This week all the broadcast media have run "feel good" articles on Mormons, and now on the eve of the GOP convention, they have turned their "feel goodery" on Mitt Romney. Apparently, this free publicity is all part of the campaign's strategy to handle the "negatives" of Romney seeming aloof and distant. Thus, in my weekend edition of the Chicago Tribune, the front page title article is by a propagandist (pretend journalist) from the Tribune-owned L.A. Times named Maeve Reston who tried to sell the idea of a privately generous and caring Romney. The evidence of this generosity? When Staples hired an executive from a competitor, and that company wanted him to repay the loan they gave him for a house, Romney wrote him a check - as a loan, demanding he sell the house to repay Romney. It apparently never occurred to Reston that this would have been something the exec worked out in his compensation package in moving to Staples, that Romney probably did not use his personal money to pay it but Bain's, that either way Staples picked up the ultimate tab, that Romney no doubt charged interest on the money loaned, and that the guy had to sell the house to repay Romney so he had to move from his home anyway. Romney didn't know the man, and this was a business transaction with an already privileged individual whose previous employer had bought him a $250,000 house. She also didn't discuss the ethics of poaching talent from the competition, and using Romney as an intermediary to prevent Staples itself from appearing to do it. In short, the reporter mistook a business deal for a charitable contribution.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Impotence Confirmed: Akin ignores Romney's call to step down
If you have been following the national news, you know that the Tea Party's Missouri Senate campaign is under fire for saying that women who are raped can prevent pregnancy by willing it. The implication is that any woman who is raped and pregnant was not really raped, since otherwise her body would have rejected the baby. They got into this pickle because they foresaw that if an exception to an abortion ban is allowed for rape and incest, all a woman would have to do to get an abortion is claim to be raped. Since these gentlemen are misogynists, they think women would all do this, claiming to be raped, and abortions would continue, essentially on demand. The other argument, that the babies of rape have an independent right and are not tainted by the father or the involuntary treatment of the mother, is the argument the more "genteel" Republicans would like to rely on, but such hairsplitting only points out that to the woman who is the victim of rape and pregnant, she has no rights.
After all the Republican bigwigs and commentators asked Akin to step down, and he appeared to be wavering (or asking for a handout to step down), Romney weighed in and asked him to drop out.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-akin-drop-senate-bid-201918205.html
Akin rejected this request and told Romney to butt out.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-skips-tuesday-withdrawal-deadline-stays-in-senate-race-20120821,0,3005061.story
Democrats eagerly pointed to the fact that Akin's position has been strongly held by most of the leading republicans, including v.p. candidate Paul Ryan, who co-sponsored a bill about this with Akin.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/
The real loser here is Romney, because it is clear that the Republican party is not answering to him, despite letting him run the convention. That means, should he be elected, he cannot count on the cooperation of any Republicans in Congress, so whatever "moderate" positions he uses to win the general election do not reflect what a Republican Congress would do, and he would be just as impotent as Obama in dealing with his own party in Congress. It also reinforces the notion that he put Ryan on the ticket to remove him from Congress, not to compliment him.
What's more, Romney only called for Akin to step down when it appeared the problem could be solved by a payoff. When that didn't happen, it showed the limitations of the Richy Rich approach to governance.
Romney may be able to buy off the media and a segment of the voters. He has no chance in buying off Congress, who have their own sources of payola.
Any imputation that Romney knows how to conduct a trade war with China; that Romney knows how to keep bankers and CEO's from cheating; and that Romney is just the man to reform America's corrupt business culture....is dead on arrival.
Romney is a fool who is only as popular as he can find desperate people willing to defer to him for money.
And that's even if he holds views more moderate than those expressed by Akin. Chances are, he does not.
The whole episode points out, rather starkly, why women would be stupid to vote Republican. Here it is necessary to point out that no church has been as dedicated to opposing feminism and women's rights as the one Romney has served as Bishop of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which have maintained their nineteenth century regard for women as a separate species to be removed from power and influence.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm
While Catholics are just as firmly against women priests, it was the LDS church that blocked the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and harassed and excommunicated a pro-ERA Mormon, Sonia Johnson. In Mormondom, excommunication doesn't mean you are merely kicked out of services, you are actively shunned.
Sonia Johnson
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson
Sonia Johnson's speech on women and Mormonism:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon415.htm
Having successfully stopped ERA by hiding their involvement, using front groups and proxies, the Mormons have replicated this in the fight against gays, providing a large majority of all money and volunteers against gay rights in the last twenty years. In a way, I suppose the Democrats should thank them because from 1940 to 1976 Republicans supported equal rights for women and were no worse than Democrats on gays. By making the Republican war on women more stark and effective, the Mormon obsessiveness has actually helped the Democrats more than the Republicans, who could never dream of being a majority party as they once did.
Those who think Romney will not act to promote the views of his religion are not paying attention to the fact that Mormons have become more a political than a religious organization over the last forty years and that their right-wing views on these issues accord well with the violent rhetoric of Akin. Romney wanted him to step down for political reasons, but there is no doubt they are on the same side in practice. The only fakery is that Romney is "leading" any of it.
