audi A6 and not the Dodge pickup he touted in Iowa. Romney, with twenty times the wealth of the other candidates, owns only american cars.

Not true, but close. He owns a BMW :rockon2:

[Uncle Ted]

Not true, but close. He owns a BMW :rockon2:

The Ultimate Driving Machine...

[YOUTUBE]tOBU5dEUfVg[/YOUTUBE]

[Lost Student]

Hmmm. well your example is noted most often for the superficial cosmetic differences between Nixon and Kennedy. Thus my confusion. As I said, I think Romney will do fine and I think it remains to be seen if the difference that is observed inures to Romenys benefit or detriment.

Yeah, I've read that Nixon was actually a better debater and those who listened to Kennedy/Nixon debates on the radio mostly thought Nixon did better than Kennedy. It was the TV audience that favored Kennedy.

[myboynoah]

Yeah, I've read that Nixon was actually a better debater and those who listened to Kennedy/Nixon debates on the radio mostly thought Nixon did better than Kennedy. It was the TV audience that favored Kennedy.

I've heard the same thing and have seen some video of the debate. Nixon looked pretty bad compared to Kennedy.

[Surfah]

Mitt gets Brewer's endorsement.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-for-president

[RobinFinderson]

I think that Mitt's biggest failure as a candidate has been his inability to make the race about the economy. He just can't tilt public discourse toward his strengths, and every time some stupid social issue comes up, like the relatively minor fuss over Catholics and contraception (I've heard that 98% of Catholic adults have used contraception at some point), Mitt steps right into it like a bag of flaming dog shit. He keeps legitimizing these stupid non-issues by giving them serious time, and that draws attention away from his strengths. Every time he steps on one of these flaming bags of poo, he alienates conservative democrats who might otherwise support him.

Mitt needs to show the leadership necessary to change his party's culture away from its current death spiral. Mitt needs to figure out a way to say something like, "Gay marriage, contraception, and abortion... these are important issues, and I share the same moral views about these issues as most of you. However I don't believe that politicizing these issues by making them a critical part of our party's platform is a way to win this election. That is just going to harden people's views, and folks, we need to be honest about these issues, as conservatives we have not been persuasive advocates for our beliefs. You only have to look at the polls about gay marriage to see that we are losing too much ground on this issue, especially among the young. Now is a time for us to be persuasive about these issues, and discuss them with our friends and neighbors. If we do this with kindness and respect, and we don't try to demonize those who see these issues differently, then we will find more success than if we inject these serious issues with all of the negative feelings that are often generated by a big national election. I could talk about my strong moral convictions about these issues, but I am going to talk about the economy instead, because the economy is the issue around which the success or failure of our next president will depend."

[TripletDaddy]

GQ lending Mitt a hand by tackling the tough issues: Magical Mormon Underwear

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blog...underwear.html

[YOhio]

GQ lending Mitt a hand by tackling the tough issues: Magical Mormon Underwear

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/blog...underwear.html

Funny line:

Insulting a Mormon's choice of undergarments is akin to insulting his commitment to God. Also, grown-ups should resist the urge to make fun of each others' underpants. (Charles Blow, take note.)

[Jacob]

Mitt steps right into it like a bag of flaming dog shit. He keeps legitimizing these stupid non-issues by giving them serious time, and that draws attention away from his strengths. Every time he steps on one of these flaming bags of poo, he alienates conservative democrats who might otherwise support him.

Just curious. When did he do this re: contraception? I haven't seen it.

[All-American]

[youtube]QazmVHAO0os[/youtube]

[RobinFinderson]

Just curious. When did he do this re: contraception? I haven't seen it.

I'm sorry, but did Mitt avoid the whole bruhaha over whether or not Catholic employers should have to provide insurance plans that include contraceptive coverage? I may have just assumed that all of the candidates weighed in on that when it became the social-issue-du-jour. If Mitt didn't, then kudos to him.

[RC Vikings]

[youtube]QazmVHAO0os[/youtube]

No wonder Kennedy won.

[All-American]

I'm sorry, but did Mitt avoid the whole bruhaha over whether or not Catholic employers should have to provide insurance plans that include contraceptive coverage? I may have just assumed that all of the candidates weighed in on that when it became the social-issue-du-jour. If Mitt didn't, then kudos to him.

The one thing I can remember Mitt saying about contraceptives was the debate where George Stephanopoulos kept pressing him on whether states could ban them. When it came up this last debate, he mostly made it a question about families and marriage. I don't remember him weighing in on contraceptives, per se.