Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Romney Campaign Accidentally Launches Transition Web Site

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the post-jumping-the-gun dept.

Government 185

stevegee58 writes "The Mitt Romney presidential campaign accidentally launched a transition website the day after the election. Sporting a 'President Elect' seal and a catchy new tagline ('Smaller, Simpler, Smarter') , the site was up briefly before the gaffe was discovered and the site taken down. Fortunately an alert blogger, Taegan Goddard, found the errant site and published some screen shots."

cancel ×

185 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Someone didn't get the memo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926199)

That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926333)

That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

Somehow, I don't think we'll be going to war over that one.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928425)

That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

Somehow, I don't think we'll be going to war over that one.

Well, we did before, back when it was Deseret...

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (3, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926335)

He's too liberal for Utah.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926417)

Utah can't secede unless it takes Idaho or Arizona with it, because it would be landlocked.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926493)

Look at the electoral map by county. If all of those red counties unite and choose to secede, they'll control a good chunk of the oil, coal and farmland. Not to mention access to the gulf of Mexico for shipping. That might explain why the "department of homeland security" has been buying all that ammo lately.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926599)

Yeah and they'll also run out of the welfare money from the blue states to give to the trailer park families.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (3, Insightful)

Andy Prough (2730467) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926649)

Texas would beg to differ, I'm sure.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926969)

Texans make jokes about the French, but when the rubber met the road, guess who was tossing down their muskets and begging for mercy from the Union before Sherman or any other general set foot on their soil?

Just wanted to bring up historical fact to curb bravado.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41927009)

How long can Texas keep the Bible Belt afloat?

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928279)

and you will run out of food

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928759)

More likely we'd be buying it for pennies on the dollar.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926913)

Yep, we'll kick your asses like we did the last time. Please, please try to secede. It will give us a good excuse to take out the trash.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926551)

Take a good look at the electoral map by county. Notice all those red counties in the middle of the country. If they decide to unite and secede, they'll control a good portion of the oil and coal (plenty of coal in UT, that can't be mined due to a Clinton executive order). They'll also control most of the farmland, and therefore the food supply.

They would also have access to the Gulf of Mexico and therefore have a shipping channel for trade.

That must be why the DHS bought all that ammo.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (5, Funny)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926595)

Syria is Utah's path to the sea!

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926717)

Okay thats funny

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927843)

Truly one of the best posts ever. Brilliant. Absolutely fucking brilliant.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926767)

"Utah can't secede unless it takes Idaho or Arizona with it, because it would be landlocked."

So what? Lots of countries are landlocked

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926869)

So are Arizona and Idaho.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928295)

Transport ships come up the Columbia river to the port in Lewiston Idaho all of the time

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

cvtan (752695) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927105)

Maybe he is President-Elect of Utah.

Re:Someone didn't get the memo (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928075)

That site wasn't supposed to launch until Utah secedes.

So long as they take the rest of the red states with them I'd vote for it!

oops (2)

russlar (1122455) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926217)

He's channeling his inner Rick Perry.

Icing on the fail cake (5, Funny)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926221)

Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.

Re:Icing on the fail cake (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926455)

And hire a better IT staff.

Like Obozo's IT geniuses that allowed foreign contributions on his website and never bothered to correct it?

Haha (5, Funny)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926473)

that's because we liberals can do whatever we want and you conservatives can't!

ha ha! sucks to be you!

Re:Haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928883)

I thought it was the conservatives who were mean and ruthless? Huh

Re:Icing on the fail cake (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926511)

Considering how many times they hit me up for money over the campaign (and I tossed in three bucks each time) they got a lot of American cash, too.

Re:Icing on the fail cake (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927745)

All I'm hearing is "waaaaaah"...

Re:Icing on the fail cake (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928785)

Obozo? Really? You're some fucking libtard commie hippy trying to hide the truth of your liberal agenda.

It turns out that his REAL name was recently discovered on a North Korean birth certificate that was written in Arabic with ink made from the ashes of holocaust victims and the constitution. It turns out to be Osama Mohammed Chinese-Invasion Terrorist Muslim Nigger bin Laden Mexican Hitler Rapes-Kids Atheist Death-To-America.