After all the Republican bigwigs and commentators asked Akin to step down, and he appeared to be wavering (or asking for a handout to step down), Romney weighed in and asked him to drop out.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-calls-akin-drop-senate-bid-201918205.html
Akin rejected this request and told Romney to butt out.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-todd-akin-skips-tuesday-withdrawal-deadline-stays-in-senate-race-20120821,0,3005061.story
Democrats eagerly pointed to the fact that Akin's position has been strongly held by most of the leading republicans, including v.p. candidate Paul Ryan, who co-sponsored a bill about this with Akin.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/712251/how-todd-akin-and-paul-ryan-partnered-to-redefine-rape/
The real loser here is Romney, because it is clear that the Republican party is not answering to him, despite letting him run the convention. That means, should he be elected, he cannot count on the cooperation of any Republicans in Congress, so whatever "moderate" positions he uses to win the general election do not reflect what a Republican Congress would do, and he would be just as impotent as Obama in dealing with his own party in Congress. It also reinforces the notion that he put Ryan on the ticket to remove him from Congress, not to compliment him.
What's more, Romney only called for Akin to step down when it appeared the problem could be solved by a payoff. When that didn't happen, it showed the limitations of the Richy Rich approach to governance.
Romney may be able to buy off the media and a segment of the voters. He has no chance in buying off Congress, who have their own sources of payola.
Any imputation that Romney knows how to conduct a trade war with China; that Romney knows how to keep bankers and CEO's from cheating; and that Romney is just the man to reform America's corrupt business culture....is dead on arrival.
Romney is a fool who is only as popular as he can find desperate people willing to defer to him for money.
And that's even if he holds views more moderate than those expressed by Akin. Chances are, he does not.
The whole episode points out, rather starkly, why women would be stupid to vote Republican. Here it is necessary to point out that no church has been as dedicated to opposing feminism and women's rights as the one Romney has served as Bishop of, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which have maintained their nineteenth century regard for women as a separate species to be removed from power and influence.
http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm
While Catholics are just as firmly against women priests, it was the LDS church that blocked the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s and harassed and excommunicated a pro-ERA Mormon, Sonia Johnson. In Mormondom, excommunication doesn't mean you are merely kicked out of services, you are actively shunned.
Sonia Johnson
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Johnson
Sonia Johnson's speech on women and Mormonism:
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon415.htm
Having successfully stopped ERA by hiding their involvement, using front groups and proxies, the Mormons have replicated this in the fight against gays, providing a large majority of all money and volunteers against gay rights in the last twenty years. In a way, I suppose the Democrats should thank them because from 1940 to 1976 Republicans supported equal rights for women and were no worse than Democrats on gays. By making the Republican war on women more stark and effective, the Mormon obsessiveness has actually helped the Democrats more than the Republicans, who could never dream of being a majority party as they once did.
Those who think Romney will not act to promote the views of his religion are not paying attention to the fact that Mormons have become more a political than a religious organization over the last forty years and that their right-wing views on these issues accord well with the violent rhetoric of Akin. Romney wanted him to step down for political reasons, but there is no doubt they are on the same side in practice. The only fakery is that Romney is "leading" any of it.
Monday, August 20, 2012
The Brown-Noser Bears start their tour
When Paul Ryan was selected for vice-president, Romney's elves immediately began to scrub Ryan's Wikipedia page. The very first thing to go was his high school election as "Biggest Brown-Noser," which was scrubbed from his entry.
Those high school kids knew their man. In just one week as presumed running mate, Paul Ryan has proved he is every bit the manic liar and suck up that Romney is, doing his best to prove the claim made on this blog last week, that he was chosen to get him out of a leadership role in Congress, not into the vice-presidency.
Rachel Maddow immediately slammed Ryan over his false reputation as fiscal conservative. She found that during the Bush years he voted without concern for deficits, including a very big vote for Medicare Part D prescription benefit, an expansion of entitlements that should have gone against Ryan's self-proclaimed devotion to Ayn Rand, whose cult of selfishness and hate of altruism has always been a big hit on Wall Street. Ryan disavowed his commitment to Ayn Rand even though it was on tape. When it was discovered he said that the President's stimulus was bad and wouldn't work, but requested (and got) money for his district to create much needed jobs under that stimulus, Ryan lied about that too. Indeed, there were even stories that he failed to disclose to the Romney team as part of his financial vetting, that he and his wife just received a large inheritance from her parents.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/08/the-paul-ryan-wikipedia-edits-begin-131718.html
Those high school kids knew their man. In just one week as presumed running mate, Paul Ryan has proved he is every bit the manic liar and suck up that Romney is, doing his best to prove the claim made on this blog last week, that he was chosen to get him out of a leadership role in Congress, not into the vice-presidency.
