by Jed Lewison
Biggest loser #1: Sarah Palin, because nobody cares that
she still hasn't decided:
“Is a title worth it?” she asked, rhetorically. “Does a title shackle a person? Are they someone like me who’s maverick? I do go rogue and I call it like I see it and I don’t mind stirring it up in order to get people to think and debate aggressively.”
“Is a title and a campaign too shackle-y?,” she continued. “Does that prohibit me from being out there, out of a box, not allowing handlers to shape me and to force my message to be what donors or what contributors or what pundits want it to be? Does a title take away my freedom to call it like I see it and to affect positive change that we need in this country? That’s the biggest contemplation piece in my process.”
<...>
Biggest loser #2: Mitt Romney, because nobody cares that he's
still actually running:
Mitt Romney is brushing aside fresh speculation about whether New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will jump into the Republican presidential sweepstakes, saying "I can't decide what other folks do."
The former Massachusetts governor tells MSNBC in an interview he believes the talk of a Christie entry is all part of the glaring media spotlight on politics. He says, "You've got to find some excitement. You've got to have some intrigue."
All this Christie speculation has got to be embarrassing for Romney. He should be flying high after Rick Perry's rough September, but instead of soaring, his campaign has been overshadowed by all the talk of Christie's entrance. It's become a pattern for Romney, who has been in the campaign for four years, but has trailed potential 2012ers ranging from Sarah Palin to Mike Huckabee to Michele Bachmann to Rick Perry to Donald Trump — and now, possibly, Chris Christie too.
Is a political career too "shackle-y?”
:rofl:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
