Skip to main content

View Diary: Mitt Romney is the GOP's Michael Dukakis (75 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Weird, weird logic (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, polecat, edrie

    considering that Romney has pollster who created the Horton ad that took Dukakis down working for HIM.

    This diary simply does not compute.

    •  How does THAT follow? (0+ / 0-)

      Who creates an ad has nothing to do with the qualities of the candidate. THAT does not compute.

      •  It has EVERYTHING to do with the qualities (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NYFM

        of the candidate.

        Dukakis was basically a nice guy who believed in "the redemption of souls"

        He was destroyed by a soulless ruthless opponent.

        This time around Romney IS that soulless ruthless opponent.  Very literally, right down the the very guy who took Dukakis out.

        In other words, you got the connection ass backwards.

        •  No. Dukakis presented as a disconnected, (0+ / 0-)

          cold, out-of-touch man. Whether or not you think he was "basically nice", that's what he presented to the voter.

          It is hardly "ruthless" to seize on an opponent's policy positions that are out of step with most voters and make a big deal about them. You can debate whether or not the Horton ad was over the line, but Dukakis' hapless responses on capital punishment alone reinforced the idea that he was a bloodless and unleaderlike person.

          Rather like Mitt Romney.

          •  OK, if I've been having a discussion (0+ / 0-)

            with somebody who said this, clearly there's no point:

            You can debate whether or not the Horton ad was over the line,
            wow, just wow.  
            •  People do debate it. I think it was over the line. (0+ / 0-)

              But that is not a universal opinion. Trying to turn that into some kind of character smear against me is...well, very much in the spirit of the ad.

              •  Am I really authoring the character smear? (0+ / 0-)

                just saying, YOU were the one who claimed that an ad that the lifelong racist Lee Atwater renunciated and apologized for was "debatable"

                I'm curious, just who is the debate with?  Seriously, it's not easy to find harder core fuckwads out there than Lee Atwater  . . . which would kind of be a necessity to have this debate.

                I'm also curious if the 1988 election is just something you've read about in the history books and can look at it with strange detachment, or if you actually lived through it?   I suppose THAT could explain your strange acceptance of an early version of Romney's current tactics.

        •  Irrelevant. Why do you think it would be? (0+ / 0-)

          Hiring someone doesn't make you exactly like the last guy who hired him. That's silly.

          •  The people you hire says a lot about you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            polecat

            Romney hired this guy who is well known to be absolutely ruthless, doesn't care one iota for the truth, and is willing to resort to the basest smears to win.  In fact, that is exactly why Romney hired him and is an apt reflection of his own character.

            Which, despite all his faults, is diametrically opposed to what Mr. Dukakis was.  

            If Mr. Dukakis cared about what was said on this site, I'd think he'd almost have a case for libel for this very very bizarre comparison you are trying to make.  But the point being that's he's a hopelessly nice albeit naive guy, he wouldn't do that to you!

            •  Oh, c'mon. That's ridiculous. (0+ / 0-)

              First of all, the man is a public figure and I can express whatever opinion I like about him--libel law is crystal clear on this point.

              Secondly, you have predicated your entire argument on a hiring choice, as if that magically dispels all the similarities I laid out.

              As I said, that's silly.

              •  You didn't read the New Yorker article (0+ / 0-)

                did you?

                If you did, I really don't know how you can be so lackadaisical about the situation . . . .

                It's similar to saying that Karl Rove had no reflection on George W. Bush because he's just somebody he hired.  

                No, not really, instead it goes to the core values of Romney - namely that he's a heartless, soulless scumwad of the highest order.    

                Specific to the current situation, he'd do anything to win, more or less literally.  Which is quite unlike Dukakis who took the high road.  Romney would NEVER take the high road.  Not even with his entire family strapped to the top of his car.

                •  It still doesn't address my arg. This is going (0+ / 0-)

                  nowhere. Thanks for your perspective. I disagree with it.

                •  he's not being lackadaisical, imho. (0+ / 0-)

                  he is being analytical.  

                  and, we already know that romney has no values.  so, why would anyone be surprised at his hiring of larry mccarthy?  it fits into his overall world view - that he should do anything necessary to win!

                  •  Yes, but is it necessary to use that (0+ / 0-)

                    as a very personal attack on Mike Dukakis that he's really done nothing to earn.

                    It is still painful for him how he was attacked on the '88 election (yes, maybe he was a wuss in over his head who shouldn't have been running, but whatever, that's not germaine here) - and now to be compared to the very group of fuckwads who did the attacking just smacks of very very bad taste. IMHO that is just completely mean-spirited and beyond the part of this diarist.  Why he has such hatred of Mr. Dukakis is probably none of my business, but it seems rather unseemly to be sure.

            •  romney hired him BECAUSE the willie (0+ / 0-)

              horton ad worked!  

              that ad played to the racist and ignorant - that is the base that romney needs to win.  hiring atwater makes perfect sense when looked at in this light.

              so, if he is condemned for the content of ads in his campaign AFTER he wins, then he can say he's sorry!  but to romney, winning this time is the only option as it is likely his last hurrah if he doesn't succeed in (buying)winning the election.

    •  it does if you're an idiot running for (0+ / 0-)

      president... for decades!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site