Rachel Maddow immediately slammed Ryan over his false reputation as fiscal conservative. She found that during the Bush years he voted without concern for deficits, including a very big vote for Medicare Part D prescription benefit, an expansion of entitlements that should have gone against Ryan's self-proclaimed devotion to Ayn Rand, whose cult of selfishness and hate of altruism has always been a big hit on Wall Street. Ryan disavowed his commitment to Ayn Rand even though it was on tape. When it was discovered he said that the President's stimulus was bad and wouldn't work, but requested (and got) money for his district to create much needed jobs under that stimulus, Ryan lied about that too. Indeed, there were even stories that he failed to disclose to the Romney team as part of his financial vetting, that he and his wife just received a large inheritance from her parents.
The only thing that seemed to hurt the team, politically, was Ryan's proposal to privatize Social Security and Medicare. Romney has tiptoed around the Medicare issue while loudly blaming the president for getting rid of Medicare Advantage subsidies in his health care plan. What the president did, was eliminate the special subsidies paid to private companies to create Medicare Advantage plans. In 1997, Congress passed Medicare Advantage, giving seniors the option of using privately run plans instead of traditional government Medicare. To get insurers to offer plans, Congress granted them an extra subsidy in 2003 and slowly over time, a quarter of seniors have migrated to these plans. The result is that the government has been paying more per capita to Medicare Advantage insurers than it does for original Medicare. Without the subsidy, the private insurers will likely leave the field to the government, and the people who have Medicare Advantage plans will be back to original Medicare. That will hardly be a loss to them, however, since MA providers were not providing better coverage than original Medicare. That is where Romney gets his large numbers that Obama is cutting from Medicare. He's not cutting it from Medicare but from Medicare Advantage's extra subsidy to private providers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Advantage
Meanwhile, Romney has gone so far as to disavow his protege's budget, apparently without any objection from Ryan.
Since Romney is clearly using Ryan, then, what does Ryan get out of this arrangement? Well, for one thing, he only has one butt to brown nose, whereas in Congress there are Boehner and Cantor at the very least.
Second, if Romney wins, Ryan establishes himself as the heir apparent. Well, maybe. That has not always worked out for vice-presidents (see Gore). Even when they win the mantle, winning elections is hard when your job is inessential. It hardly seems likely Romney will include him in the inner circle of advisers.
If Romney loses, however, there is more room for maneuver. There is no "leader" in the Republican party right now, as the free for all of the primary indicated. The money men don't like that, and Ryan, who was until last week relatively undamaged by scrutiny, may have seemed to fit the bill. Ryan won't be able to sit around as vice-president and make that work. He would have to have additional roles like party leader. But it could be done.
In the meantime, the Brown-Noser Bears Romney and Ryan will be out deceiving the public, trying to persuade people they stand for anything other than the looting of the nation by the rich. And they even managed to find hairy shirtless pix of Ryan, because in today's world, the Bear look sells.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/13038/paul-ryan-shirtless-picture-emerges-he-is-not-that-ripped/194582
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Romney's Wimp Move: Paul Ryan for VP
Mitt Romney wants to avoid comparison with George W. Bush, but he might not be worried about comparison with George H.W. Bush. Newsweek made this comparison inevitable by questioning Romney's manhood, which was also an issue for George H.W. Bush.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/michael-tomasky-a-candidate-with-a-serious-wimp-problem.html
Newsweek is owned by the IAC, the internet company of Barry Diller, and so outside the small crony network of corporations who own most American media, although Diller cannot be described as a liberal.
Romney laughed it off, but it may have actually pleased him by letting him frame himself as media victim, as George H.W. Bush also did in his 1988 victory.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-responds-to-newsweek-wimp-cover-%E2%80%98wouldn%E2%80%99t-get-much-sleep%E2%80%99-if-i-worried-about-the-media/
However, Romney may have been more affected than he let on, because like Bush, he did the insecure middle age wimp thing: he secured a younger, better looking man as his running mate.
In the case of George H.W. Bush, the running mate was Dan Quayle, who was spelling-challenged and brought nothing to the ticket but a reputation for loyalty and dirty tricks, the perfect accompaniment to a masculinity challenged man.
In the case of Romney, the choice of Paul Ryan looks even more insecure than George H.W. Bush looked.
Paul Ryan offers some advantages. First of all, as a Congressman and Washington insider with a policy bent, he will be able to hold his own in debate with the gaffe-prone Joe Biden, unlike Sarah Palin, unless Ryan starts spouting the views of Ayn Rand, his personal heroine, which would shock the public. Although Rob Portman is also an insider, he is a poor debater and would look old and ill compared to Biden. Condoleezza Rice would have been a better choice if debate performance were the only criterion, but there is no telling how many people were offered the role and declined. Romney is counting on Ryan's insider status not hurting him, as Biden didn't hurt Obama. Given the unpopularity of Congress, that's a real concern.
