...Those barbs were in reference to gop-er "front-runner" Romney's 25 percent performance in this week's Iowa caucus (in which Romney did demonstrate the general weakness of himself and the entire gop-er field by finishing a mere 8 votes ahead of largely unknown Pennsylvania has-been right-winger Rick Santorum).Translation of the Axelrod/White House remarks: The democrat party and Obama would really, really rather run against a Rick Santorum or a Newt Gingrich than against Romney; therefore, please nominate someone other than Romney, republic partisans!
The reason for such agenda and hidden sentiments from the leftist 20 percenters is pretty obvious. Despite the fact (1) that I may personally view Romney as a stand-for-nothing assclown slickster (for whom I don't intend to vote) and (2) that many in the deranged right-winger gop-er "base" don't like Romney because they think he's "not conservative enough": An awful lot of Independents (including many left-leaning ones) will vote for Romney over Obama...
And of course, we Independents decide your elections. Not to mention, Romney will also likely peel off his share of votes from centrist and right-of-center democrats (if such a creature even still exists) who wouldn't vote for or shake Obama's hand if he was a toilet paper dispenser in a Mississippi shithouse.As a result, expect from democrat party slimeballs like Axelrod a steady stream of rhetoric in the weeks to come containing veiled "warnings" to the right-wingers that Romney would be a terrible presidential selection who can't beat Obama. And take that propaganda for what it is: Bullshit.
I do still give the incumbent Obama an edge over the rather run-of-the-mill Romney come November, but Romney will keep things close, especially given the rotten economy that Obama has only done his best to further retard while in office. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich would not keep things close. Or alternatively, you could just listen to Axelrod. Take your pick. Not that I could really give a rat's ass.
Posts
