Archives for posts with tag: Romney

Giuliani wild statement reveals the depth of republican frustration and desperation – or that Giuliani has gone off the deep end.   Probably both.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/02/in-fiery-speech-giuliani-calls-on-obama-to-resign-faults-him-for-libya/?hpt=hp_t2

Advertisements
When did telling employees how to vote become a byproduct of Citizens United?  If this interpretation stands up, then things in this country have crossed a line far beyond simply drowning out the power of the individual voter by means of unlimited donations.  If Romney was to win, he won’t have been democratically elected in any real sense – not that he or any of the power brokers care how he gets  there.   Not only is this trend unlikely to be reversed if it continues much longer, but the next step will be the Gingrich plan to reduce the power of the courts.
Think about what this means.  If corporations can spell out what you should do in the presidential election, why stop there?  You’ll be getting direction on any number of policies that you need to support.  More accurately, you will be told that you need to just accept certain things, because your support and your vote won’t actually be needed any more.   Certain things will be frowned upon and if you want to get anywhere, don’t expect it to happen fast (or at all), if you are not a practicing, card carrying, party member.   That’s where this is headed.
As it is today, “western democracy” is probably becoming limited to Canada.   Going forward, when anyone claims we need a bigger stronger military to help foster the growth of democracy abroad, we need to set the record straight.   We need to use any power we have left to demand that the first priority is to restore democracy here at home.  Until that happens, we have no credibility to stay in Afghanistan and we certainly have no business getting involved in an Arab spring in Syria, Iran, or anywhere else.  There is no reason for us as citizens to pay for such an undertaking – and we won’t rise for any corporate anthem.

Mitt Romney Encouraged Business Owners To Advise Employees How To Vote –

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-employees-voting_n_1975636.html

Mitt wants to keep attention on Libya, so OK, let’s do that.   So why isn’t this in an ad on every available media channel?

House GOP Cut Funding For Embassy Security:

‘You Have To Prioritize Things’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/jason-chaffetz-embassy_n_1954912.html

Romney: Abortion not on my agenda

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57529274/romney-abortion-not-on-my-agenda/?tag=fdleft;fdmodule

I’m left wondering how this will pan out.  Romney is abandoning causes of the religious right, as expected.  But it’s a bit soon, because he will want their support in his effort to eliminate the EPA.  Will they still turn out to vote for him, knowing that they are being used and he is not really going to be  their champion?

Is it even necessary to point out that Mitt has tripped on his own tongue yet again?  He’s going to have to walk this back, or at the very least drop it uietly once his handlers realize that he is making arguments against Citizens United.  They don’t want a debate to take place, so the best they can do is come up with some kind of diversion to get the subject off of this – and fast.

Romney: Teacher contributions to politicians should be limited

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57520009-503544/romney-teacher-contributions-to-politicians-should-be-limited/?tag=re1.channel

This is supposedly from Mitt Romney at a fundraiser:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax

My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Yes it would be a terrible thing to have to represent the other half – the part that you think contributes nothing.  But there has been a mistake, obviously. We were led to think that you were applying.  Not to worry.  You’ll be able to go back to Bain full time.  We’ll entrust this job to someone else.  In fact..  well .. we really already have someone.  We can validate your parking though.

Update:  The spin doctors are working overtime today.   This is not a “gaffe”.  He wasn’t ambushed.  It’s not liberal media twisting his words.  It’s just Mitt.  He does not get what the job entails  and he doesn’t even understand where he went wrong.  He tells the Chinese factory story as if he envies the position that company is in.  Incidentally Mitt, you may recall that Russia always claimed that the Berlin wall was to keep undesirables out.  I’m not saying that’s the case here, but you could at least look below the surface – ask the people and not just the party official.    Mitt also says that the Palestinians don’t want peace.  He goes on to explain how the situation with the borders presents a security concern for Israel.  Certainly some radical elements don’t and certainly the mainstream is not going to be for peace while they feel they are victims of occupation.   But to make it sound like they don’t want a settlement is to dismiss the Palestinians as another group of people who can’t be dealt with and who he can’t be bothered to worry about.  He admits that it’s a complex situation and he should know that it can’t be dramatically reduced.  He doesn’t understand that the situation is a tinderbox.   This will be a separate post, but someone neeerds to get him on record regarding the waiver of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Tag words:  blunder, blundering, clueless, wrong, unfit, contempt, alienated, irrecoverable

Why do people see  Romney as a flip-flopper?
Answer:  This is not just media bias.  It is because it’s not one person speaking.
Try this on:  Last week Romney said, on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” This set off a firestorm among conservative Republicans. Later that day, Romney’s campaign again reconfirmed he was against covering people with pre-existing conditions who have not had continuous health coverage.
Then an embarrassing video exposed contents of Mitt’s speech at a fundraiser.  His initial response was along the line of: that’s not how I meant it.  Then Grover Niquist says it can be made into a plus and Rush follows by calling it a golden opportunity.  Now Mitt says, I meant what I said, although I do intend to strengthen the safety net.  There – another statement that will have to be walked back (not to mention fallout from his statement on the two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, which Ryan has initially supported).
Conclusion:  Mitt is the press agent for someone who makes the big decisions. If there is an actual Romney position on anything we won’t know for sure because at any time he could ask us to believe that he meant it the other way.