However, there are other pluses Ryan brings to the ticket than his debate performance. Ryan is a Richy Rich, as one would expect from Romney, as his family owns one of the nation's leading excavation and grading contractors, but it is a real business, not a paper one like Romney's . Ryan is young, which is a demographic Romney badly needs. Another plus is that Ryan's anti-government views are in line with the Koch Brothers, other CEOs and Wall Street, which should keep the money rolling in (July's fundraising of $101 million was below June's $106 million). The biggest benefit of a Ryan candidacy, though, is his removal from Congress. If Romney wins and gets a Republican Congress, that Congress will be run by the Tea Party, and Ryan would likely set the agenda. Romney would look like second fiddle on Capitol Hill. The rest of the Republican talent pool, like McConnell, Portman and Boehner, are subnormal and disengaged, nor is the Tea Party capable of constructive leadership, so there is little chance they would interfere in any effective way with a Romney presidency. Ryan might interfere to the perpetual embarrassment of the outsider Romney. Romney essentially had to remove him in order to establish himself as the sole leader of the Republicans.
By giving Ryan the job of vice-president, kicking him upstairs in the parlance of olden times, Romney therefore takes away the Congressional Republicans' ability to organize an effective opposition to President Romney's agenda. Ryan wrote their budget, and they would likely to defer to him if the writes Romney's. That's how Eisenhower took the Republican right off the table, by promoting Nixon to vice-president, but in Romney's case it has a more desperate feel in the sense that Ryan would still be writing the budget, but Romney would get the credit for it.
The negatives of the Ryan choice are legion. First of all, Ryan is a Congressman, so brings no electoral votes with him. Ryan is not especially popular in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin's electoral votes are not a great prize, particularly with Romney facing an enthusiasm gap in the South. Ryan has had very little real campaign experience, and his Washington world is very removed from the mood of the electorate. Ryan has also repeatedly attempted to privatize Social Security and Medicare, which are popular programs the public doesn't want touched. The Republicans think this will be a non-issue for Obama because Obama's health care reform does away with Medicare Advantage, a $500 billion previous attempt to partially privatize Medicare, but that assumes that the public cannot be taught what that was all about in a sound byte or two, that the Medicare Advantage customers would switch to original Medicare rather than be stripped of insurance. Obama hasn't done it, but I find it difficult to believe he couldn't. It is typical of the Republicans at all levels that they think a one sentence rejoinder can solve any political problem they have. The Republicans also believe a black could never win traction with the older public, regardless of what he has given them, like enhanced prescription coverage, but the polls on this aren't entirely clear. Obviously, if the elderly abandon Romney, he would have no winning strategy, which is why he is careful to avoid embracing the Ryan schemes, and continues to pretend he will not touch Medicare and Social Security for some years, so that the elderly will not panic and go to Obama.
The Ryan choice suggests Romney is lying about this, and Social Security and Medicare would be attacked on Day One of a Romney administration, as practically all Republican politicos want. Ryan also voted for financial deregulation, which implicates him partially in the 2008 economic meltdown. Ryan has repeatedly blocked unemployment extentions and jobs focus in Congress. In short, Ryan is far enough right that he cannot help Romney with independents. He can help Romney with the base, but that is playing with fire. If they are empowered, they can perhaps back Romney into a corner. Then Newsweek will not have to modify its Wimp stories with a question mark. In short, Romney's VP choice looks less like an effort to win the election, than an effort to shore up his weak influence in the Republican party.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/29/michael-tomasky-a-candidate-with-a-serious-wimp-problem.html
Newsweek is owned by the IAC, the internet company of Barry Diller, and so outside the small crony network of corporations who own most American media, although Diller cannot be described as a liberal.
Romney laughed it off, but it may have actually pleased him by letting him frame himself as media victim, as George H.W. Bush also did in his 1988 victory.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-responds-to-newsweek-wimp-cover-%E2%80%98wouldn%E2%80%99t-get-much-sleep%E2%80%99-if-i-worried-about-the-media/
However, Romney may have been more affected than he let on, because like Bush, he did the insecure middle age wimp thing: he secured a younger, better looking man as his running mate.
In the case of George H.W. Bush, the running mate was Dan Quayle, who was spelling-challenged and brought nothing to the ticket but a reputation for loyalty and dirty tricks, the perfect accompaniment to a masculinity challenged man.
In the case of Romney, the choice of Paul Ryan looks even more insecure than George H.W. Bush looked.
Paul Ryan offers some advantages. First of all, as a Congressman and Washington insider with a policy bent, he will be able to hold his own in debate with the gaffe-prone Joe Biden, unlike Sarah Palin, unless Ryan starts spouting the views of Ayn Rand, his personal heroine, which would shock the public. Although Rob Portman is also an insider, he is a poor debater and would look old and ill compared to Biden. Condoleezza Rice would have been a better choice if debate performance were the only criterion, but there is no telling how many people were offered the role and declined. Romney is counting on Ryan's insider status not hurting him, as Biden didn't hurt Obama. Given the unpopularity of Congress, that's a real concern.
