RSS

Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

The Mitt Just Got Real

06 Feb

"Poor people SUCK! Thanks, for asking."

George Soros is not only a wealthy man, but one of its most demonized. Fox News has been on a mission to depict him as the sugar daddy for every liberal and left-wing cause under the sun. Soros is worth an estimated $14 billion and has contributed millions to progressive groups like Move On.org, forever ensuring the wrath of Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda outlet.

Soros gave an interview where he speculated on the presidential election and concluded, “If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them.”

Which goes to show you can have more money than God and not be able to buy a clue.

There is a difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One guy sometimes has trouble with the retail politics of connecting with human beings one-on-one. The other doesn’t even try.

However, thanks to a few moments with Soledad O’Brien, Romney did take the opportunity to show how human he is. In fact, it might have been the most human moment in Mitt Romney’s life.

In an interview with CNN Wednesday morning that should have been a Florida victory lap, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney made a fumble that could give rivals an attack ad sound bite.

Asked about his economic plan, Romney said repeatedly that he was not concerned with very poor Americans, but was focused instead on helping the middle class.

Romney explained that he was confident that food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid and other assistance would keep the poor afloat — he pledged to fix holes in that safety net “if it needs repair.” He repeated past statements that his main focus is the middle class because those people, in his opinion, have been hardest hit by the recession (President Obama also has focused many of his efforts on the middle class).

But Romney’s awkward phrasing could give fuel to critics who argue that he does not empathize with the poorest Americans.

“I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there,” Romney told CNN. “If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich, they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90 percent, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling.”

Host Soledad O’Brien pointed out that the very poor are probably struggling too.

“The challenge right now — we will hear from the Democrat party the plight of the poor,” Romney responded, after repeating that he would fix any holes in the safety net. “And there’s no question it’s not good being poor and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor . . . My focus is on middle income Americans … we have a very ample safety net and we can talk about whether it needs to be strengthened or whether there are holes in it. but we have food stamps, we have Medicaid, we have housing vouchers, we have programs to help the poor.”

Just two weeks ago, Romney appeared to have shifted on the social safety net, saying in South Carolina, “I’m concerned about the poor in this country.” But on Wednesday, he took a different tack.

In any political campaign, he said, “you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich–that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor–that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.”

And there you have it. Mitt being as real as real gets. Saying what he means and meaning what he says.

Could Mittens really be so dumb as to think saying something that cold and callous was actually going to work out well for him? When Mitt speaks off the cuff he says dumb things like “Corporations are people too” and making $10,000 bets with Rick Perry, but this came right after crushing Newt Gingrich in the Florida primary. Was Mittens sleep deprived when he went on Soledad O’ Brien’s morning show?

I doubt it. It’s likely, Mitt knows the Republican race is over and he felt relaxed to say exactly what was on his mind without fear. His original message was probably Mitt Tells the Poor to Eat Shit and Go Fuck Themselves. What the hell? It’s not as if the poor were going to vote for him.

It sounds exactly like Mitt Romney. Totally out of touch with the real world and cocky enough to tell a large point of the electorate to expect exactly jack if he’s elected.

There are an estimated 46 million Americans living in poverty.

For the Republican frontrunner to tell 46 million American he’s “not concerned” about them reveals beyond any doubt how disconnected Romney is from the harsh realities many Americans face every day simply to eat and find shelter.

Rich guys ROCK!

Apparently, if you’re poor you reside outside of the heart of America. Then again, who said Mittens had a heart?

Nice of him to hand the “Democrat” party a club to beat him up with from now until Election Day. He’s the gift that keeps giving to opposition researchers.

Back to George Soros, he was asked if he was one of “Lenin’s useful idiots.’

“Pardon?” a confused Soros responded.

The interviewer explained she wanted to know if due to Soros believing hedge fund billionaires might consider him a backstabbing betrayer when he says “I personally believe that when it comes to policy, you shouldn’t be pursuing self-interest, but the public interest. And I think that the income differentials are too wide and ought to be narrowed.”

Which is by raising taxes on the one percent as Obama wants to and Romney wants no part of.

Would that make Soros one of Lenin’s useful idiots?

“Well, I suppose so. I am a traitor to my class,” Soros said.

As it turns out there is doubt whether Lenin ever used the phrase “useful idiots.”

Whether he did or not, Romney is a useful idiot and he’s no traitor to his class. Despite his supposed “concern” for the middle class, there is little in his proposals to help them. In fact, it’s the wealthy who stand to benefit most if Mittens makes it to the White House.

Something that will not happen if even half of those 46 million Americans Romney cares less about turns out to vote against him in November.