If you didn't hate America so much, God would have told you that already.

Re:Icing on the fail cake (2)

gatfirls (1315141) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926731)

They should probably run a democrat.

Re:Icing on the fail cake (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927537)

Hopefully the Republicans can find a better candidate than a used car salesman next time. And hire a better IT staff.

They're having trouble figuring out those newfangled punch cards. They hope to get some younger blood in the IT department for the next election, some one under 70 that can mange one of those tape driven jobs!

LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926285)

How do you explain this to your boss?

They should hold on to the site, you never know what the final count will be once Florida finishes.

Re:LOL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926319)

even florida can't save him, plus he already conceded. you fucking moron.

LOL: I thought you said conceited... (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926367)

Both are appropriate.

Re:LOL (3, Informative)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926515)

Not Florida, alone, but technically, the Electoral College ballots aren't counted until early in January.

There is a bit more leeway than one would think, although the results, as they now stand are extremely unlikely to change.

Most states electors are bound by law if they don't vote the way they have been tasked, however, electors in the following ttates are not bound by Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:
ARIZONA ARKANSAS DELAWARE GEORGIA IDAHO ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS KENTUCKY LOUISIANA MINNESOTA MISSOURI NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW JERSEY NEW YORK NORTH DAKOTA PENNSYLVANIA RHODE ISLAND SOUTH DAKOTA TENNESSEE TEXAS UTAH WEST VIRGINIA

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926975)

Not Florida, alone, but technically, the Electoral College ballots aren't counted until early in January.

There is a bit more leeway than one would think, although the results, as they now stand are extremely unlikely to change.

Most states electors are bound by law if they don't vote the way they have been tasked, however, electors in the following ttates are not bound by Law to cast their vote for a specific candidate:

...

But if the electors don't vote the way they're bound by law to vote, there's no way to undo the "illegal" vote.

You can punish the elector - maybe. But the "illegal" vote still stands.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928275)

But if the electors don't vote the way they're bound by law to vote, there's no way to undo the "illegal" vote.

No, those LAWS typically call for jail and or fine for the wayward voter, and a replacement elector to vote the intended way.

However much people forget, the individual States in the United States have a lot of leeway in making their own laws. In an extreme case, in theory, 38 "red" states could cause a 50-state wide change, constitutionality...

Where's the growl? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41927375)

I'm used to hearing growling after a long list of states.

Re:LOL (3, Insightful)

Fred Ferrigno (122319) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928555)

The electors are picked by the state parties. They're die-hard partisans who've drunk more of the campaign kool-aid than anyone. It's not like people who have been working to elect Obama for years are suddenly going to change their minds and vote for Romney or vice versa.

In the rare instances when electors have switched their votes, it's usually been for someone else in the same party and wouldn't affect the outcome of the election. For instance, there's been speculation that some of the Romney electors might cast votes for Ron Paul, but obviously that wouldn't change Obama's numbers either way.

Re:LOL (2)

DaHat (247651) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926661)

Takes one to know one... his concession is not binding in any way (just ask Al Gore)... it's simply a respectful thing to do.

In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

Will any of the above happen? Probably not... but you show your ignorance of the system.

Re:LOL (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926927)

In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

Check Cartman's house.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928223)

Can somebody please get Morgan Freeman to explain this for me?

Re:LOL (4, Interesting)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926971)

In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

That would be the largest legal battle the country has ever seen. Given that Romney's campaign shut down so quickly that staffers found their credit cards had been canceled when they tried to pay for cabs on the way home from campaign headquarters [forbes.com] , I kind of doubt he has the machinery in place for that kind of fight.

Re:LOL (2)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927441)

In the unlikely event that a large batch of Obama votes turn up in Virginia, Ohio & Florida as fraudulent and the electoral college swings to him... the presidency is his, concession or not.

