Best
69 Comments
Post
  • #12
    !
    No mention of Robert J Harsh, dances-with-weebles, or martydotcom? What about PoliltixMary? This list sucks! And I disagree with it. Jimmie Dimon and Guy Fieri actually are far more interesting that Romney. They just made Romney #1 because he lost an election. That's cheap journalism and an easy cop out.
  • #25
    !
    In my eternal search for external validation I see I didn't make your least influential list. Thanks!
  • #38
    !
    @DARSB I'd take just plain 'ole acknowledgment! You know what it is...that least influential contest was rigged!
  • #47
    !
    I agree with you on the cheap journalism, but why didn't I make your list? Whaahhh!(Quick, someone toss me some cheese to go with my whine! ;-)
  • R Load more replies

  • #5
    !
    Because GQ probably ranks as the least influential source of anything for me, they're opinion of the least influential people hits negative numbers on my influence chart.
  • #8
    !
    @Cool_voter - My comment was aimed at GQ. And who's Romney anyway? I must have missed him. When was he in the news?
  • #22
    !
    I think Mitt Romney has been very influential. For decades I have felt that money could buy anything. Romney had all the super pacs blowing money like it was water, he was rich himself, he had the structure behind him, he had the etch a sketch platform, the man could dodge bullets like nobody I ever saw and short of walking on water, there has never been anyone who could walk something back faster and switch positions with a straight face within a single hour like Mitt.

    He was very influential with me. Proved I was wrong. Proved you can't always buy an election.
  • #11
    !
    You know we as Americans seem to have a need to make "something" out of our President's wives. We call them the first lady but in reality they are just women along for the ride. That makes them pretty much inconsequential. Unless of course they are not. Like Nancy Reagan and her astrologer and taking the China (dishes) with her. Most First Ladies are severely incapable dealing with shark infested D.C.. Laura Bush and Rosalyn Carter were both wall flowers who really didn't need that. They always have some "cause' which nobody pays any attention to. Lady Bird Johnson wanted us to clean up the highways of trash. I can't tell you of a soul who ever went highway cleaning. I have no idea what Pat Nixon ever did and Barbara Bush got famous more for being snippy tongued than anything else. Jackie Kennedy wore dumb looking hats and said almost nothing while her husband boffed every woman in sight.

    No the only First Lady of my lifetime that I would consider influential has been Hilary Clinton. That woman went to work every day whether anyone wanted her involved or not. Throughout the Monica scandal and resulting uproar I found myself often thinking "Was he intentionally lying to the nation or was he just terrified of Hilary finding out?" My money goes on the latter. LOL>
  • #64
    !
    Oh, you're wrong about Lady Bird Johnson (and many of the other first ladies, too.) I can remember as a school kid, we went on weekend projects to clean up roadways as part of the America The Beautiful program. Before she started that program, it was considered perfectly OK to pitch your litter out the car window as though time or perhaps magic fairies would make it disappear. Her program made people think about it and change their ways.
  • #7
    !
    Reported by Yahoo News... the same people who fired their lead political buffoon because he demonstrated his massive bias against Romney and the journalistic giant GQ. Who exactly is GQ? Just a shortened version of GABS Quarterly or referring to the Genuinely Queer models and writers? Remember "GQ can poke fun..." so they should understand how it goes both ways. Or as a GENTLEMAN would put it.... "takes ass to get ass."
  • #4
    !
    Before one can be influential, they need to be at least a little consistent. The only consistent thing about Mitt was his inconsistency.
  • #68
    !
    Well, he failed to influence enough voters, had a very hard time influencing his own political party, clearly did not influence hispanics, lost influence among Cuban voters that till this election voted overwhelmingly Repub, and from my reading of right wing web sites has not influence the tea party either. When he said sfter the election the voters picked obama cause of free gifts he influenced only the stupidist of his followers, asrepubs at the nevada gathering of gop govenors stated they disagreed. So yea, I think he wins the least influencial title all around...
  • #65
    !
    oh come on! he had a greater influnce, on who got elected than obama did. so i would not, call him the least influencial.
  • #55
    !
    I didn't vote for the guy (or the other one either) but my take is: He ran a race, did as well as he could, and took the consequences. He should be treated with the class that anyone should be entitled to. I was taught to be as humble in victory as well as defeat in sports. That lesson would be well extended in life and in politics. Kicking someone when they are 'down' doesn't play well with me. Don't seem like the American way. Just move along and let the Mitt be. And yeah, I'd say the same thing if the shoe was on the other candidate, so don't start with me.
  • #52
    !
    G.Q is good for the pictures and style articles.
    But for good political writing I'll stick with Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair.
  • #43
    !
    My vote would have been for Obama to be the top one. He has done nothing basically about influencing the Congress to pass a budget, like putting up spending cuts on the table for tax hikes.
  • #42
    !
    Who makes this shtuff up?!?!?! Didn't he get a couple votes. I could think of a blonde and an Alaskan that should have beat him.
  • R Load more comments...
Post