Remember, this is the same Mitt that strapped the family dog to the top of a car for a 12-hour trip from Boston to Ontario, Canada.  If he’s that cruel to his own dog, why would he be kind to poor Americans?

Is it worth the risk to find out?

"No, I said CORPORATIONS are people, not poor losers like you."

Related articles
 
1 Comment

Posted by on February 6, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , ,

Building Up the Tallest Midget

30 Jan

It's not March, but we're down to The Final Four

By any standard, the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination are a sad bunch of retreads, weaklings, reactionaries and fatally flawed losers. Mitt Romney is the quintessential rich White man who can barely keep up a brave face when he’s mingling with the unwashed masses, but he’s willing to put on a brave face and hold his nose if that’s what it takes to win.

Newt Gingrich is a narcissist and an egotist whose intellectual racism and repulsive personality makes him hard even for conservatives to take. Then there’s Ron Paul. He’s a special case. He’s not a great thinker like Gingrich or a flip-flopping fake like Romney. No other candidate can claim the kind of enthusiastic support as Paul does. No other candidate seems as genuine and unpretentious as Paul.

There’s also no other candidate as extreme and out of the mainstream as Paul. I’ve made my case against Baby Doc Paul that he is an unworthy of the presidency. The Washington Post ripped away Paul’s ass-covering lies that he wasn’t aware of the racist material in his newsletters.

I don’t expect the Paul die-hards and dead enders to be the least bit disabused of their fantasy that he is a kindly old man who speaks truth to power and advocates a handful of positions that attracts uninformed liberals. Theirs is a separate reality where neither light nor truth penetrates.

The true believers are with Paul all the way until the last bomb falls on the bunker. It’s the rail-sitters and undecided who will have to finally make a call and choose between acknowledging Ron Paul either is a racist personally or just a cynical politician and manipulative businessman willing to exploit racial and homophobic fears to make a dirty buck.

What comes next in tomorrow’s primary in Florida?

Romney crushes Gingrich by double digits. The anti-Romney forces will continue to bitch and moan, but their failure to coalesce behind a single candidate makes them an annoyance, not an insurmountable obstacle.  Their choices will come down to holding their nose and pulling the lever for Mitt or watch Obama raising his right hand again next January.  Screw the Tea Party!  They will get nothing but insincere lip service from Romney and they deserve nothing.

Paul soldiers out looking for friendlier (and cheaper) caucus states and other places where the Ron Paul Race War Revolution might play well.  He’ll hang around like a bad odor while he decides whether to launch another rogue run as an independent.  Sonny boy Rand might tell dear old dad to sit his ass down in a rocking chair somewhere as not to cock block his inevitable bid in 2016.

Santorum is toast.  Put the pennies on the eyes.  His moment of glory came and went in Iowa, proving yet again that the best thing that unrepresentative state contributes to presidential contests is exposing weak candidates not ready for the real deal and croaking wannabees who had no business running in the first place.  One less repulsive right-winger gone.  No great loss.

Which doesn’t mean Rick Santorum isn’t deserving of scorn for his reprehensible remarks about rape victims and abortion. Isn’t it always the way that it’s the most pious and supposedly reverentially religious bastards who have so much love in their hearts for the unborn and nothing but contempt for the living?

On the way home the other day I passed a church where there were 150 little white crosses in the ground and a sign that read, “In the last hour there were 150 children destroyed by abortion.”

That’s pretty heavy-handed, but it takes a prick like Santorum to make it even worse for women facing the difficult choice whether to have an abortion. Piers Morgan interviewed Santorum and asked him if he could deny his daughter an abortion if she were impregnated through an act of rape.

Well, you can make the argument that if she doesn’t have this baby, if she kills her child, that, too, could ruin her life. And this is not an easy choice. I understand that. As horrible as the way that son or daughter and son was created, it still is her child. And whether she has that child or doesn’t, it will always be her child. And she will always know that. And so to embrace her and to love her and to support her and get her through this very difficult time, I’ve always, you know, I believe and I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you.

I despise Santorum. He is one of those far Right extremists whom I am incapable of saying a good word about. Beyond his casual racism, there’s his overt hatred of women. I don’t know how you could characterize Santorum’s stupidly sanctimonious remarks as anything but the most repellent kind of misogyny.

Leave it up to a man who will never face an unwanted pregnancy brought out by an act of violence to make an awful situation even worse. Why is the same people who decry government regulation and intrusions into the private life of Americans espouse views where the womb becomes a state-owned asset?

I don’t have an answer, so I turn to the Church of Carlin for one.

