Captain Plastic

Plastic smile, plastic hair, plastic planks in his platform, and lots and lots of plastic money he is throwing around.

Why does Mitt remind me so much of another plastic President that we had?

You know he is just too tempting to all those self-described Reagan Republicans who think that he could do no wrong. McCain is just not fake enough, nor does he continuously invoke the fears that most Republicans oddly find comfort in.

Mitt v. Hillary - The thought of it makes me sick to my stomach, but does make my decision very easy.

 

Ignoring the jealously exhibited by saying Reagan was 'phony', I submit the DEFINITION:

Like you, that choice will make it easy for me to vote.
One who's actually DONE stuff and managed STUFF.. vs one who's done little but campaign for office.

 

RE: Re: Captain Plastic

I'd say that definition fairly well describes both candidates.

But I would choose the evil I know, first.

 

So... let me get this straight, PCB.

You are opposed to 'politicians'?

Here's a conservative who agrees with you..

but what's the question... he shifts left to get elected to Governor of the state which would actually think Kerry is useful?

So whatever he says to get elected President of a country that DOESNT think that, means he flip-flops?

Hate to tell you, the worth of a candidate is what he promises for the office, vs what he does AFTER he gets there. He might run more moderate, correct? Did he serve MA well?

Which brings us to Arnold Swartzenegger... is he getting things done, or not? Is he a 'Reagan Conservative'? Hell no.

If he could run for US President would he run as a "R. C."... probably not, but if he campaigned on that sort of platform, I wouldnt discount him.

I know there's lots of parsing, there. But that's what politics is about.

That's ALSO why I believe McCain WOULD secure the borders. I hate his simplistic {Democrat-like} view of taxes and tax-cut effects.. but I believe him when he said the people have spoken on the borders.

 

If it is McCain v. Clinton, I may join you pard. But I am reserving my right to be convinced otherwise.

 

Interesting that you made that assumption and connection......

 

Why is that interesting?

since I didnt really WANT to get into 'Reagan bash' territory, I skinned over that... but it suddenly occurs that anyone who would claim that Reagan was a 'phony' in order to make a point, is suspect when it comes to political discourse.

Who that knew and dealt with him said Reagan was 'phony'? Tip O'Neill? Gorbachev?

Or maybe one would expect that from a Democrat on the ground, who just cant bring himself to admit the difference between Ronnie and the most disastrous president we had in our lifetimes! And I mean, of course, Jimmuh!

 

Who here said Reagan was a phony..........besides you??

 

Who the hell did you mean, then?

JFK?

 

Maybe I meant Bush, maybe I meant Ford, maybe I meant Nixon. I just threw the dots out there. You were the one who connected them.

I love it when you are honest to a fault.

Lock THAT and save it for another day!
:banana:

 

Bush.. plastic?

Lessee.. first he's dumb. Then he's an evil cunning overlord. I guess that's plastic.

But I think the 'plastic' is mainly in someone elses skull. NO ONE so inarticulate can EVER be accused of being 'plastic'.

And.. just because button-pushing is allowed here, you just throw it in for grins?

Tell you the truth, when I tried to figure out who you meant, I went by 'attention to personal appearance'.

Can you blame me?

 

Mitt's a faker

Mitt is phoney, exhibit one
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pJWSIqv8NOc

In the beginning of it there’s the bizarre "who let the dogs out woff woff" from man of the people Mitt which I found a bit odd and out of nowhere and then at the very end there’s the enthusiastic "hey you got some bling bling there!" which was a tad bit condescending in my book. If that’s a white kid in Massachusetts I tend to think he'd have chosen his words differently :wink:

In defense of all politicians though. They're in the constant position of having to sell themselves. That personally is something I hate doing and put in the position where it was a requirement I would inevitably come across as phony at times.

 

Don I question how McCain will earn back America's respect around the world by simply continuing the current approach to foreign policy. While I personally respect his principles and his plan I doubt the rest of the world will bother to take notice. Through their eyes he's a mere continuation of the current. Another republican in the white house, even the best one which McCain is, will at best maintain the status quo.

 

There we go again...

What 'respect ' is that, Spencer? Of the French population? Of the German population? Or do you mean the 'respect' of their media and intellectual effete?

Would that be the sort of respect France has had in the popular culture for the last fifty years?
And what is the general tenor of the leaders recently elected in those two countries, compared to their predecessors?

And what does 'respect' mean anyway? Do YOU respect someone who says what they mean and mean what they say, especially in regards to commitment? Or does your respect go to one who caves to popular pressure.
Note We aint talking about 'likability' here, we're talking about respect. That's two different things

Seems to me any re-earning of 'respect' is going to have to counter the recent weaseling around the middle east by Condi and Dubya trying to force yet another round of concessions by Israel in the hopes that the Palestinians will 'commit to something, anything, finally'.

 

Back on point then P-foggy-fog. I would hope that if you embrace your description of "respect" that we count you as a Republican who realizes Captain Plastic's run at the Presidency should die a quick and absolute death.

My fear is that too many of your fellow Republicans, who haven't the feckin' clue what they are doing, which should cover a majority of them, will embrace and vote for this fake sumbitch because, gosh darnit, his money got him on the television 15 times a day to tell them they should. I won't be surprised, but I will be dissapointed.

 

I repeat... FAKE because he actually saved a company, got the olympics running on sched and didnt seem to piss off too many people as governor.

You dont like him, fine... dont go on pretty, or ugly either.

I think the same about Edwards... except all he's ever done is lie and spin for a living, right?

 

How about the ability to get beyond your normal confines to see and understand the other side. The ability to reexamine ideas and realize that just because we have always thought one way and we have always done things one way does not mean there is not a better way. Rather than continuing on the same course, doubling your effort, your sacrifice, and your costs not only to yourself but to everyone else out of insular frustration and stubbornness have the ability to be bold enough and man enough to admit that you have not always been right and to correct past wrongs. I respect that.

It is my view that what we have done in Iraq was wrong and is wrong. John McCain does not, but instead seems to believe that only if it had been him who was doing it all would be right. He is a continuation of the current and is prone to rehashing and relaunching similar mistakes perhaps on a bigger and more costly level.

 

FAKE because he is full of bullship. He has changed his positions consistently when it suits his pursuits.

Wow, if you of all people gets behind his campaign, I won't be shocked, but I'll have to question whether it is early alzheimers, or you just really never were that smart and scrupulous.

 

That sounds sorta like a persoanl attack.

Look... suppose I point out AGAIN, that it was previously VERY hard for the Washington elected to run for pres. There's a reason for that.
The public knows that they dont really do anything practical.

Suppose I point out AGAIN that neither party really has candidates that qualify based on solid credentials relevant to their bases.

for that matter those that actually had extensive executive experience dont seem to run very good campaigns, Romney excepted.
those with solid ideology like Thompson, tho he has dithered on some thus isnt Reaganite, seemed to have other aims in running.

You DO realize that Edwards is running for VP or DNC chair, right?

And look at the Clinton apologists, at the moment. "It's just politics" is all right when it's not your ox being gored.

No... we in a 'best of the worst' race here. I thinkk most people realize that.

Which makes me wonder why you have so little faith in the voting public. If Romney is really all that much a phony, he wont get the vote.

Again, look at Edwards.