That would be the largest legal battle the country has ever seen. Given that Romney's campaign shut down so quickly that staffers found their credit cards had been canceled when they tried to pay for cabs on the way home from campaign headquarters [forbes.com] , I kind of doubt he has the machinery in place for that kind of fight.

Perhaps he's saving that money for the legal fees. ;-)

Re:LOL (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927581)

Perhaps he's saving that money for the legal fees. ;-)

Hah! Yeah, that must be it.

Re:LOL (2)

PraiseBob (1923958) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927005)

You should check your math-
Ohio is worth 18, Virginia 13, and Florida 29. That totals to 60. Obama is (estimated) to have 332 electoral votes, and Romney has 206.
Swapping out 60 votes still leaves them at 272 to 266.

Re:LOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926341)

Well, most of the campaign staff is now unemployed, so I'm not sure they care that much. Romney's lucky that's the only thing that went up after the loss...

Re:LOL (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927075)

Well, most of the campaign staff is now unemployed, so I'm not sure they care that much. Romney's lucky that's the only thing that went up after the loss...

http://crooksandliars.com/files/vfs/2012/11/biotch.jpg [crooksandliars.com]

Re:LOL (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926383)

They should hold on to the site, you never know what the final count will be once Florida finishes.

Yeah. Florida might find another eighty electoral votes somewhere.

Re:LOL (5, Funny)

blade8086 (183911) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926541)

Oh Hi Boss!

Since I don't give a crap about your campaign, or politics, and this is the only REAL website I've ever done,
and this site is all I did during your campaign, I thought I'd publish it live for a few hours assuming some news outlets
would pick it up, so that I could then reference it for future work, and have important media clippings to reference
as well. Hope you don't mind - and if I do, oh well, what are you going to do, fire me?

Is probably what I'd say.

Re:LOL (0)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927777)

Yeah, you never know, it might end up 303 vs 225 instead of 332 vs 206. And everyone knows 225 > 303 in Republican math.

Re:LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928247)

You think you're being facetious. You think you're joking.

But you're wrong, they actually are this psychotic: I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide [325-213] and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker [332-206]. [dickmorris.com]

The modern GOP is what happens when you market bullshit, then fall for it so hard you can't even realize you've fallen for your own BS when it's pointed out to your face.

They're going to miss that guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926329)

Late night comics, I mean. The rest of us, not so much.

Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (5, Funny)

joh (27088) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926337)

Choose any two.

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926423)

I chose mine. Obama is smarter. Biden is simpler.

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (1)

Enry (630) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926497)

Government is smaller since 2008.

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927031)

Government is smaller since 2008.

except guvmint people (including military personnel) replaced by contractors.

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (2)

dalias (1978986) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926537)

And Romney is smaller...where it counts. :-)

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (4, Funny)

AwesomeMcgee (2437070) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926931)

In the votes! Oh!

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926695)

I chose mine. Obama is smarter. Biden is simpler.

And [insert political hot-button issue here] is smaller! Ho ho! What levity!

Re:Smaller, Simpler, Smarter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926769)

> Choose any two.

My exact thoughts.

We've been thru this siren chant for how many times? And how many times it was just smaller, not simpler and obviously not smarter. I wonder when will Republicans learn to organize their own house and don't come up with this Scrooge-like bull.

Einstein put it the best way: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Can we forget about him? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926405)

It's over, Johnny. It's over...

Re:Can we forget about him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926627)

But all the rednecks are still quivering fear now that the big bad nigg...er...black man is gonna steal der guns and sell out dis country to the mooslems!

Re:Can we forget about him? (4, Funny)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926991)

Shouldn't Ted Nugent be dead or in prison by now?

Re:Can we forget about him? (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927551)

Shouldn't Ted Nugent be dead or in prison by now?

I grew up in Michigan, trust me he is, take your pick!