Sanctimonious Santorum will be a historical footnote in a matter of weeks or days. Gingrich will soon follow, but after thwarting his threat to Romney in Iowa and again in Florida, the GOP will try to shoot Newt’s zombie campaign of White Rage in the head and put him down once and for all. The powers that be want an electable empty suit to take on President Obama, not a self-centered “big thinker” who wants to colonize the moon.

The Republican establishment wants Mittens vs. Obama and they’re determined to get it.

Related articles
 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 30, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

There Will Be (More) Blood

21 Jan

You'd look like her too if you had to see Newt Gingrich naked all the time.

The Mitt Romney Inevitability Express went off the rails in South Carolina as the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party found himself losing a race he thought he had won to a fat, unlikable, career politician with an even stupider nickname than his, Newton Leroy Gingrich, also known and despised as Newt.

What made Mitt’s trip down South really suck was he thought after Iowa the torrent of negative ads he and the unaffiliated Super PACS had launched against the former Speaker of the House had finished him off..  However, the lust of GOP conservatives for someone to articulate their hatred of President Obama burns strong as does their desire for an alternative to the rich Mormon who stashes his cash in the Cayman Island.  Losing to Newt 40 percent to 27 percent should send a clear message to the Massachusetts millionaire: the rank and file just aren’t into you–still.

I missed the Republican debate the other night where Gingrich went right-the-freak-off on CNN’s John King for having the elephant balls to ask him about ex-wife, Marianne Gingrich’s accusation that the Newster wanted an open marriage so he could continue banging his booty call and eventual third wife, Callista.

Life is too short to waste it on bad movies, bad music, and bad politicians bumping their gums talkin’ loud and sayin’ nothin’.  I know there was a debate the other night.  I had far more important things to do than watch that crap.  Like peeling a potato or clipping my toenails or picking lint out of my belly button.

South Carolina doesn’t totally change the Republican race as much as it makes it possible  it might go on longer than the experts had though.  Romney believed he had things locked up once Chris Christie decided to stay home eating donuts.  Christie was the only candidate who could have pulled together the diverse wings of the GOP in a united front against President Obama.   His decision to sit out 2012 prompted most of the big money and establishment decided to fall in line behind Romney leaving the hard core Right with nowhere to go and no one to slow Mitt’s roll to the nomination.

But a funny thing happened on the road to Inevitability.   Here we are three contests in and the front-runner’s only victory came in a state he was supposed to win.   The scorecard so far reads Rick Santorum winning Iowa, Mittens taking New Hampshire and the Newster rising from the ashes to kick Mitt’s ass in South Carolina.  Now it’s on to Florida where the results could boost the winner of that state to a the inside track to the nomination or scramble the race so badly, Mitt and Newt might slug it out all the way through January into the spring.

South Carolina did us the great favor of ending the campaigns of Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman.  So why is Ron Paul hanging on for?  Paul’s support is loud but not broad.  He came in third in Iowa, settled for second in New Hampshire, was dead on arrival and if he steps foot in Florida the only reason will be to work on his tan and get a fresh-squeezed glass of orange juice.   Florida is heavily made up of elderly Jewish voters and though Paul is 76-years old, his anti-Israel, anti-Social Security rhetoric won’t play there.

In a normal year, a sleazy douchebag like Newt Gingrich would be bumping around in the lower strata with the rest of the also-rans, but this is not a normal year.  If his record of unethical behavior weren’t enough to sink him like a stone, Newt’s loose zipper would be enough to disqualify him from serious consideration as a serious contender.  Newt is such a man-whore that if he were elected president he would be our commander-in-briefs (tip of the hat to Sandra Booker for that one) whose roving eye means at any moment he might up and leave America for a younger and fresher country (and thank you Rena Marrocco for that).

Regardless of South Carolina, Newt is still big pimpin’ with small bills.  He doesn’t have Romney’s resources to wage a long, protracted and expensive war of attrition.   It may take Romney longer than he planned and cost him more money before he finally crushes the Newt under his heel, but the bet here is when the final drop of blood is spilled in the GOP Civil War, Mittens will be the victor.

But Mitt will have to try to get to the right of Newt to knock him out and the further he drifts away from his moderate reputation, the harder it will be for him to get back and disavow all the positions he’s taken that will be showing up in Obama 2012 attack ads.

Football is my favorite sport, but watching Republicans claw, fang and devour each other is my favorite bloodsport. It’s been simply splendid entertainment.

You don't like me. You REALLY don't like me.

Related articles
 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 21, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Rick Perry IS The Biggest Loser

19 Jan

America doesn't want a total dumbass as president.

There’s one less bozo in the Republican Clown Car.

Happy Trails, Governor Goodhair. The Rick Perry Party is over.

