georgeob1 wrote:nimh wrote:Romney is the biggest flaming hypocrite and panderer in the whole damn field. He really will say anything, to anyone, to get elected. It's almost caricatural - in that sense he's much worse than any of the other Republican candidates too.
Nonsense. It is axiomatic that ALL of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, will say almost anything to get elected.
By and large true, of course, but no, I dont think any of the other candidates take it
quite as far as Romney does. Because of course there ARE differences between candidates on this: some are not anything as much a panderer as others.
Take John McCain for example. By the time of the last Republican debate, he was getting hammered from all directions about immigration; a lone proponent of the bill, excoriated by opponents. As sponsor of the immigration bill, he didnt even have the opportunity to pander on that one, of course: he had no choice but to stand for his bill. However, noone forced him to voluntarily come out, during the debate, when the mod asked whether
anyone of the candidates would oppose making English the official language. Nobody raised a hand. Raising your hand, it was clear, would mean losing costly electoral brownie points among the primary electorate. There was no compulsive reason why McCain would feel he had no choice but to raise his hand. And yet he did it anyway. For no other reason, apparently, but hell, that he just didnt agree.
Same thing in the same debate re torture. Standing up and saying you do not approve of torture - err, "enhanced interrogation techniques" - period, is a complete loser in the Republican primaries. And the mod ratcheted up the stakes irresponsibly, by presenting the issue in the form of the kind of scenario that the candidates would pretty much find it impossible to refuse: if the US had caught terrorists, whom the US knew to have crucial info, about an imminent terrorist bomb attack, that would kill thousands, and that could only be prevented if you'd got these guys to talk.. something like that. Did McCain hem and haw and pander at least a bit? Nope, he straightened his back and gave a committed defense of his position to reject torture, period.
Now McCain has pandered plenty too - to the religious right in his big trek to make up with them, to Bush, of course, to business, etc. But you only need a glimpse like that to realise that he does still have limits, does still have a principled core. Romney is a moral ghost, a midget, compared to that, and really would not hesitate to say anything, anything whatsoever, to get to the top.
So yeah sure, politics is a dirty business, etc etc. But yes, there are meaningful differences between candidates. Looking at all the frontrunners, I think Giuliani would the most dangerous President. But it's Romney who's the most unscrupulous, hypocritical panderer.
) NO Democrat matches that polling. Hence; Dems lose ground as soon as you name the candidate, too (a lot of it), which can only mean that the Dems are NOT thrilled with their choices.
Hillary still polls best among Democrats. Anyone who would define the going consensus among democrats about this as "thrilled" is poorly informed, reaching badly, or simply a damned fool.
