GQ calls Mitt Romney one of the 'least influential people' of 2012

AngelClark

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
203
Do you agree?

GQ has long been known for controversy, and the magazine’s December 2012 issue is no different. In a list of the least influential people of 2012, the magazine has named November’s Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, as one of the 25 least significant men and women of 2012. Although Romney is listed first, the editors claim that the list of 25 is ranked in no particular order, “because all zeros are created equal”.

Continue Reading: http://www.examiner.com/article/gq-...st-influential-people-of-2012?cid=db_articles
 
I agree inasmuch as Romney failed to have any real impact on the conversation.

He was so generic that even after he picked Paul Ryan, who may have been able to inject a bit of real discussion about ideas, the entire campaign was virtually unchanged.

He contrasts rather significantly with John McCain who, for all his faults (and there are of course many) honestly believed in a lot of what he said and actually brought his ideas to the table. Of course, many of them involved a big government that goes to war at the drop of a hat... nevertheless.
 
It's really true. Romney tried so hard to please every crowd that he sort of just faded into the background.
 
He must have some influence going for him, oh wait...

Mitt's having a PRIVATE lunch at the White House with the other half of FICTION... America's Political Kabuki Theater

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama to meet for private White House lunch Thursday

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...rack-Obama-to-meet-for-White-House-lunch.html


Same ole rigged elections by the puppets seeking elitist status, power, and fame... AT OUR EXPENSE
 
Can anyone name a single issue that Romney brought to the forefront of the national political conversation?

Me neither.
 
One list that I would have chance on..... assholes..... cant get even there.... so that means I got influence? Over who?

Stupid list.
 
How does one compile a list of 'least influential' people?

Wouldn't awareness of said individual mean they have had, at least, some influence in society, however dubious?
 
Back
Top