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — Texas Gov. Rick Perry ended his campaign for president Thursday morning and endorsed Newt Gingrich.

“I believe Newt is a conservative visionary who can transform this country,” Perry said.

Making what he called a “strategic retreat,” the Texan obliquely referred to Gingrich’s checkered personal life just hours before an interview with the former House speaker’s second wife was to speak out in a TV interview.

“Newt is not perfect, but who among us is?” said Perry.

Citing his Christian faith, Perry said of Gingrich: “I believe in the power of redemption.

“I will leave the trail, return home to Texas, and wind down my 2012 campaign. And I will do so with pride.”

Pride?  You mean the closeted and self-hating kind of gay pride, Rick?  Not sayin’, just sayin’.

Perry entered the presidential race with every advantage, money, experience, great hair and no idea how to run for president, so he ran one of the worst campaigns I’ve ever seen. Inept in live debate, reactionary in his positions and painfully inarticulate in public, Perry is a heavyweight in Texas, but outside of it, he repeatedly proved he simply was not ready for prime time.   After stumbling and bumbling his way through debate after debate, Perry’s poll numbers fell off a cliff as he was elbowed aside by other equally reactionary Anti-Romney candidates.

Perry tried to be the most reactionary Republican in a campaign full of them. His only success came when he entered the race he effectively burst Michelle Bachmann’s bubble, but his fellow Texan, Ron Paul had already staked out the White supremacist/extremist constituency, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum were far more skilled at race-baiting leaving Perry with no room on the Right to move to.

Game, set, match. Perry did nothing in Iowa, disappeared in New Hampshire and two days before voters in South Carolina could humiliate him further, Perry quit.   Perry had become so irrelevant to Mitt Romney’s eventuality that when he announced he was hanging up his spurs, it wasn’t even the top story of the day.   The news media was focusing on one of Newt Gingrich’s ex-wives going on ABC to out the former Speaker of the House as a freak who wanted an “open marriage.’

The speculation is Perry will try again in 2016. The same thing is said about every unsuccessful candidate whether their name is Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, or Huntsman. These are not temporary setbacks that can be resolved by licking their wounds and retreating from the national stage. These are failures and losers.

Out of all the contenders, none of them fell off as fast and landed as hard as little Ricky Perry. The far-right, religious freak and potential closet case that couldn’t.

Related articles
 
1 Comment

Posted by on January 19, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The Long Shadow of America’s Greatest King

16 Jan

When your birth date falls on the same day as the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday observance you accept the fact that you’re going to have to settle for second billing and like it.   Fortunately, Dr. King is one of my few heroes and sharing my day with him honors and humbles me.

As I have said in the past, King was far more than an action figure with a string in the back that says “I Have A Dream”  when pulled.   That’s too simple and King was far too complicated to be reduced down to a catchphrase.

King was not a popular man at the time of his assassination.   Breaking with President Johnson over the Vietnam War had done more than cost King the best friend the movement ever had in the White House.  He was vilified by the Left and the Right.  Black revolutionaries sneered at his message of non-violence.

But most of all,  King was tired.  Tired of marching. Tired of re-fighting battles that should have already been won.   Tired of being away from his wife and children so much.   Tired of the death threats on his life.

Michael Eric Dyson, scholar and author of I May Not Get There With You,  the account of King’s later years says we should note King cut less than an iconic figure at the time of his death.

[King] was at the low point of his popularity at the time of his death. When Martin Luther King Jr. met his end on that balcony in Memphis, he was indeed at the low point of his popularity for the first time in nearly a decade. He didn’t make the most admired list for the Gallup poll. Very few universities wanted to hear from him. No American publishers wanted to publish a book by him. And he was being questioned, even in African-American culture, for the relevancy of his non-violent approach. Dr. King was facing tremendous odds. His back was against the wall. His resources were drying up within his own organization. He was fighting with a prominent northern board member about whether or not he should speak out against the war in Vietnam and paid the price for it. So, he was facing opposition from within his organization and more broadly from the civil rights movement, and even more broadly from the mainstream American press as well as from public policymakers and politicians in America. He was quite on the outside and outskirts of popularity and acceptance in America. This notion that Dr. King was widely praised is one of nostalgia and of amnesia, and it should be combated.

Some might think it audacious and brazen to call King the greatest American ever.   Shouldn’t that sort of accolade be reserved for presidents and statesmen, not a Baptist preacher?

It is neither audacious or brazen to tell the truth and I have no problem defending Dr. King as a greater transformative figure than George Washington, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin D. Roosevelt.   A listing of the Greatest Americans places King at third, ahead of Washington and just behind Lincoln.  Ronald Reagan was named Number One, so take that as you will (I take it as patently ridiculous).

