<p>Watching these candidates squirm in the YouTube world is going to be so much fun. </p>
<p>This Massachusetts debate footage of Mitt Romney repeatedly stating his support for a woman’s right to choose popped up on YouTube today:</p>
<p><a href=“TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates”>TIME | Current & Breaking News | National & World Updates;
<p>“I’m going to ‘outgay’ Ted Kennedy.” (gotta love him ;))</p>
<p>I am actually dreading old youtube videos of all the candidates saying stuff that contradicts stuff they now say. Romney will probably get the evangelical vote, but hopefully not enough to where he gets the nom over McCain, Guliani, or Gingrich.</p>
<p>Hey, I guess I’m “multiple-choice” just like Mitt Romney.</p>
<p>I voted against him in the Senate race, because I think the US Senate needs a character like Ted Kennedy.</p>
<p>I voted for him in the Governor’s race because having a Republican gov. is the only check and balance against a corrupt Democratic machine legislature in Massachussetts. (see Billy Bulger, Whitey Bulger, et al).</p>
<p>I’m dreading it. I am already sick and tired of looking at Hillary. I think I’ll move to Europe.</p>
<p>I really don’t think you’ll find much relief from annoying flip-flopping, self-serving politicians in Europe.</p>
<p>Oh puleeze. Romney. Blech.</p>
<p>What do call the annoying flip-flopping Hillary?</p>
<p>I’m not aware that Clinton has changed her position on abortion. Could you link a YouTube video? <grin></grin></p>
<p>Please! I still need a little more time to finish gloating over the last election. :D</p>
<p>“What do call the annoying flip-flopping Hillary?”</p>
<p>Compared with Rudy, Romney, and Johnnie, she is a Rock of Gibraltar. Wrong, but still a Rock.</p>
<p>^ I agree. Wrong, but a rock. Sort of reminds me of someone though…</p>
<p>Certainly with Obama throwing his diploma into the ring the Democrat’s race becomes quite sexy, cheeky and celebrified. It will be very interesting to watch Hilary and Obama’s dance as the rose switches from teeth to teeth.</p>
<p>As for the Rep’s, I cannot even keep my eyes open long enough to remember why they are taking up tabloid space.</p>
<p>Romney could make it interesting, I suppose…but I expect nothing more from it than this.</p>
<p>No gloating, Weenie. Serious work remains to be done and it will take two more election cycles and then some to dismantle this hideous neocon apparatus and consign it to the dustbin of history. At which point, I still wouldn’t gloat…one of the fundamental problem with the current coterie in power is the indifference to hubris, an inclination that should not be copied. </p>
<p>I think a friend of mine is right: what we have today in power can’t be called Republican but Bushism.</p>
<p>You’re more optimistic than I, TD. I truly wonder if and how the world will recover from the mess wrought by these nefarious neocons.</p>
<p>“Serious work remains to be done and it will take two more election cycles and then some to dismantle this hideous neocon apparatus and consign it to the dustbin of history.”</p>
<p>Yup. Leo Straus and the “Chicago” school of social thought, as well as bankrupt Friedmanesque economics will be about as relevant as Yuri Andropov. (But the death and destruction Wolfowitz continues to inflict from his perch at the World Bank will be with us for decades to come.)</p>
<p>I’m not sure about recovery either, AM. First order of business is to get the drunks away from the steering wheel. There was a quote about Feith recently, to the effect that he thought they could simply swap out Saddam Hussein for Chalabi, as one might a computer chip, and the country would keep on ticking but in a manner compliant with American designs. What arrogance.</p>
<p>As it is, the larger problems–Afghanistan, Pakistan, and radical Islamist terrorism–are getting worse instead of better. To the extent that Iraq is a problem, it’s because we made it so.</p>
<p>I’m looking forward to the “Who lost Iraq?” ventings include shots at the ungrateful Iraqis for not doing what we expected them to do. Along with journalists who reported what was really going on instead of the administrations propaganda, and, of course, Democrats, for undermining our strength by dissenting from the imperial presidency.</p>
<p>You are right of course TheDad. I was just kidding. I don’t think anyone one could be more alarmed at the state of this country than me.</p>
<p>Weenie, it’s as much a reminder to myself as anyone else: certainly the temptation to gloat is there. But with so much to be done, it needs to be dispensed with until we truly have “mission accomplished.” At which point, I think quite a different set of emotions will set in. If we’re so lucky.</p>
<p>I’m looking forward to this next campaign.</p>
<p>The Dems have some incredible possibilities with John, Hillary, and Barack, any one of which I could support. My tendencies now (including initial campaign contribution) are with John Edwards.</p>
<p>The Republicans present (to me) less of a good choice. My wife (once upon a time) liked John McCain, but not any more. I don’t think he has a chance this time around. As for the others, I think the Republicans might be too fragmented after this current administration, which has alienated most of the electorate one way or the other. I am a bit of a fan of AH-nold, but Constitutionally, that won’t work.</p>
<p>One thing I hate seeing is how the primary process tends to dig up negativity towards ALL candidate, so that after all is said and done, the least offensive persons emerge as the final candidates.</p>