Re:Can we forget about him? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928219)

No, Ted Nugent is the clown the 1% use to distract the 47%^H^H^H poor, rural republicans while they legitimately rape our country for profit. His job is safe.

mod dQ0wn (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926439)

And Juliet 40,000 surprise t0 the which don't use the suppli3s to private

Re:mod dQ0wn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928267)

I’ve always wondered why people post this sort of incoherent nonsense. It’s not even spam. Is it just GNAA trollers trying to collect more downmods than others? Or are they trying to game the system by posting junk for mods to spend their points on, thus missing real troll posts?

Not a mistake, this was expected. (5, Funny)

aurashift (2037038) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926459)

Romney is famous for flip-flopping. Even if someone told him he lost, he thinks he won. And he did. That's the beauty of not taking a stance and not taking NO for an answer. God bless you Romney. God bless us all. (Except the gays)

Re:Not a mistake, this was expected. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926765)

Romney is famous for flip-flopping. Even if someone told him he lost, he thinks he won. And he did. That's the beauty of not taking a stance and not taking NO for an answer. God bless you Romney. God bless us all. (Except the gays)

Are you by chance open for a position as speechwriter in 4 years? There are a lot of openings expected to need filling in the RNC.

Re:Not a mistake, this was expected. (2)

high_rolla (1068540) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926819)

Or it was all part of his plan. Maybe, just maybe, if he can convince enough people that he did in fact get elected then it might just maybe come true. And if that doesn't work he can just disappear by putting his hands over his eyes and saying 'Ha! now you can't see me.'

Glad I didn't vote for him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926635)

If I were an American I'd be shouting "The government can't make jobs!"

Well, any government that isn't communist and/or a dictatorship, that is.

"Fortunately" (5, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926747)

"Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing? It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something. Is there something particularly great about the site design that can benefit us in some way? Perhaps it contains some great scripts that we are now fortunate to have access to?

Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

Re:"Fortunately" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926807)

"Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?

Because it's funny, and we'd like to see it? Not everything related to politics needs to be serious.

Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

Everything that is funny is at somebody's expense. That's not being an asshole. Not having a sense of humor and getting offended by it is being an asshole.

Re:"Fortunately" (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926853)

Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please.

But isn't that what politics is all about?

Re:"Fortunately" (4, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926859)

It's fortunate because it's humorous. It's like that time that Biden asked the guy in the wheelchair to stand up and greet the crowd. Momentarily funny, ultimately meaningless.

It's not like anyone's feelings are getting hurt here. The IT guy who posted it goofed, but no one knows or cares who he is. The posting doesn't reflect on Romney at all, and even if it did, so what? His political career is over regardless, and all he's got left is his piles of money, good health, and loving family. Do you really think he cares if people poke fun at one of staffer's slip-ups?

Re:"Fortunately" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41927013)

Why exactly is this a fortunate thing?

Well, as someone who used it as a platform to spout drivel about how it's not fortunate, it was fortunate for you that he did.

You probably don't feel that way anymore, though.

Re:"Fortunately" (3, Interesting)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927077)

Well, it is, for one thing, providing a very interesting glimpse into the mindset of the people who ran Romney's campaign. I also recall them talking about their transition team in early July. Add to that the famous unprepared Romney speech, and you get quite a diagnosis.

I personally have a hard time believing they were so detached from reality all the way through the campaign that they'd focus on inessential tasks like selecting a transition team early and preparing this mockup rather than focussing on the platform and their campaign.

It is really telling how close to lunacy the Republican party leadership is.

Which is sad, really, as weak competition in politics only further lowers the quality of politicians. Adverse selection in action, so to speak.

Re:"Fortunately" (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927605)

I would have guessed the "Romentum" stories were just for the rubes and that the actual GOP leaders and Romney's people knew better that the odds were against them.

But the reactions to their loss put all that in doubt... seems the Party really was eating their own dogfood.

Re:"Fortunately" (2)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927717)

Yeah, it was math vs. gut feeling this time too, and math won again.

Re:"Fortunately" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928719)

The transition teams are good places to put well-connected idiots, where they can feel like they're going to do something important but are kept out of the way until they can't do any real harm. (Alternaltively, you get them nominated for one of the other side's safe seats and hope everyone else ignores them.)