Mitt cites “studies” supporting his economic claims, which turn out to be mostly blogs, editorials and a paper he wrote himself.

“Romney .. referenced five studies in an interview with Meet the Press on Sunday. His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), said the same during his run through the Sunday show circuit. A closer examination, however, calls into question the fact that there are even five studies at all.  Last week, the Romney campaign passed along the five documents that the candidate had referenced on NBC’s Meet the Press. Three of the five are blog posts or op-eds (as opposed to academic literature), and two of those three are written bythe same author: Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.

Of the remaining two studies, one is the tax reform white paper authored by Romney-backing economists and paid for by Romney for President, Inc. (in an email to PolitiFact, the Romney campaign highlighted several Wall Street Journal editorials in place of the campaign white paper as the “fifth” study).   The final [and only actual] study, produced by Princeton University’s Harvey Rosen, backs the Romney campaign’s assertions by arguing that people will work more, accumulate more income, pay more taxes, and seek out fewer loopholes if their tax rates are lowered. But even that report has several nuances that complicate the candidate’s use of it.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/14/romney-tax-policy_n_1884527.html

So this plan is paid for by taxes on future growth in revenues – while tax rates are being reduced. But taxes are not the only factors which affect growth. This is nothing more than a gamble. He could just as well be proposing to pay for the cuts with derivatives or Enron stock options.

I tried to come up with another way to say it in few words, but it boils down to simple and blatant hypocrisy.    That is, claiming that spending is about jobs when Republicans want to do it, but wrong if Democrats do it.

Ben Armbruster at Thinkprogess had this to say: Republicans Abandon ‘Government Doesn’t Create Jobs’ Mantra In Fight To Preserve Military Spending
Defense industry-backed Republicans are so desperate to stave off the automatic military spending cuts that they’re trying to scare Americans about job losses and an ensuing nose-diving economy should the military spending cuts hold. Except there’s one problem.  “Republicans aren’t supposed to believe that government spending creates jobs. But in this last act of desperation, however, it seems that Republicans pushing to preserve America’s bloated military budget have come to a pretty significant epiphany.”   http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/18/543931/republicans-goverment-create-jobs-military-spending/

Now they play on fears and tell you that it’s about saving lives.    Then   other Mitt, on Omitting U.S. Troops From RNC Speech said: ‘You Talk About Things You Think Are Important’.   (in other words,  it’s devastating when I say it is, but not when I need it not to be).   It must be hard to keep track when you are all over the map on an issue.

CATO expert Chris Preble said … the industry is just “trying to save their profits.” There’s also no evidence that the military spending sequester will be “devastating” as some have argued and polls show that an overwhelming majority ofAmericans favor cutting DOD’s budget.  (But even after cuts  – voted for by Ryan and the republican Congress – military spending will still be above what it was in [    ]. )  But Republicans will most likely ignore these facts and fight to preserve the Pentagon’s needlessly bloated budget, all while abandoning a central tenet of their party’s ideology.

This is about campaign contributions. period.  Romney now rips Paul Ryan: Calls Running Mate’s Vote For Defense Cuts ‘A Big Mistake’.  Well now Ryan is back peddling as well –   “No, no — I have to correct you on this,..; I voted for the Budget Control Act.” Norah ODonnell: “The fact that Ryan may have wished that the bill didn’t contain said defense cuts does not absolve him of the fact that he and 201 other Republicans voted for the bill as-passed. Moreover, Ryan’s statement after voting for the bill contained not a single word of criticism about the defense cuts. Ryan said the bill “represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending..”

On Mitt and Egypt:  The oval office is no place for someone short on ability – or willingness – to weigh all available  options before acting.  This is  something that can’t be pinned on strategists or advisers  and it’s not something for a prospective commander in chief to learn as he goes.  The candidate needs to be able to determine the best course, which may or may not mean to decide on an action immediately.  It’s far more important to stand his ground in the face of calls to do the wrong thing than to stand his ground after having acted impulsively.