However, there are other pluses Ryan brings to the ticket than his debate performance. Ryan is a Richy Rich, as one would expect from Romney, as his family owns one of the nation's leading excavation and grading contractors, but it is a real business, not a paper one like Romney's . Ryan is young, which is a demographic Romney badly needs. Another plus is that Ryan's anti-government views are in line with the Koch Brothers, other CEOs and Wall Street, which should keep the money rolling in (July's fundraising of $101 million was below June's $106 million). The biggest benefit of a Ryan candidacy, though, is his removal from Congress. If Romney wins and gets a Republican Congress, that Congress will be run by the Tea Party, and Ryan would likely set the agenda. Romney would look like second fiddle on Capitol Hill. The rest of the Republican talent pool, like McConnell, Portman and Boehner, are subnormal and disengaged, nor is the Tea Party capable of constructive leadership, so there is little chance they would interfere in any effective way with a Romney presidency. Ryan might interfere to the perpetual embarrassment of the outsider Romney. Romney essentially had to remove him in order to establish himself as the sole leader of the Republicans.
By giving Ryan the job of vice-president, kicking him upstairs in the parlance of olden times, Romney therefore takes away the Congressional Republicans' ability to organize an effective opposition to President Romney's agenda. Ryan wrote their budget, and they would likely to defer to him if the writes Romney's. That's how Eisenhower took the Republican right off the table, by promoting Nixon to vice-president, but in Romney's case it has a more desperate feel in the sense that Ryan would still be writing the budget, but Romney would get the credit for it.
The negatives of the Ryan choice are legion. First of all, Ryan is a Congressman, so brings no electoral votes with him. Ryan is not especially popular in Wisconsin, and Wisconsin's electoral votes are not a great prize, particularly with Romney facing an enthusiasm gap in the South. Ryan has had very little real campaign experience, and his Washington world is very removed from the mood of the electorate. Ryan has also repeatedly attempted to privatize Social Security and Medicare, which are popular programs the public doesn't want touched. The Republicans think this will be a non-issue for Obama because Obama's health care reform does away with Medicare Advantage, a $500 billion previous attempt to partially privatize Medicare, but that assumes that the public cannot be taught what that was all about in a sound byte or two, that the Medicare Advantage customers would switch to original Medicare rather than be stripped of insurance. Obama hasn't done it, but I find it difficult to believe he couldn't. It is typical of the Republicans at all levels that they think a one sentence rejoinder can solve any political problem they have. The Republicans also believe a black could never win traction with the older public, regardless of what he has given them, like enhanced prescription coverage, but the polls on this aren't entirely clear. Obviously, if the elderly abandon Romney, he would have no winning strategy, which is why he is careful to avoid embracing the Ryan schemes, and continues to pretend he will not touch Medicare and Social Security for some years, so that the elderly will not panic and go to Obama.
The Ryan choice suggests Romney is lying about this, and Social Security and Medicare would be attacked on Day One of a Romney administration, as practically all Republican politicos want. Ryan also voted for financial deregulation, which implicates him partially in the 2008 economic meltdown. Ryan has repeatedly blocked unemployment extentions and jobs focus in Congress. In short, Ryan is far enough right that he cannot help Romney with independents. He can help Romney with the base, but that is playing with fire. If they are empowered, they can perhaps back Romney into a corner. Then Newsweek will not have to modify its Wimp stories with a question mark. In short, Romney's VP choice looks less like an effort to win the election, than an effort to shore up his weak influence in the Republican party.
Romney's Poppycock Moment
Mitt Romney's ability to shift positions is dramatic, but seldom more so than his attacks on Obama are from this 2004 speech when he says Bush should not be held responsible for the economic slowdown and job losses that occurred in his first term, and the public knows such blame assigning is "poppycock."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pQs0IzLTQu4#!
The reasons Romney gives for the 2004 slowdown: internet bubble, cyclical downturn, terrorist attack, are all chicken feed compared to the real estate bubble and derivatives meltdown of 2008-9. In what sense did the terrorist attack cause a recession? There were fewer airline flights and tourism, but the home improvement sector picked up. There were losses in people and buildings, but a war buildup. Wall Street recouped something like $33 billion in business interruption insurance claims, mainly from Swiss companies, effectively offshoring a large chunk of its losses.
Romney is simply lying about the economy making a strong comeback in 2004 - it never made a strong comeback before collapsing in 2008, and the jobs numbers he touts are worse than what Obama has been delivering. President Bush's tax cuts failed to create any jobs, and the fact Romney doesn't know this in 2012 means that Romney would be a disastrous president.
Obviously, Romney was just being a partisan hack in defending Bush, just as he is being a mindless partisan hack in attacking Obama. Our side is good, no matter what happens, and your side is bad, no matter what happens. That's his entire campaign message, and that is the entire Republican electoral strategy. "Vote to show you are Superior to your Fellow Americans." That's the whole Republican message, and it is astonishing that it works so well when so few profit from it. America used to be known for its pragmatism in economic issues, but the Republican party has destroyed that by its continual redefinition of itself as the Gang of Winners, nothing more, and nobody represents that absence of principle better than Mormon bishop Mitt Romney.