Re:"Fortunately" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41927279)

It was likely intentional i.e. "see all you stupid people this is what could've been! A compassionate, caring plutocracy in total power! You foolish peasants! Oh btw, I'm great at website design, as you can see, & security too! Wheeeee! Hire me!

Re:"Fortunately" (0)

siddesu (698447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927411)

Very unlikely. Given that even the serious Republican-leaning press (and right-leaning punditry worldwide) was mocking Romney midway through the campaign quite savagely, it is hard to see it this way. It reeks more of desperation and total disorganization than intent.

Re:"Fortunately" (1)

Grayhand (2610049) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927571)

"Fortunately" a blogger captured this? Why exactly is this a fortunate thing? It's not like the site shows Romney doing something wrong, or trying to cover up something. Is there something particularly great about the site design that can benefit us in some way? Perhaps it contains some great scripts that we are now fortunate to have access to?

Someone made a mistake, and you say it is a "fortunate" that they can now be made fun of because of it. Politics aside, let's simply not act like assholes please. Also, be thankful that your mistakes don't turn into Slashdot stories.

I'd call it a simple mistake except the guy didn't even bother with speech if he lost. All together it comes off arrogant as hell for such a close race!

Re:"Fortunately" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41928797)

A concession speech doesn't really have that much originality: Thanks everyone for your help, congratulations to everyone who was elected, better luck next time, etc. Any competent politician should be able to do it off-the-cuff, and this way he has an excuse for anyone he offended by not thanking prominently enough.

Re:"Fortunately" (1)

nobodyman (90587) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927889)

I'm of two minds. On one hand I think it's "ok" to laugh about this because it is such a trivial thing. I'm guessing the person(s) responsible for doesn't mind terribly much — I mean it's not like s/he has to be worried about being fired.

But on the the other hand, I think reveling in schadenfreude and antagonizing 49% of voters is a good way for Dems to get screwed in the midterms (again)

Re:"Fortunately" (2, Interesting)

fm6 (162816) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928045)

"Fortunately" because it's interesting to see what they planned. And because it says a lot about their mindset that the only contingency they had planned for was victory.

I've always been fascinated by a document that turned up in Dwight Eisenhower's papers. It was a letter to his superiors taking sole responsibility for the failure of the D-Day invasion! Of course, he never sent it, because the damn thing succeeded, and he got credit for it, which is as it should be. But it says a lot about him that he was ready to face the very real possibility of total failure, at a huge cost.

Contrast this with the current Republican crowd that always cherry-pick their facts to support what they want to believe. (And I mean you, Carl Rove.) Maybe, just maybe, the stupidity of this is finally going to become apparent, and we can go back to having political arguments that are based on honest differences of opinion instead of Destroy The Enemy at All Costs crap.

Are we sure it's an accident? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41926867)

No publicity is bad publicity. Maybe it's a "here's what you would have gotten" kind of thing, so that when the depression that's been masked by 4 years of Federal Reserve QE once again bursts to the surface, they can point to it. Nevermind that the depression is the result of decades of cumulative policy failure from both sides of the aisle. The party on the sidelines will make hay out of it.

Dewey defeats Truman! (1)

derfy (172944) | about a year and a half ago | (#41926983)

Woo!

bigger, Bloated, Backbreaking!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41927229)

Elections have consequences.

Rove did it (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927275)

After Romney carried Ohio.

Leave Romney Alone (1)

codepunk (167897) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927415)

Romney and Bain Capital do not have time to worry about a simple presidential loss. Obama won they have to swing into full outsourcing sales mode which will not be very, very easy. You see Romney and Bain did not loose, they won and won big.

Not sure I see the problem. (1)

nobodyman (90587) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927795)

I mean, heck, the Romney campaign is transitioning, right? The only problem is in the details, and Romney doesn't like to get into that sort of stuff until later.

subject (1)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year and a half ago | (#41927917)

Schadenfreudelicious.

Screen caps? (1)

LateLurker (2753873) | about a year and a half ago | (#41928333)

where are the screen caps? I want to see this.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>