Mitt Romney

Wall Street Journal On The GOP: If They Don’t Want To Lose, They Shouldn’t Run With Losers

Posted by on January 25, 2012 at 3:14 pm. NO Comments :

Bret Stephens, the deputy editorial page editor for the Wall Street Journal, published an article this morning that begins…

“Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.“

The column is an indictment of the whole Republican field, but with an emphasis on Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Stephens is no fan of President Obama either. He leads off with a litany of laments having to do with things that Stephens says don’t matter, but conveniently leaves out any of the administration’s accomplishments. And it all leads up to this…

“Above all, it doesn’t matter that Americans are generally eager to send Mr. Obama packing. All they need is to be reasonably sure that the alternative won’t be another fiasco. But they can’t be reasonably sure, so it’s going to be four more years of the disappointment you already know.”

Stephens goes on to compare the GOP field to a “terminal diagnosis” and says that neither Romney nor Gingrich are fit to be a serious Republican nominee. Then he turns his animus to Republicans who declined to enter the race (Daniels, Ryan, Christie, etc.) and blames them for the loss looming in November. It’s a loss that Stephens regards as inevitable. And he is crystal clear as to what he believes is the reason that Obama is certain to be reelected:

“…the U.S. will surely survive four more years. Who knows? By then maybe Republicans will have figured out that if they don’t want to lose, they shouldn’t run with losers.”

That is uncannily close to my own analysis of the GOP race. However, I’m not a deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal. Conservatives of all stripes are bemoaning their presidential slate this year. They know that Romney is a poor representative in an election year where the wealthy 1% are considered aloof and out of touch. And Gingrich is regarded as toxic to Republican’s hopes for both the White House and their hold on the House of Representatives.

You know it may be time to pack it in when Rupert Murdoch has come out against both GOP campaign leaders:

Uh oh. Who does that leave for Murdoch to support? Santorum? Paul? Obama? Or are we headed for a brokered convention? That would be sweet. I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Fox News On Mitt Romney’s Tax Returns: Who Cares?

Posted by on January 17, 2012 at 4:10 pm. 3 Comments :

The Fox News morning program, Fox & Friends, has a unique quality that differentiates it from the rest of the Fox News schedule. In addition to the lies, propaganda, and GOP PR that fills the network’s fare, Fox & Friends features a trio of hosts who are called anchors only because of how much they weigh down the network’s IQ.

On today’s episode, the three squawking heads entered into a discussion of Mitt Romney and the question of whether he would, or should, release his tax returns as just about every other candidate has done in modern times. [Video below] It went a little something like this:

Brian Kilmeade: One thing about Mitt Romney: He’s rich! And most people know it. And I guess that’s one of the reasons that he does not want to release his tax returns, because there seems to be a war on success in this country.

Gretchen Carlson: And I want to know from the viewers: Do you care about this topic? Tax returns?

Eric Bolling: Who cares if he made a lot of money. Frankly, we should all be thrilled he made a lot of money. He’s a capitalist. Don’t we want that?

Indeed, Mitt Romney is rich and most people know it. But that is not the reason that he doesn’t want to release his tax returns, and it’s not the reason that voters want him to. The practice of releasing tax returns was begun in order to establish whether the candidate is complying with the law and not receiving special treatment due to his connections in business or politics. It is also done to disclose any impropriety or relationship to special interests that might pose a conflict for a public servant.

Fox News is exploiting the controversy surrounding Romney to invent another so-called war on something they consider sacred (i.e. Christmas, junk food, religion, light bulbs, etc.) In this case it’s success. The segment was chock full of the usual complaints about “villainizing the wealthy,” “job creators,” and “class warfare.” But the ultimate goal was to trivialize those who call for accountability on the part of our representatives, and to give people like Romney (or R*Money, as his Highlife Homies call him) cover to suppress any information that they want to hide from voters.

I’ve seen a lot of tactics used by right-wingers to obfuscate and evade true transparency, but this is a new low. People have a right to know whether their leaders are honest and trustworthy. I have to wonder whether Fox’s Tea Party viewers, who purport to be fed up with government deceit, would actually approve of this effort to free candidates from the responsibility of demonstrating their fitness to serve in this simple manner.

Does Romney have something to hide? Is he embarrassed by how little he paid in taxes due to loopholes that the rest of us don’t get? Does he have investments in enterprises that might affect his judgment or independence? These are important questions, but equally important is why is Fox News running interference for Romney and any other politician who might have skeletons he wants to keep in the closet until after the election?

Sunday Funnies Featuring Stephen Colbert And Mitt The Ripper

Posted by on January 15, 2012 at 3:24 pm. 3 Comments :

This election season’s most electrifying development is the announcement that Stephen Colbert has formed an exploratory committee to discern whether there is a “hunger” for him to enter the race for the Republican nomination for President of the United States of South Carolina.