It is expected that presidents will be–for better or for worse–transformative figures.   For a private citizen to do so the unmeasurable help of millions of dollars backing them up and effecting their change by way of non-violent resistance against the evil of state-sanctioned racial discrimination is almost impossible to fathom.   Bill Gates with all his billions could not have done what King did with shoe leather and faith.

By no means was King the only one marching.   It took the commitment of thousands of like-minded souls willing to be spat upon, beaten, bitten by dogs, and in some cases murdered for their courage to be the change they sought to bring to the world.

Without them and the leadership and inspiration of a Dr. King, the part of the Dream that was realized with the election of Barack Obama does not happen.   Without Dr King there is no President Obama.

There is an urge by some to see Obama as the realization of King’s dream.  I  understand this urge, but it should be resisted. Obama is not so much the manifestation of the Dream as he is the greatest beneficiary of The Dream.   King’s mark on the world is established beyond dispute.   Obama is still attempting to make good on his and like any politician it’s a mixed bag.  “Change We Can Believe In” is hard to bring about when there is a rigid status quo resistant to changing a thing just as Dr King’s dream seemed like a waking nightmare to his opponents.

On MLK Day the man who would be Obama’s replacement praises the preacher man.  Writing on his Facebook page, Mitt Romney says,  “Martin Luther King Jr. Day is an occasion to reflect on the legacy of an outstanding American. Dr. King not only believed in the fundamental truth that we are all made in God’s image, he fought for that truth in a campaign that brought our country closer to fulfilling its historic promise of liberty and justice for all. The United States has made enormous strides toward racial equality in the decades since Dr. King’s death, but we must never rest until all people are judged, in his immortal words, not ‘by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

On the Today Show,  Romney, who got wealthy by shutting down companies and putting workers on the street said all this talk about income inequality was simply “envy.”

“You know, I think it’s about envy. I think it’s about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99 percent versus one percent — and those people who have been most successful will be in the one percent — you have opened up a whole new wave of approach in this country which is entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God.”

A clueless plutocrat like Mitt Romney could never understand a humble man like King who was motivated by a fierce sense of justice, not personal wealth.  If King were doing in 2012 what he was doing in 1968  Romney would not be mumbling empty platitudes he neither wrote nor believes.   He’d be condemning King as a dangerous radical who wanted to take from the 1 percent and give to the 99 percent.

I Mittens ever read King’s A Proper Sense of Priorities speech he would have ample reason to be scared right down to his silk skivvies.

Someone said to me not long ago, it was a member of the press, ‘Dr. King, since you face so many criticisms and since you are going to hurt the budget of your organization, don’t you feel that you should kind of change and fall in line with the Administration’s policy. Aren’t you hurting the civil rights movement and people who once respected you may lose respect for you because you’re involved in this controversial issue in taking the stand against the war.’ And I had to look with a deep understanding of why he raised the question and with no bitterness in my heart and say to that man, “I’m sorry sir, but you don’t know me. I’m not a consensus leader.  I don’t determine what is right and wrong by looking at the budget of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.  Nor do I determine what is right and wrong by taking a Gallup poll of the majority opinion.” Ultimately a genuine leader is not a searcher of consensus but a molder of consensus.  On some positions cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.

Mitt wouldn’t know a thing about that.  That’s why he isn’t a leader and should never be president.

Dr. King had so much more to say than just “I Have A Dream.” Take two minutes out of your day and get hip to a King many Americans do not know.   The radical Dr. King.  The threat to both racists and reactionaries Dr. King.  The Dr, King that was too dangerous to live.

I could not love Martin more if he were my father.  He inspires me and guides me as much as a father ever has a son or daughter.   This is his day and the legacy of America’s greatest King is far richer and more complex and enduring than a fading memory of a distant figure whose legacy has been watered down to four words.

Related articles
 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 16, 2012 in It's My Life

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Last Word on the First Step to the White House

07 Jan

Mitt: "Hey Rick, you ever Google your last name?" Rick: "I really hate you Mitt."

I’d really like to get past all the opening acts and proceed directly to the Obama versus Mitt  brawl for it all, but we can’t fast forward it past the preliminaries to the main event quite yet, so instead of being first I’ll get the last word in on the Iowa caucus.  Mitt Romney  “won” by a whopping eight votes while  Rick Santorum could claim the title as  the newest Not Mitt Romney  with his surge into second place.

Romney came into Iowa late while Santorum practically moved in having traveled to every country in the state.   Romney’s victory almost qualifies as a tie and a tie with Santorum counts as a loss for Romney.

