MTerry--It was Johnson who increased the Vietnam scam soon after Kennedy's
death, and declared war on poverty which we also lost.
No, Marxist. The worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history was the decision
of the Democrat administrations of the 1960's to blunder into Vietnam and
to continue to blunder through more than a decade of death to nearly 60,000 U.S.
troops, with additional tens of thousands wounded and maimed, and nationwide
protests unequaled in U.S. history. Do the names Kennedy an Johnson ring a bell?
Yes, Nixon did drop the ball by not ending it sooner.
"plus he has many times the money as any of them"Not so fast
Skeptic. Donald Trump has a "Gucci store worth more then Romney"See what I mean about the entertainment. And the show is just starting.
"Romney criticized both Clinton and President Barack Obama for what he
labeled the nation's worst-ever foreign policy."!!!! The
worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history was the Iraq invasion, and neither
Clinton nor Obama did that.But Mrs. Clinton was an enabler.
Looking at this group, he should be second-guessing himself. Not saying that
I'd vote for him, just comparing him to the likes of those now running. Additionally, the republicans have morphed into two major
self-destructive camps—religious and secular—that guarantee a
wounded candidate for the general election. Barring some economic
collapse, this is Ms. Clinton's to lose.
Red states have hope, Ivy League is going down. Hollywood is going down,
university system should charge $20 a class. Mr. Willard Romney fit in well in
Massachusetts for 30 years and has adapted well to living in a red state, he
should never have moved back east in 1970, where corruption reigns.
The best candidate to represent the common man and is not tied to big money, is
ironically the liberal democrat from Vermont, Bernie Sanders. Yes. That's
right, Bernie Sanders. Call him a wild liberal all you want. So far, neither the
GOP, nor Hillary will be able to represent you better than Bernie Sanders. (And
I am quite conservative.)
Mitt Romney is not good enough to be president, but he is heads and shoulders
above ninety percent of the present aspiring Republican presidential candidates;
plus he has many times the money as any of them. Mitt should go for it. It
would liven up the party, and make history: one way or the other.
I don't blame Romney for all of this hype. He was a failed candidate twice
and any publicity he can garner today helps restore his image. I don't
blame Romney at all. I blame the Deseret News for drooling and fawning over
Romney this and Romney that etc etc ad nauseum.
Of the expected field of around 15 GOP candidates, whats one more?Any GOP candidate that emerges from that group will have a hard time with the
standing 8 count.And the right will blame the mainstream media and
possibly Obama.Get your favorite drink, a big bowl of popcorn and
sink into that comfy chair. It is guaranteed to be entertaining.
I never thought he ran because he liked the job -- He would have not shown
such fluidity in his positions-- He would have taken more care to include
the 47%, not knock themI thought he ran partly from mormon duty and
partly to make Ann First Lady.