The country is presently in a state of civilian Cold War because one side, the Republicans, simply refuse to admit they have any common ground with the other, and they interpret everything that happens as the work of their domestic enemies. As long as this violent and irresponsible party continues to be one of America's two parties, the United States will decline. There are signs that the public is no longer buying the GOP story, despite their stranglehold on the media.
Yes, Virginia, the Romney campaign is in trouble. Polls are finally showing movement, and it is all against Romney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/three-polls-show-obama-widening-lead-over-romney/2012/08/10/be8f68f4-e2e3-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html
This in itself is a bit odd. One would have expected negatives from Obama's anti-Bain ad campaign, but little from concerns about Romney's tax returns. The media have done their best to heap scorn on Harry Reid for saying Romney paid no taxes, but Romney's hysterical attempt to respond, calling Reid a liar and acting the victim, has not taken hold, and that's a dark cloud for the campaign, since making Romney seem the victim of dirty attacks is no doubt scheduled to be their main theme in the fall.
They really believe that if they prove Romney paid any taxes, no matter how little, they can make the Democrats the villains. Meanwhile, the public see despite the verbiage screen that Romney has not released his tax returns, and that this is not based on principle but on political considerations. The idea that his business career should be off-limits to discussion is also a laughable bit of humor since his entire justification for running for president was that his business experience would help him create jobs. Romney's angry response to an Obama ad about a man who lost his health insurance due to Bain Capital and whose wife died from untreated cancer, did more damage by showing that to Romney, business is just a game and not something real where people get hurt, which he thinks is a separate issue entirely.
The poll declines could be a bit of theater so Romney could get a "bump" from his convention and selection of Ryan, if the polls are being faked. But if real, it is probably just the public getting better acquainted with Romney, his arrogance, and his sense of entitlement.
For the third month in a row, the Romneyites have "raised more funds" than Obama, but now we find out they have been likely been creating phoney accounts to boost their twitter followers, and the same could well be true in fundraising.
http://theweek.com/article/index/230915/is-romney-buying-twitter-followers
Romney has so much money he can immediately plug any holes in the campaign performance from his personal accounts. And with an average donation size of over $600 in March compared to Obama's $50, he will never likely suffer a true deficit.
http://race42012.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Average-Donation-Size.jpg
However, his campaign receipts announced by his campaign have a curious flat, bloated look. It is quite likely the numbers are false and inflated in order to create dismay in the president's camp. If they are willing to do it with Twitter, it would hardly be a surprise for them to do it on fundraising. Romney's main source of election strength will be PACs, and so will never be reported as part of the campaign.
http://www.drudge.com/news/159271/super-pac-money-pays-80-romney
So what will Romney use his money for, if PACs place all the ads? Well, maybe there isn't as much money as they say. And perhaps they plan to use it to buy reporters and buy votes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pQs0IzLTQu4#!
The reasons Romney gives for the 2004 slowdown: internet bubble, cyclical downturn, terrorist attack, are all chicken feed compared to the real estate bubble and derivatives meltdown of 2008-9. In what sense did the terrorist attack cause a recession? There were fewer airline flights and tourism, but the home improvement sector picked up. There were losses in people and buildings, but a war buildup. Wall Street recouped something like $33 billion in business interruption insurance claims, mainly from Swiss companies, effectively offshoring a large chunk of its losses.
Romney is simply lying about the economy making a strong comeback in 2004 - it never made a strong comeback before collapsing in 2008, and the jobs numbers he touts are worse than what Obama has been delivering. President Bush's tax cuts failed to create any jobs, and the fact Romney doesn't know this in 2012 means that Romney would be a disastrous president.
Obviously, Romney was just being a partisan hack in defending Bush, just as he is being a mindless partisan hack in attacking Obama. Our side is good, no matter what happens, and your side is bad, no matter what happens. That's his entire campaign message, and that is the entire Republican electoral strategy. "Vote to show you are Superior to your Fellow Americans." That's the whole Republican message, and it is astonishing that it works so well when so few profit from it. America used to be known for its pragmatism in economic issues, but the Republican party has destroyed that by its continual redefinition of itself as the Gang of Winners, nothing more, and nobody represents that absence of principle better than Mormon bishop Mitt Romney.
The country is presently in a state of civilian Cold War because one side, the Republicans, simply refuse to admit they have any common ground with the other, and they interpret everything that happens as the work of their domestic enemies. As long as this violent and irresponsible party continues to be one of America's two parties, the United States will decline. There are signs that the public is no longer buying the GOP story, despite their stranglehold on the media.
Yes, Virginia, the Romney campaign is in trouble. Polls are finally showing movement, and it is all against Romney.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/three-polls-show-obama-widening-lead-over-romney/2012/08/10/be8f68f4-e2e3-11e1-a25e-15067bb31849_story.html
This in itself is a bit odd. One would have expected negatives from Obama's anti-Bain ad campaign, but little from concerns about Romney's tax returns. The media have done their best to heap scorn on Harry Reid for saying Romney paid no taxes, but Romney's hysterical attempt to respond, calling Reid a liar and acting the victim, has not taken hold, and that's a dark cloud for the campaign, since making Romney seem the victim of dirty attacks is no doubt scheduled to be their main theme in the fall.