Colbert has already placed in polling that shows him ahead of Gov. Jon Huntsman. And today he appeared on ABC This Week with George Stephanopolous (which is more than Mitt Romney has done). Notably, Colbert appeared in character throughout the interview (which Romney always does).

video platformvideo managementvideo solutionsvideo player

Clearly Colbert is off to a great start despite it being too late to actually get on the ballot in South Carolina. But in that regard he isn’t much worse off than the so-called “real” candidates like Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, who failed to get onto the primary ballot in Virginia.

In other news, Colbert’s former SuperPAC (which he transferred to Jon Stewart so as not to run afoul of election law) has released its first ad in South Carolina:

Some may regard that as an over-the-top negative advertisement, but Colbert has made it clear that he is not affiliated with the SuperPAC and that he regards Jon Stewart as a political foe. In any case, Romney has other fictional comparisons he has to worry about.

Mitt Romney - Gordon Gekko

Occupy Reality: Americans Concern About Income Inequality Surges

Posted by on January 12, 2012 at 11:04 am. 3 Comments :

The Pew Research Center has conducted an inquiry into the degree of divisions within American society and found that conflicts between rich and poor now outpace other sources of group tension.

That result can only be interpreted as a success for the 99% and those who participated in the nationwide Occupy movement. They decisively altered the national dialogue from one that was obsessed with government spending and debt, to one that focused on economic justice and corporate abuse of power.

This is a terrible time for the GOP (Greedy One Percent) to be coalescing around Mitt Romney as their nominee for president. A multimillionaire, corporate raider who specializes in bankrupting companies and outsourcing jobs may not be the ideal candidate in this political environment. But, fortunately for Democrats, they are stuck with him.

The Wealth Gap in American is currently larger than it has ever been. It is larger than it was in the Great Depression. It is even larger than it was during the ancient Roman Empire that collapsed from the weight of its own injustice and oppression.

Click to enlarge
Decadence Index

The Republicans know all too well that their class war on behalf of the rich is toxic to their electoral aspirations. Their top strategist and pollster, Frank Luntz, has been counseling them to steer clear of debates on economic justice and free market capitalism. In a seminar for the Republican Governor’s Association he told them that he is “so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death.” Even fellow Republicans are bashing the corporatist tendencies of Romney and his Bain Capital pedigree.

Not to be left out, Fox News joined the club by posting an article about the Pew survey on their Fox Nation web site. Consistent with their inbred bias, they mocked up a graphic that pastes Obama in front of the “Mission Accomplished” banner that George Bush made to pretend that the Iraq war was over, implying that Obama is responsible for the class tensions.

Fox Nation Rich/Poor Conflict

The problem with Fox’s characterization is that Obama was a late-comer to the issue. The people were way out in front of this and they overwhelming support the goals associated with the Occupy movement. And that includes many of the rich people we are supposed to be in conflict with. Notice how they never called it a class war until we fought back.

But more importantly, in their rush to smear the President, they are implicitly conceding that income inequality is a significant problem in America and that it is reaching an historic level of risk. Thanks Fox.

Carnage Capitalism: When Mitt Romney Came To Town

Posted by on January 9, 2012 at 2:07 pm. 3 Comments :

“You have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?” (h/t TPM)

You might be wondering which ultra-progressive enemy of conservative, free market, American principles uttered that indictment of capitalism and the GOP (Greedy One Percent) model of the economy. It wasn’t Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi or George Soros. It was former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and current floundering Republican presidential hopeful, Newt Gingrich.

Seriously. Gingrich is so obsessed with cutting off his nemesis, Mitt Romney (or R*Money as his Highlife Homies call him) at the knees that he has adopted the platform of Occupy Wall Street to expose Romney’s Carnage Capitalism that permits him to profit extravagantly from the suffering of others and the destruction of businesses and jobs. There is even a devastating new video produced by a pro-Gingrich Super-Pac, Winning Our Future, that could easily be used by the Obama campaign against Romney this fall:

This is precisely the strategy that should be implemented against Romney and the rest of the congressional GOP establishment in the upcoming elections. Gingrich knows that this line of attack will be effective or he wouldn’t be using it himself. He has surely done focus groups and other polling to affirm that. Even the GOP’s top pollster/strategist, Frank Luntz warned a meeting of the Republican Governor’s Association that…

“I’m so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I’m frightened to death. They’re having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism.”

It isn’t really the word capitalism that is the problem, but the corruption of it by people like Romney (and Gingrich, for that matter). But when the far right is embracing our arguments, you know that the tide has turned. And that is not a sign to relax or declare victory. It is a call to redouble our efforts and march on until our goals are achieved. This concession by Gingrich, and the video by his pals, are just the most recent indications that progressive values are on the ascendancy.