On to New Hampshire. Winning there won’t prove anything as that’s Romney’s firewall state and he’s expected to clobber all comers.   If Santorum is smart (and if he was he wouldn’t be Rick Santorum), he should forget New Hampshire, let Mitt have his cheap win there and go straight to South Carolina where his culture warrior extremism may play well.

I quit. Nobody cares.

The life of an Anti-Romney is a short one and it’s obviously Slick Rick II’s time to shine. Does he have staying power? Bachmann, Perry, Cain, Gingrich and Paul didn’t. Maybe he’ll be the one that does.   Or at least until Romney’s  super PACS get medieval on his ass.

Mitt will never going to be the guy the true believers love. They don’t believe he really believes what he’s saying and that as soon as he secures the nomination, he’s going to run so far and fast to the middle he will trample underfoot any Tea Partier that gets in his way.

Knowing this is his dilemma, Mitt won’t even waste time trying to win the love of the committed conservatives. He’ll just open up his wallet and crush Rick Santorum like a rotten orange.

Pop quiz, hotshot. What fourth-place finisher in Iowa said this about a month ago?

I’m going to be the nominee. It’s very hard not to look at the recent polls and think that the odds are very high I’m going to be the nominee.

"Vote for me and I'll get rid of the gays and Negroes."

Yep. That was Newt Gingrich swaggering and going all gangsta. Right up until Mittens and money opened up a big ol’ can of whup-ass negative ads and killed Newt’s momentum deader than Osama bin Laden.

Newt didn’t have the cash, the organization or the ability to punch back until it was all over. Santorum has the same trouble and will suffer the same fate.

Mitt isn’t going to pick anyone he doesn’t want and what does he get by picking Bachmann or Perry? Nothing. The Republicans already know they’re going to win Texas and probably Minnesota, so why pick a vice-president who (a) isn’t ready for the job and (b) brings nothing of use to the ticket?

Mitt knows he needs a battleground state. Somewhere like Florida (Marco Rubio, Rick Scott) or Virginia (Bob McDonnell) that takes it out of play for Obama and forces him to look elsewhere on the map for those much-needed electoral votes.

Second, I used to think as well, “Well, Mitt needs to appeal to the Tea Party.” And maybe he does, but not to the extent that appealing to them costs him the independent and disaffected Democratic vote. Mitt is the last Republican standing who can tack to the center in the general election. Santorum can’t and won’t. Paul could, but won’t. There’s nobody else left.

There’s not going to be a brokered convention. There isn’t going to be an 11th hour “real” conservative riding to the rescue. There’s just going to be Mitt and Barack and that’s all the choice you’re going to have besides flushing away your vote on a third-party loser.

Romney’s closing sales pitch is simple. Get all those Tea Partiers and evangelicals and other right-wingers in a room and make it so simple for them even they can’t get it confused.

You don’t like me and I don’t like you. That’s the way it is. but here’s something you may not realize. You don’t HAVE to like me. All you have to do is like the idea of a second term for Obama less.

Bottom line: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is old and she’s been sick. She might want to stay on the Supreme Court forever, but I’m gonna bet she doesn’t make it.

Eventually, she’s going to retire. Scalia might retire. Thomas too. Now who do you want choosing their replacement? Me or Obama?

He will appoint judges that will uphold Roe v. Wade. I won’t.

Now decide.

The remaining Republican candidates plot how to take down Obama

Related articles
 
2 Comments

Posted by on January 7, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , , ,

The 2012 Race Gets Real

03 Jan

Eight losers in search of the blessing from a winner's widow.

Tonight’s the night we get past the preliminaries and the 2012 presidential election really gets started.   All across the state of Iowa, the predominantly White, conservative evangelical populace will dutifully drag themselves into auditoriums, classrooms, living rooms and anywhere else they can congregate to caucus and make the case for their favorite Republican.

If the polls mean anything, Mitt Romney will come out on top by edging out Ron Paul and the recently returned to political relevance, Rick Santorum.  Newt Gingrich had his fling with Iowa, but he’s admitted he won win and with Romney likely to take New Hampshire as well, Gingrich along with Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann will take their show on the road to South Carolina and Florida in search of somewhere to plant their flag and slow Romney’s roll to the nomination.

No, I didn’t forget Jon Huntsman, but everyone else has.  If he doesn’t show well in New Hampshire it’s hard to envision where he could win.  Ditto for Perry, Bachmann, Gingrich and Santorum.  They don’t have Mitt’s organization, endorsements or deep pockets.