They really believe that if they prove Romney paid any taxes, no matter how little, they can make the Democrats the villains. Meanwhile, the public see despite the verbiage screen that Romney has not released his tax returns, and that this is not based on principle but on political considerations. The idea that his business career should be off-limits to discussion is also a laughable bit of humor since his entire justification for running for president was that his business experience would help him create jobs. Romney's angry response to an Obama ad about a man who lost his health insurance due to Bain Capital and whose wife died from untreated cancer, did more damage by showing that to Romney, business is just a game and not something real where people get hurt, which he thinks is a separate issue entirely.
The poll declines could be a bit of theater so Romney could get a "bump" from his convention and selection of Ryan, if the polls are being faked. But if real, it is probably just the public getting better acquainted with Romney, his arrogance, and his sense of entitlement.
For the third month in a row, the Romneyites have "raised more funds" than Obama, but now we find out they have been likely been creating phoney accounts to boost their twitter followers, and the same could well be true in fundraising.
http://theweek.com/article/index/230915/is-romney-buying-twitter-followers
Romney has so much money he can immediately plug any holes in the campaign performance from his personal accounts. And with an average donation size of over $600 in March compared to Obama's $50, he will never likely suffer a true deficit.
http://race42012.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Average-Donation-Size.jpg
However, his campaign receipts announced by his campaign have a curious flat, bloated look. It is quite likely the numbers are false and inflated in order to create dismay in the president's camp. If they are willing to do it with Twitter, it would hardly be a surprise for them to do it on fundraising. Romney's main source of election strength will be PACs, and so will never be reported as part of the campaign.
http://www.drudge.com/news/159271/super-pac-money-pays-80-romney
So what will Romney use his money for, if PACs place all the ads? Well, maybe there isn't as much money as they say. And perhaps they plan to use it to buy reporters and buy votes.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Still further Association between Romney and Child Abuse Camps
Readers of this blog will be aware that a Romney 2008 campaign Utah finance chairman was involved with children's camps accused of child abuse, and that when that man's partner was convicted of some charges, Robert Lichfield resigned from the Romney campaign. They will also be aware of the association of another disgraced Romney campaign official in Arizona, Sheriff Babeu, with child discipline camps that were also accused of abusing children. These were the subject of previous posts in this blog
Now we have a third example, a story about still another chain of these camps, Aspen Education, these owned by Romney's company Bain Capital, again accused of child abuse.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/test-19
What this seems to suggest, is that Romney himself has some kind of perverse interest in this obscure and always controversial corner of American child development, camps which try to save wayward kids with discipline and "tough love." Given Romney's history of forcibly cutting a boy's hair in high school, it may represent an enduring character trait.
Meanwhile, those of you looking for graphic representations of Mitt Romney's narcissism will be interested in Romney Olympic pins, made up and sold by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. They said he only "reluctantly" approved these pins because they earned money for the Committee, but now that we've seen Romney in action for awhile, it seems probable he cared more about the pins than about the Olympics.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-pins-olympics.jpg
We've had some self-involved people running for president before, but surely nobody but Romney has risen to the level of Mao Tse-tung's cult of personality before.
Now we have a third example, a story about still another chain of these camps, Aspen Education, these owned by Romney's company Bain Capital, again accused of child abuse.
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/test-19
What this seems to suggest, is that Romney himself has some kind of perverse interest in this obscure and always controversial corner of American child development, camps which try to save wayward kids with discipline and "tough love." Given Romney's history of forcibly cutting a boy's hair in high school, it may represent an enduring character trait.
Meanwhile, those of you looking for graphic representations of Mitt Romney's narcissism will be interested in Romney Olympic pins, made up and sold by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. They said he only "reluctantly" approved these pins because they earned money for the Committee, but now that we've seen Romney in action for awhile, it seems probable he cared more about the pins than about the Olympics.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-pins-olympics.jpg
We've had some self-involved people running for president before, but surely nobody but Romney has risen to the level of Mao Tse-tung's cult of personality before.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Romney proves that the Narcissistic Office Seeker is the best side of his personality
Mitt Romney continued his world tour, and he and his staff generated a series of gaffes when outside the cone of friendship they get from an American press owned or cowed by Romney's friends.