The Price Of Freedom: For Mitt Romney And Family It’s Negotiable

Posted by on January 8, 2012 at 9:55 am. 2 Comments :

The Republicans held their 629th debate last night in New Hampshire and, for the most part, it revealed nothing new about the candidates or their positions. OK, they are against gay marriage and they think Obama is a socialist. We get it. However there was a moment with the inevitable nominee, Mitt Romney, that was disturbing, if not revealing.

Mitt Romney: I find it amazing that we have troops in harm’s way around the world – in Afghanistan right now, in Iraq the first three years of this president’s term. He doesn’t go on TV every month and talk to the American people about the sacrifice being made by these men and women. I find it extraordinary that a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom in America. The hurdle to actually putting our troops in harm’s way is very, very high, and the test is America’s interests. Our security interests. And they have to be involved in a very significant way to deploy our troops.

First of all, what president has ever gone on TV every month to talk about war? Only someone who is not paying attention, or is being deliberately dishonest, could accuse President Obama of not speaking up enough on behalf of the troops.

More importantly, how can Romney, who evaded the draft in his youth by going on a Mormon missionary trip that he spent in a palace in France, and took a couple of educational deferments to attend Brigham Young University and Harvard Business School, now grumble that too few families are “paying the price of freedom.”

And what of Romney’s family? He has five sons who were of age to serve in the military during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but here is how he described their contribution to freedom’s cost during his 2008 campaign:

Romney: It’s remarkable how we can show our support for our nation, and one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping to get me elected, because they think I’d be a great president. My son, Josh, bought the family Winnebago and has visited 99 counties, most of them with his three kids and his wife. And I respect that and respect all of those in the way they serve this great country.

So traveling around the United States in a custom painted luxury RV, touting their father for president, is somehow analogous to risking one’s life in the harsh deserts and mountains of the Middle East? This is how the Romney boys sacrificed on behalf their country:

Romney Cheerleaders

Yep. That’s the “Five Brothers Mitt Mobile” and Mitt’s boy Craig cavorting with dangerous cheerleading insurgents.

For Romney to complain that “a very few number of families are paying the price of freedom,” is extraordinarily callous and hypocritical considering that his own family is conspicuously welching on the debt. It exemplifies the aloofness and privilege of a multimillionaire who clearly regards himself as superior to the masses. This soundbite from last night’s debate should get extra attention because it appears to be one of the only positions that Romney has held consistently for several years.

Mitt Romney Fails World Economy 101

Posted by on January 5, 2012 at 3:38 pm. 1 Comments :

The Republican presidential candidate relying the most on a resume of financial acumen to propel him into the White House is undoubtedly Mitt Romney (or R*Money, as his Highlife Homies call him). But as his first post-Iowa campaign event in New Hampshire shows, he may not be able to live up to the hype. From the National Journal:

“One man asked about the growing gap between rich and poor in America. Romney essentially said that it could be worse, and challenged the crowd to name a country where the average income is higher than in the United States.”

First of all, there are ten countries that have a higher average income than the U.S., including Norway and Qatar. But that’s beside the point. The average income says nothing about income inequality. If I were in a room with Bill Gates, the average net worth of that room would be about $25 billion dollars, of which my contribution would be negligible. The United States is home to several billionaires whose presence warps the average income scale.

A more relevant fact is that the 400 richest Americans control more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. There’s your wealth gap. What’s more, on income inequality the U.S. ranks 18th out of the 20 richest countries:

Click to enlarge
Decadence Index

Romney, the man who believes that corporations are people, chose the cowardly route and dodged the substance of the question. It was also a bit arrogant of him to expect the crowd to have come to the event with data on the world’s average incomes and then claim victory when they didn’t dispute his evasive premise. Which is a good thing because the facts didn’t support his premise.

Finally, the event was also an opportunity for Romney get a bootlicking from his newest fan, John McCain. After declaring his endorsement, the exceedingly “senior” senator from Arizona introduced the former Massachusetts governor as “President Mitt Romney.” Just a slight reality tilt. I’m sure he’ll be fine.

[Update:] McCain’s endorsement of Romney got even better the next day when he expressed his confidence that President Obama would turn the country around:

Getting Ugly: Down To The Wire For The Iowa Caucus

Posted by on January 3, 2012 at 11:26 am. 1 Comments :

I’ve been saying all along that Willard Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee for president. I said it when Bachmann was the frontrunner; when Trump was the frontrunner; when Perry was the frontrunner; when Cain was the frontrunner; when Gingrich was the frontrunner; when Santorum was the frontrunner. I stand by my prediction.