That leaves Paul who says he has no intentions of running as an independent, but hasn’t said he won’t either.   If he does, Paul would draw some votes from President Obama, but would be more of a help to him than Romney.   If Fox News and the conservative establishment keep saying mean things about him and Mitt doesn’t incorporate any of Paul’s messages into his campaign, I predict Paul will run a guerilla campaign against Obama and Romney, but he’s more likely to hurt the GOP nominee.

One last thing about Paul.  When I wrote two consecutive posts about his racist newsletters and refusal to sufficiently distance himself from them,  I knew the Paulinistas would be pissed.  I had hoped they might offer some sort of intelligent defense of their boy.   That hasn’t happened.

if thats all you can come up with to complain about ron paul then you should find new material to waste your time on, if you think he’s such a bad guy what do you think about these real fuck holes that manipulate your views and form your opinions for you, if you knew anything you would know ron paul isn’t a racist and you are more the racist for portraying that kind of material on your blog, be a little more realistic when reporting on real people.

It wasn’t his newsletter, it was a newsletter that he leant his name to. He was not involved in the production of the newsletter. Since the incident he has stopped lending his name out in such a manner. Ron Paul is a prolific writer who tends to reiterate his beliefs over and over again in his writings. He had never written anything like the newsletter before the newsletter, nor has he since. Therefore, there is no reason to not believe him. He didn’t write it. Period. Let it go.

Ron Paul supported desegregation of government institutions but was against imposing the same laws on private businesses because doing so would increase government power. And because both parts are in the civil rights act, he would have voted against it. This does not make him a racist. It makes him an idealist who sticks to his priciples and applies them accross the board no matter how unpopular. And no he does not want to repeal the Civil Rights Act, as that would be a collosal wast of time. The first thing he would do is end the Bush/Obama wars.

Why not list some of the recent civil rights legislation that Paul voted no on. I can garuntee that he did so because they increased government power.

Yes Paul voted against giving a congressional metal of honor to Rosa Parks. He votes against ALL congressional metals of honor including one for Mother Teresa. Why? Because he does not believe that congress has the authority spend the People’s money without the consent of the People. He did however offer to put up $100 of his own money for Rosa Park’s metal, and asked the other members of congress to do so also. They all declined.

Oh, and I’m Black and I support Ron Paul.

You have my sympathies, but being Black and a Ron Paul supporter is your problem.  You have the right to be wrong.

Ron Paul is not a racist. He’s just opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, published, but never read the racist essays run in his own newsletters, and is “clueless” to Black and Latino culture and particularly of Mexican-Americans and “intolerant” of anyone speaking Spanish in his presence.

Adios, puta madre.

Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic. He just yelled at a group of Republican Jews until they walked out and thinks saving the Jews from Hitler’s Final Solution in WWII was a bad idea.

Ron Paul is not homophobic. He just doesn’t want to shake a gay man’s hand or use the same toilet a gay man uses and prefers to hold it until he can find a nice, clean public toilet in a restaurant where he can take a dump.

Ron Paul was a doctor. He obviously is fearful of getting gay cooties.

It’s a terrible thing to believe in someone who isn’t everything they present themselves are, but I don’t care if I haven’t convinced the Paulinistas their messiah is a bigot.  I’m convinced.  You’re on your own.

Maybe you’re not mistaken.  Maybe Ron Paul is your hope for a president you can believe in.

But if you’re not Black, possibly not gay, probably not in need of an abortion or of the Jewish faith, by all means, cast your fate to a bigoted wind.

Whatever happens in Iowa tonight will not produce the key moment in the 2012 race that totally altered it.  When Obama beat Hillary Clinton in 2008, it was a huge upset, but Clinton blunted Obama’s bounce by winning New Hampshire a week later.  Romney is the prohibitive front-runner and until someone emerges as the Anti-Romney, he’s still the most likely Republican to take on Obama.

Before we get to the main event we still have to suffer through the qualifying preliminaries.

Related articles
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on January 3, 2012 in News & Views

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Neutering Newt Gingrich

01 Dec

“…a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like.”  ~ Newt Gingrich as described by Paul Krugman

At various times another candidate pops out the Republican clown car to enjoy their moment as the media darling and the new Flavor of the Month.   Previously, I’ve chronicled the misadventures of Michele “Batshit” Bachmann, Jon “Hopeless” Huntsman,  Horny Herman Cain, cranky old Ron Paul, and Slick Rick Perry.

Time to neuter Newt Gingrich while he suns himself on a rock.

There isn’t a nastier, more egotistical, unpleasant, and negative candidate than the former Speaker of the House.   He combines Perry’s sleaze,  Romney’s hypocrisy, Bachmann’s fondness for crazy ideas and stupid statements and a lack of moral scruples that would make Cain blush, if he weren’t Black and incapable of doing so.

