Since the article was about the logos I thought I'd look at all of them.
Honestly, I didn't like Romney's or Huntsman's at all. Bachman and the one
after it I thought looked the best. The others were good. Newt's was pretty
good too. Huntsman's did look like a car dealer and Romney's just
looked strange. Politically I haven't even looked at the candidates
so these is simply based on the logos themselves.
Romney's logo looks like a flag blowing "freely" in the breeze if you
turn it sideways. I thought that it was intended to be portrayed this way
because he often stresses that we need to safeguard our freedom. It just made
some sense to me.
"I only mean to encourage others to do their homework, and find out as much
as possible before choosing who to vote for."Well said!
'Pagan, I can't help but look at them...' - A voice of Reason | 12:24 p.m. July
22, 2011 Very good. That's understandable. I, in no way, meant to
imply that my post was in relation to your own. I would have quoted you in an
attempt to respond at that point. Logo's and tag lines are fine.
'Drill baby drill, Yes we can, etc.' They sum up a person's stance quickly. I only mean to encourage others to do their homework, and find out as
much as possible before choosing who to vote for.
Pagan, I can't help but look at them... they're everywhere! lol - but they don't
factor in my decision... I like graphic design (a little) and that is my only
interest here.I'm not saying your point was meant towards me, just
that there are other reasons to look at a logo.
I thought Cain's logo was the best.
I try not to look at their logo's... I look at their records.
Huntsman's looks more like a car dealership logo than a campaign logo!
Romney's is as good as Obama did, so it's a success. I remember looking at
McCain thinking 'are you nuts? You're website is archaic, and you're image,
well... no, just stop now'McCain had one of the worst campaigns I