You will recall in Britain his aides spoke to the British press under the cloak of anonymity since Romney had ordered them not to criticize America's foreign policy to the foreign press. Romney limited his own remarks to criticizing Britain's Olympics. In Israel, Romney threw all that out the window by slamming Obama's foreign policy himself, threatening war with Iran (which he did much more explicitly in the Republican debates) and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us/politics/romney-in-israel-hints-at-harder-line-toward-iran.html?pagewanted=all
He also got in a bizarre and frankly racist dig at Palestinians by equating culture with GDP, something that Israel might not be comfortable with, since Saudi Arabia has a higher GDP than their own. Is Romney implying he would favor the Saudis over Israel? It is highly likely he hasn't thought that far.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-romney-israel-palestinians-idUSBRE86T0JV20120730
Israel was quick to lavish praise on Romney, in the odd belief that Obama is as bad for Israel as American politics can generate, a curious and nonsensical view that perhaps attributes too much power to the money American Jews have given Romney. Romney could finance his own campaign without their help, and it is unlikely he will feel any special gratitude to Jews or Israel because of money they have given him.
By then, Romney was on his way to Poland for more gaffes, this time using abusive language towards Russia and pretending the US had abandoned Poland under Obama, while his foreign press secretary attacked the press who wanted to ask questions. He also heaped praise on the labor union Solidarity, an odd choice considering he is very antilabor.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/us-election/mitt-romney-wraps-up-gaffe-prone-foreign-tour/story-fn95xh4y-1226439996662
Any previous American politician to do this sort of thing (George Ball, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, to name some examples) has been accused of being traitors by the American media, something that did not happen with Romney since they are owned by his friends and will do anything to spin everything in his favor (see CNN take)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/romney-trip-success-disaster/index.html
What is clear is that Romney is at his most likeable when he is talking about himself and his ambition. When he has to pander to the wishes of others, he tends to bungle his 5 minute study of foreign policy questions in his anxious desire to please.
Now all that remains is for the Romney horse to compete in the Olympics. Just as they are trying to buy the presidency, the Romneys also aim to buy an Olympic medal in dressage, through the medium of a German-born dressage rider and a 15 year old horse, whose ownership Ann Romney shares with Romney campaign manager Beth Myers and the wife of the rider. Presumably the Romneys staked them their share.
The USA has not won an Olympic individual dressage medal since 1932, but has won 7 team medals, most recently a bronze in 2004. Germany and the Netherlands have dominated the sport since 1992.
Ann's chosen professional is a German born rider who has been on the fringes of the US national team for many years and her personal coach.
On the other hand, if they do win a medal, their horse might have to take a drug test, so don't look for Rafalca to have a breakout performance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/23/london-2012-equestrian-usa-romney
You will recall in Britain his aides spoke to the British press under the cloak of anonymity since Romney had ordered them not to criticize America's foreign policy to the foreign press. Romney limited his own remarks to criticizing Britain's Olympics. In Israel, Romney threw all that out the window by slamming Obama's foreign policy himself, threatening war with Iran (which he did much more explicitly in the Republican debates) and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us/politics/romney-in-israel-hints-at-harder-line-toward-iran.html?pagewanted=all
He also got in a bizarre and frankly racist dig at Palestinians by equating culture with GDP, something that Israel might not be comfortable with, since Saudi Arabia has a higher GDP than their own. Is Romney implying he would favor the Saudis over Israel? It is highly likely he hasn't thought that far.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/30/us-romney-israel-palestinians-idUSBRE86T0JV20120730
Israel was quick to lavish praise on Romney, in the odd belief that Obama is as bad for Israel as American politics can generate, a curious and nonsensical view that perhaps attributes too much power to the money American Jews have given Romney. Romney could finance his own campaign without their help, and it is unlikely he will feel any special gratitude to Jews or Israel because of money they have given him.
By then, Romney was on his way to Poland for more gaffes, this time using abusive language towards Russia and pretending the US had abandoned Poland under Obama, while his foreign press secretary attacked the press who wanted to ask questions. He also heaped praise on the labor union Solidarity, an odd choice considering he is very antilabor.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/us-election/mitt-romney-wraps-up-gaffe-prone-foreign-tour/story-fn95xh4y-1226439996662
Any previous American politician to do this sort of thing (George Ball, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, to name some examples) has been accused of being traitors by the American media, something that did not happen with Romney since they are owned by his friends and will do anything to spin everything in his favor (see CNN take)
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/romney-trip-success-disaster/index.html
What is clear is that Romney is at his most likeable when he is talking about himself and his ambition. When he has to pander to the wishes of others, he tends to bungle his 5 minute study of foreign policy questions in his anxious desire to please.
Now all that remains is for the Romney horse to compete in the Olympics. Just as they are trying to buy the presidency, the Romneys also aim to buy an Olympic medal in dressage, through the medium of a German-born dressage rider and a 15 year old horse, whose ownership Ann Romney shares with Romney campaign manager Beth Myers and the wife of the rider. Presumably the Romneys staked them their share.
The USA has not won an Olympic individual dressage medal since 1932, but has won 7 team medals, most recently a bronze in 2004. Germany and the Netherlands have dominated the sport since 1992.
Ann's chosen professional is a German born rider who has been on the fringes of the US national team for many years and her personal coach.
On the other hand, if they do win a medal, their horse might have to take a drug test, so don't look for Rafalca to have a breakout performance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jul/23/london-2012-equestrian-usa-romney
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)