You might think now the campaign is in full swing, and the professionals are swinging into action: that I could shut my little blog down now.
Unfortunately, the first night of speakers at the Democratic National Convention proved that Mitt's competition still really doesn't understand whom they are dealing with.
Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick delivered one of the most fiery speeches of the night, but he said of Romney "He's a fine fellow and a great salesman." Keynote speaker Mayor Julian Castro of San Antonio said "I think Mitt Romney is a decent guy, he just has no idea how good he's had it."
They don't get it. Mitt Romney is not a "fine fellow" or a "decent guy." Was he a fine fellow when he held down a fellow student at his high school and cut his hair, because that student was perceived as gay? Was he a "decent guy" when he got in two car wrecks in France presumably after his girlfriend sent him a letter saying she was seeing someone else? One person died in one of those wrecks, and although we are told none of it was Mitt's Fault, the fact that there were two accidents makes one wonder. Was Mitt Romney "fine and decent" when he defamed his predecessors at the Salt Lake Olympic Committee and had little pins manufactured with his own likeness, because he cared more about selling Mitt Romney than the Games? Was he "fine and decent" at Bain Capital, when as a matter of course he took 30% of the new money he had his target companies raise as fees for himself and his investors? Was he "fine and decent" at Bain & Co., when he used a poison pill to blackmail banks and the government into forgiving a loan to one of the nation's wealthiest consulting firms? Was he "fine and decent" when he set that firm on the path to masterminding the Outsourcing of American jobs to China even though he knew China to be engaged in slave labor? Was he a "fine and decent" Governor of Massachusetts when the legislature overrode his veto 260 times in one legislative session? Was he "fine and decent" when as Mormon bishop he tried to bully a woman into an abortion at risk of her life and when he refused to speak to an old friend who had opposed him politically? Was he fine and decent when he supported child discipline camps that have been accused of abuse, even enrolling several of their advocates in high campaign positions? Was he :"fine and decent" when he let accountants and lawyers talk him into bizarre tax avoidance schemes? Has he been "fine and decent" on the campaign trail, with a volume of lies which is unprecedented in American political history, trying to buy control of the media and engage in an unprecedented campaign of vote suppression?
At the Republican convention, the Romney forces demanded rule changes to prevent non front-runner candidates from using the complex delegate selection process to win an advantage. The goal was to make the original front runner, the one with the most money, the presumptive nominee. In short, to give the wealthy control of the Republican party. Many conservative old-timers, as well as the Ron Paul gang, vowed to oppose the plan and fight it on the convention floor. This youtube of the teleprompter shows what happened. John Bohner was supposed to conduct a voice vote, but the teleprompter written before his speech told him what the result of that vote would be. There was no option for his finding the other way.
The vote was fixed at the Republican convention, and they will fix the November election if they can. Given that the main vote counting companies all have their roots in Republican politics, that is a cause for worry; and still the Democrats' leading figures are fantasizing about Mitt being a good guy. It's true there were a couple speakers at the Republican convention who called Obama "a good guy...but" like Paul Ryan. They were lonely voices in a wilderness of abuse, much of it over the top and dishonest like Clint Eastwood. Remember that a number of republicans have called for armed revolution should Obama win and that some of their speakers including Romney have predicted extremely dire consequences like a nuclear armed Iran if Obama wins.
We all know where this Democratic permissive language is coming from. The Democrats want to condescend to an out of touch rich guy, to damn him with faint praise because it makes him seen ineffectual somehow and they think it shows them as somehow "nicer" to independents. Ann Richards and Molly Ivins taught them to do that. It didn't work on George W. Bush and it's not working on Romney either.
Bush was a dangerous liar whose wealth was based on white collar crime and who had never paid for bad behavior. He did his best in eight years to destroy America's freedoms and America's economy. Romney is even worse, and still they keep channeling Ann Richards in their speeches. Republicans fail because they won't give up their wrong ideology or put limits on their looting. Democrats fail because they refuse to tell the American people how bad the Republicans really are. For forty years the Republicans have treated Democrats as their biggest enemy in the world, worse than Soviet Russia and Islamic terrorism combined. Indeed, the Bush junta were great friends of the Communist Chinese and the financiers of Islamic terror, Moammar Qaddafi, and the Sauds. The "glue" that holds our society together, the limits to patriotic opposition, were wiped away the day George H.W. Bush hired Karl Rove after Karl Rove had been disgraced by rigging a College Republicans election. It was at that moment the Republicans went from being a political party, to being a gang whose only desire was winning and looting.
Yes, Nixon was bad, but at least he had some idea of the public welfare. The Bushes and Romneys have none.
Ann Richards famously said of George W. Bush, "Poor George. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Democrats love that line but Richards lost to Bush, badly, mainly because they had the dirt on Bush but treated him like a well-meaning buffoon when he was a bold criminal who apparently managed to have his own driving record illegally destroyed, managed to go AWOL from the national guard without consequence, likely masterminded an accounting fraud which overstated his company's profit by 300%, and ignored laws he didn't want to enforce, like the Presidential Records Acts, starting January 21, 2001. He stole the presidential election twice. As president he showed his contempt for the country by setting up a male escort as a "reporter" to lob softball questions at him during press conferences. The result of all this Democratic permissiveness was wars undertaken under false pretenses and managed so as to enrich corrupt contractors, the PATRIOT Act to end civil liberties in America, failed education social engineering, spiraling debt, eroded environment, corruption enshrined in high places, and financial criminality boosted. Such is the echo chamber of politics that Democrats continue to use that failed strategy on Romney and if they keep at it, they will continue to fail.
To understand why, imagine you are a prosecutor in a court of law. You think some of the jury are undecided. Do you say, "The defendant was a nice guy who was misled into his crimes" in order to cater to their tender feelings? You do not. You'd be an idiot to say something like that. You say what your real view of the defendant is, the one that got you to prosecute him in the first place. That's the way you win over the jury.
It's time to say enough. Mitt Romney is not a decent man, and he's not somebody who should be running for public office of any kind, let alone president.