However, the roller-coaster ride that the Republicans have provided has been enormous fun. And it has also provided a truck-load full of material for the Democrats to use during the general election. Including these headlines from Fox Nation this morning:

Fox Nation Disgusting Liars

Here we have the four current leaders of the Republican primary campaign slamming one another mercilessly. Gingrich calls Romney a liar. Santorum calls Paul disgusting. Perhaps it would be easier if we just called the whole bunch of them disgusting liars.

The problem for the GOP is that they are looking for a vestal conservative, but can’t find one that was immaculately conceived. And the Tea Party right is adamant about not tolerating the flip-flopping moderate, Romney. In the end they will surrender and accept the inevitable: Romney will be their nominee. Then look for the commencement of a half-hearted campaign featuring their new rallying cry: Settle For Mitt, 2012.

Fox Nation Posts Creepy Article: Win A Night With Mitt Romney

Posted by on December 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm. 2 Comments :

Get out your checkbooks, America. An unprecedented opportunity has just presented itself and, trust me, you do not want to miss it. This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rub shoulders (and who knows what else) with the Grand Old Party’s grandest candidate, former Massachusetts governor, quarter-billionaire, and champion job killer in both the public and private sector, Willard Mitt Romney.

Fox Nation is promoting an exciting new contest sponsored by the Romney campaign. The winner of the contest gets to “Spend the Night With Mitt for Just $1.”

Wow, really? The whole night? Will his wife be there? What will he be wearing? I know there won’t be any alcohol (he’s a Mormon, you know), but who supplies the Viagra? Can I bring my video camera?

The comedic and disturbing inferences that spring to mind upon reading this news write themselves. But the Fox Nationalists published it with a straight face and no mention of the inherently creepy nature of the contest. What, you might ask, makes it inherently creepy? Well, that’s exactly what Fox Nation called it when they reported that the Obama campaign did precisely the same thing.

Fox Nation Creepy Contest

Just a reminder: The Fox Nation “Statement of Purpose” says…

“The Fox Nation is committed to the core principles of tolerance, open debate, civil discourse, and fair and balanced coverage of the news.”

Yet somehow, when Obama has a contest to join him and Michelle for dinner it’s creepy, but no such derogatory editorializing for Romney. Furthermore, they make no comparison between the contests themselves. Obama offered any donor who contributed $3.00 or more an equal chance at the prize dinner. Romney’s contest offers donors an entry for each dollar they donate. Therefore, if you donate $1.00 you get one entry. If you donate $1,000 you get a thousand entries. Consequently, wealthy donors will have far more chances to win. That should help Romney avoid having to spend the night with the unclean lower and middle class Republicans who might enter the contest.

Perhaps a corporation will win the night with Romney, since he says that they are people too.

Mitt Romney Takes Pot Shots At Big Bird And PBS

Posted by on December 28, 2011 at 3:13 pm. 4 Comments :

Big BirdOne of the right’s perennial targets has been public television and programs that benefit the arts. They have relentlessly criticized these institutions and sought to deny them federal funding. They have even accused them of being socialist vehicles intent on indoctrinating America’s young. Now Mitt Romney joins the battle with a pledge to stop funding PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts (video below).

When Romney says that he wants to “stop certain programs…even some you like,” he is referring to programs that are of significant value to average Americans, but that he can live without because his quarter of a billion dollar net worth enables him to acquire whatever he wants. Romney demonstrates how pitifully out of touch he is by proposing to eliminate funding for PBS, a network that provides educational programming that is not available anywhere else, certainly not in commercial television. He is explicit in what he plans to do:

“We subsidize PBS. Look, I’m gonna stop that. I’m gonna say that PBS is gonna have to have advertisements. We’re not gonna kill Big Bird, but Big Bird’s gonna have advertisements.”

Despite his denials, killing off Big Bird is precisely what his plan would accomplish. There is a reason that commercial TV does not produce the sort of programming seen on PBS. For-profit networks have to cater to advertisers in order to stay in business. By necessity they are more concerned with generating profit than with quality programming. Take a look at tonight’s primetime schedules of the cable nets that were supposed to compete with public television:

  • Bravo: 8:00pm Top Chef: Texas; 9:00pm Top Chef: Texas; 10:00pm Top Chef: Texas
  • Discovery: 8:00pm Sons of Guns; 9:00pm Sons of Guns; 10:00pm Moonshiners
  • Learning Channel: 8:00pm Toddlers & Tiaras; 9:00pm Cheapskates; 10:00pm Toddlers & Tiaras

That’s not exactly entertainment designed to enrich America’s children. It’s a jumble of insipid reality programs that repeat ad nauseum. It’s Real Housewives, Swamp Loggers, Hoarders, and info-mercials. If Big Bird were required to rely on advertisers for funding it would not be long before Sesame Street was just another avenue on the Jersey Shore.

That’s the free market model for public broadcasting that Romney and the right advocate. It’s a model that would replace Bert and Ernie with Kim and Chloe. Is that really the example we want to set for our kids?