Tuesday, August 07, 2012
Apart from the veneer of competence, what is supposed to be the difference between Mittens and Bush? Both are sons of career politicians with chips on their shoulders over perceived slights to their fathers; neither ever broke a sweat; both embody the sort of privileged sense of entitlement that would make most people blush with shame. Neither has much of a filter. To the extent that Mittens has enunciated any policy whatsoever (apart from "I should be President") his policies seem identical to the policies that brought us two wars and global financial collapse. Both are the sort of religious people who are convinced that their deity wants them to be rich and powerful, which is just about the worst sort of religious person I can think of. As far as I can tell the chief distinction between the two of them is that one used to drink, and the other never did. What am I missing?
// posted by Bill @ 10:05 AM 
|
Comments:
<< Home
Well, it isn't the LDS element, because that's sticking in a fair few GOP craws.
If he actually ran on his one true accomplishment in MA, well, he'd be Obama, except a jackass and rich and older and white, but he can't do that, or can he?
Here comes an etch-a-sketch moment, I think.
If he actually ran on his one true accomplishment in MA, well, he'd be Obama, except a jackass and rich and older and white, but he can't do that, or can he?
Here comes an etch-a-sketch moment, I think.
<< Home
Post a Comment