Newt comes up with these weird, but stupid ideas like firing the unionized janitors and hiring schoolkids to clean their own schools.  Gingrich says child labor laws are “stupid” and thinks taking jobs away from adults and giving them to kids instead is a swell idea.

If Mitt believes in nothing, what Newt believes in is flat-out wrong.

Whenever another one of these fatally flawed candidates bubble up to the top of the murk that is the Republican presidential pool, the speculation begins that while they may be less electable than Romney, it positions a Gingrich or Cain as a possible running mate for Mittens.

I dunno. I’m trying to see the upside for Mitt to tap Newt (Mitt & Newt 2012?) and I can’t find it. The conservative base doesn’t like Gingrich that much more than Romney and he does nothing to stir up evangelicals, Tea Party patriots, and Latinos.

Also, Gingrich is already 68 years old. If Romney were to win and serve two terms, Newt would be 76 by the time his opportunity to replace Romney came up.  He doesn’t seem to be a guy who’s going to age gracefully into his seventies.

We are a month out from the Iowa caucuses where we will get the first meaningful stress test of the GOP field and not everyone will emerge in good condition to carry on to New Hampshire and South Carolina.   Mitt is all-in for Iowa after not being able to make up his mind (surprise!), Newt is surging in the Hawkeye state and don’t sleep on Ron Paul’s ability to make things interesting.  The rest of the also-rans, including Horny Herman are pretty much mashed potatoes, gravy and a roll.

 “In Iowa, it’s long been a two-person race between Romney and someone else,” said J. Ann Selzer, president of Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll for Bloomberg. “It is now a four-person race between Romney and three someone elses.”

Poll participant Nate Warwick, 34, a machine operator at a packaging factory who lives in Story City, Iowa, is leaning toward Romney, primarily because he thinks he has the best chance of defeating President Barack Obama in 2012. Still, he’s not excited about his choices.

“There’s nobody out there who is really grabbing my attention, wholly,” he said. “I don’t think the Republican Party has a candidate that can beat Obama right now.”

Everything people disliked about Newt Gingrich before they still don’t like and no matter how “old news ” it is, they still aren’t going to get into a guy who talks smack about “values” while living a life that is the antithesis of it.

“There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”

Feeble explanations and short-term memories aside, Gingrich is still the same unlikable loser he was three or four months ago.  Sure, he has ideas as opposed to dopes like Cain, but a lot of them are bad ideas like this one.

Newt Gingrich is facing criticism for yet another idea he has floated during his presidential campaign — that the country bring back tests for voting, which were banned by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as a tool used to suppress African-American voters. Now, Think Progress reports, none other than Tea Party favorite Rep. Allen West (R-FL), an African-American, is disagreeing — and referring to the sort of discrimination that his own parents faced.

Think Progress asked West about Gingrich’s position that there should be a required knowledge of history in order to vote.

“I mean, that’s going back to some, you know, times that my parents had to contend with,” said West, who then segued into discussing his concerns with America’s education system failing young people, and his admiration of a high school student in his district who has sought to be an intern for him.

He returned to the subject in conclusion: “I think that we need to do a better job educating our young men and women in school, but we don’t need to have a litmus test, no.”

Fun fact about Gingrich and West:  The Newster once said he would consider West as a potential  vice-president running mate.  Throw another folder in the Newt Gingrich Opposition Research File. How many cabinets does that make anyway?

The splendid humor in this is how it reaffirms yet again how unappetizing Mitt Romney is to the mainstream Republican palate.  The more the GOP establishment tries to force feed him to the base, they more they back away like balky three-year olds shaking their heads saying, “Nuh-uh.  Don’t want none.”

A guy named Newt versus a guy named Mitt to decide who earns the right to take on a guy named Barack.   This is good stuff.

It gets better as Ron Paul rips the Newt a new hole in a web ad.

I for one, say bring it on. Clash of the Right-Wing Whackjobs. This is better than ultimate fighting and whatever is on NBC.

Newt is a smart guy who has some interesting things to say about the presidency.  That said, he’s also a hopelessly greedy, unethical and morally challenged career politician who should never be elected president.

An egocentric egomaniac.  A hack politician who hasn’t held a job outside of politics and influence peddling in 40 years..  A philandering hypocritical man-whore who dogged Bill Clinton for his sexual escapades while excusing his own..  A really mean S.O.B. with delusions of grandeur.   That’s your new frontrunner, Republicans.   Hope you like him..

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 1, 2011 in Rantology

 

Tags: , , , ,

← Older posts
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 593 other followers