Tag Archives: mittens

Fish, Barrel, Shotgun…

Shooting fish in a barrel.  Aside from getting very wet, it is the definition of something so foolproof as to be unsporting.  Which is why making sense of Mitt Romney is like shooting fish in a barrel.  I’m not saying Mitt makes sense, but I am saying that Mitt’s actions are both easily recognized and predictable.

Mitt Romney will say absolutely anything, regardless of any previous position he has verbalized, policy he has championed, or social group he hath shat upon.  He is simply the flippiest, floppiest, most vote grubbing, jellyfish of a candidate I have ever witnessed.

I was reading a piece about his environmental record as Governor of Massachusetts, which I can corroborate because I was working in Climate and Energy policy in Connecticut at that exact time.  If you don’t want to deal with the NYT’s latest annoying article limits, I’ll give you the skinny:

  • He was for “cap and trade” before he was against it
  • He was for green vehicles before he decided they were a bad choice
  • He was against heavily polluting energy until he was paid to realize how great it is!

The article uses the cutesy term “Potomac Fever” to describe his shift to positions that would get him in the door with the RNC.  But I would contest that he had “Charles Fever” before that, telling Massachusetts voters whatever they wanted to hear in order to secure their vote, then playing Lucy to their Charlie Brown when he got into office.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this was one of his tools in the world of Bain Capital.  In fact, I would say that:

“I think he just didn’t get comfortable [with the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative] at the very end, but he didn’t want to stop a creative activity,” Mr. Kriss said. “It was like that at Bain Capital. He would let some partner pursue some deal, and at the end he would say, ‘I know you worked on this for six months, but we’re not going to do it.’ ” – Bain Capital Co-Founder Eric Kriss

…tells me a few things.  Aside from being manipulative and inconsistent, he may very well have used this same technique in his private equity dealings.  You could take Kriss at his word about “comfortable” but the way these things often work is that you commit to one deal as a show of good will/intent to bolster a bigger deal, and then pull the plug on the “bait” deal when you have what you want out of the Big Fish.  So IMO, that could very well be a description of another bait-switch scenario, just like showing some environmental regulation support to Massachusetts voters with an initial commitment to reducing greenhouse gas, but pulling the plug before it comes to fruition.  The Big Fish was securing an election, the bait was faux-support for RGGI, and he didn’t have to be in any hurry to pull the plug because it wasn’t his money at risk… just like Bain!

So when I hear Romney telling the press in Colorado that he could see keeping DACA (executive order in lieu of DREAM Act) in place while he gets a “comprehensive immigration reform package” passed, I hear it through that lens.  I even hear his 47% tirade through that lens.  As in: tell these $50,000/plate bastards that you see the poor sucking at their ample teat… don’t give them an opening to doubt that you consider their money untouchable.

Of course, it is completely probable that Romney has no fucking idea what he is talking about… On that, I would push the whole stack of chips to the center of the table.

Late Additions, but good reads:

Romney Manages to Silence RNC!

Bull meets China Shop

At least the guy knows how to start a conversation….

Mitt “Mittens” Romney, that is.  I know, the statement made to those $50,000/plate donors last May is being dissected like it was the long lost second Zapruder film.  And rightly so.  I tried to find some kind of thread of sanity to Mitt’s little rampage on half the Nation as teat-sucking layabouts.  Really, I did.

Fot those of you under a rock, or in China, where this news may not have sufficiently penetrated your child-protection filter:

“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 that 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…

“Our message of low taxes doesn’t connect…so my job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to 10 percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful….”

And yes, it turns out that those freeloading Social Security recipients, active duty soldiers, working poor, low income families with children… all those freeloading yobbos who spend every last fucking red cent on food, clothing, housing and transportation and maybe have enough to spend something on education, but certainly aren’t stashing wads of Benjamins in their mattress… THEY are the problem.  Got that?

If you see one of the myriad copies of the fundraiser video, notice how vociferously the pillars of finance and industry shout down poor uninformed Mittens the Clown!  They can’t sit still while he runs an ideological bulldozer over their lives! NOT.  This is a high priest of “trickle down” preaching to the choir.

While Mitt scoffs at “redistribution” as a code for calling Obama a “socialist”, what exactly would Mitt be doing with the taxes received from those 47% of the Nation? Obama voters or not, wouldn’t those taxes be, by definition, redistributed?  Most likely upward, by my calculation.

I’ll stop trying to make sense of this Möbius Strip of Fuckwit VooDoo.  Someone else did a better job that i could ever do…

As is becoming disturbingly regular (and hilarious) John Stewart beat me to the more obvious points in this, the most awesome video EVER:

Chaos on Bullshit Mountain

It hits on a lot of the things that struck me as particularly baffling:

  • What about corporations that pay no taxes *at all*?  Freeloaders, failing to take “corporate person” responsibility?
  • Since when does paying income tax = personal responsibility for anyone?
  • Don’t most/all of those fine ladies and gentlemen paying $50,000/plate (to listen to Mittens put a boot in the ass of the poor) put a lot of effort into paying as little income as possible?
  • Does Mittens himself not enjoy a massive dose of tax relief by virtue of living off investment income?
  • Does this douchebag really think that the only people who vote for Obama are completely dependent on Government assistance and take no responsibility for themselves at all, ergo, all Romney voters must be paying income tax whether they owe it or not and refuse any assistance from the U.S. Government, on principle?

And this is really just the tip of the iceberg.  Dissecting the words of this captain on industry is bound to become a cottage industry, and I am sure there is someone breaking down a transcript *right now* and you will see that book on Amazon before November 2012.

The sad part of this is that it is completely predictable.  I put a lot of weight on what people say when they are riding high.  After winning the Iowa caucus, Mittens flew directly to New Hampshire to gloat and cement his stature as frontrunner.  When asked about “profiteering” Mitt didn’t even blink, mainly because he thinks profiting and profiteering are a singularity.  He went on to praise “profit” as the driver of the little people’s 401K’s and pensions… proving that he has never even glanced at a 401k or pension because both of those instruments got raped as a result of the exact kind of market de-reg that Mitt thinks will “make America great again”.  Who runs this guy’s campaign?  Monty Burns?