Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitt Romney. Show all posts

Saturday, March 05, 2016

Donald Trump's Penis Signals The Destruction of the GOP

I think I was the only one not shocked when Donald Trump assured debate watchers that his penis was not as small as hands. When your party's base is filled with adolescents, penis size matters. But apparently there were many others who were shocked and most of them are conservatives.

“The spectacle made me ill,” writes the conservative Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti. “On screen I watched decades of work by conservative institutions, activists, and elected officials being lit aflame not only by the New York demagogue but by his enablers who waited until the last possible moment to try and stop him.”

Mitt Romney is trying to stop him and gave this speech hour before the debate.

Aside from the obvious problem that Romney sought and received Trump's endorsement in 2012, Romney's points about Trump (which are all dead on accurate) completely fail to note the conservative base admire all these traits in Trump. Why?

Because they are just like that too!

Predictably, the adolescents that support Trump are pissed that adults are trying to talk them down but they want none of it.

"I want to see Trump go up there and do damage to the Republican Party" said Jeff Walls, 53, of Flowood, MS.

Kathy, from Sun City, Ariz., told Mr. Limbaugh she was “absolutely livid by the Romney speech. He’s condescending,” she said, adding that he sounded like a “Democrat the whole time.” Steve from Temecula, Calif., said he had a message for Mr. Romney: “The Republican electorate is not a bunch of completely ignorant fools.”

“We know who Donald Trump is,” he added, “and we’re going to use Donald Trump to either take over the G.O.P. or blow it up.”

Ah, rebellious teenagers:)

Frank Luntz declared Hillary the biggest winner of the night and said that 22 out of his 25 focus groups said that this debate will hurt the GOP in the fall election.

Jamie Johnson, senior adviser to Rick Perry, said, "My party is committing suicide on national television.

Kristen Anderson, millenial pollster, said, "We may as well cancel the rest of the debate bc we are now in a Mike Judge film and nobody's going to talk about anything but Trump hands."  That's not the first time I've hear an Idiocracy reference.

The National Review's Alexis Levinson called for a safe word during future debates.

I think the best reaction, though, came from the Hilz..

Sorta reminds me of my 8th graders...

-- Here’s a sampling of how conservative media outlets are covering the debate:
  • National Review: “GOP Implosion Accelerates in Motor City Wreck.”
  •, “GOP breaks down in Motor City”: “Much of the fight on the Republican side is centered on who can beat Clinton,” Chris Stirewalt, the digital politics editor, writes. “The growing fear among GOP voters is that the answer might be: ‘None of them.’”
  • Christian Broadcasting Network, “All That Was Missing Was Jerry Springer”: “The Grand Old Party didn’t look grand at all. Instead, they looked gross,” writes CBN political correspondent David Brody. “Reince Priebus is faced with a crucial decision now: does he go with Tylenol or Excedrin? Which medication will take away this big fat headache?”

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Mitt Romney on the 2014 Elections

So, Mitt Romney was on Morning Joe this AM talking about the 2014 elections. His message?

If the Republicans win back the Senate, then gridlock will end in Washington and bills can start being passed again. What exactly is holding them back now? President Obama? He's still going to be president for the next two years so what will be different?

Friday, May 09, 2014

Mitt Romney: "Raise the Minimum Wage."

I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us

--Mitt Romney, May 9, 2012


Saturday, January 25, 2014

Mitt Slow Jams With Jimmy

Pretty fucking hilarious...

Friday, November 23, 2012

The irony here is that if America saw more photos like this of Mitt Romney, he may have gotten a few more votes.

Monday, November 05, 2012

Now THAT is an endorsement!

God given shit. That's EXACTLY why they hate the president as much as they do.

Ah, Now I Get It

At first I thought Mitt Romney's trip to Pennsylvania (billed as "expanding the map," according to his campaign) was a head fake to try to give off the perception of momentum. Now, I think that he knows that Ohio is unlikely and needs to make up those EVs another way. Obviously, Pennsylvania is a long shot for Romney but the last couple polls have been within the margin of error so perhaps he's hopeful that something can happen.

Remember, though, that a couple of polls don't tell the story. It's always the average of all of them.

Sunday, November 04, 2012

Whither Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson is pretty much the polar opposite of myself but I couldn't agree more with him when he said, last year.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man. 

I've been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled.

Wow. And people are voting for this guy? Their emotions about the president are obviously so irrational that an unprincipled man is preferred.

Interestingly, he wrote this yesterday...

When I wake up on Wednesday morning, I'm still going to have my wife. I'm still going to have my kids. I'm still going to have my family. And I'm still going to have my God. So will you. I'm not going to think the end of the world is upon us if my side loses.

Does he know something the rest of us don't? If he doesn't, Karl Rove surely does, as Andy Tannenbaum notes.

In a Washington Post interview, Republican strategist Karl Rove had his Mene mene tekel upharsin moment when he blamed Romney's loss on the storm, even before the results are known, when he said: "If you hadn't had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy." He seems to have forgotten that Romney has been saying all those things for 2 years. Surely 3 more days didn't matter. What he meant was the storm gave Obama a Commander-in-Chief test and he passed.

Personally, I think people should ignore all this and continue to act as if it's razor thin. It would be bad if people think the president is going to win and then stay home.

Saturday, November 03, 2012

Good Grief...

If the president wins, I shudder to think what some of these folks will do.

Thursday, November 01, 2012

The State of the Race

The last couple of days have not been good for Mitt Romney. First we had the pants on fire car ad that has now been denounced by Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne. How anyone can think that this guy has a handle on business is beyond me. He looks like he knows what he is doing but then he says things are patently false.

Then Hurricane Sandy hit and Romney pretended to hand out canned goods, as Nikto noted yesterday. Worse, the Right looked like complete morons when the president demonstrated (yet again) that he is a capable leader in a crisis. Fictional Obama is just that.

And then there are all those new polls.

The president is now up by an average (according to the right leaning RCP) of over two points in Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada. The latter has been more or less ceded to the president by the Romney campaign. The president has made gains in Virginia, Florida and even North Carolina in the latest polls so that's where Romney has to go now if he wants to hold those states. For the most part, one can always tell where the polls really are by where the candidates go and Romney is in Virginia this morning.

If the president wins all the states that Democrats have won in the last five elections plus New Mexico (where he is way ahead now), Nevada, Iowa, and Ohio he has 277 electoral votes and he wins the election.  All of the polls out of Ohio have the president ahead by 2-5 points except Rasmussen who doesn't poll cel phone users.

Nate Silver had an interesting piece up the other day about past elections and candidates that have been up (on average) by more than two percentage points. In short, they win. The only time that hasn't happened in the last 30 years is when George HW Bush beat Bill Clinton in 1992 in Texas. Even though the polls showed Clinton up by 3.5 points, Bush won. But we didn't a poll to tell us that Bush would win Texas.

Silver has another piece which shows all the state by state polls which all basically say the same thing: the president is going to win on Tuesday. What I found most interesting about this piece is the admission that if Silver and all the other pollsters are wrong, it's going to be a monumentally bizarre occurrence and they should all, perhaps, find a new line of work!

All these polls of likely voters are the basis for my prediction next week. The president will win 290 electoral votes and Mitt Romney will win 235 with Virginia being a giant WTF, although it has been trending the president's way in the last couple of days. Even Florida has been moving back towards the president and is essentially tied. I still think Romney will win North Carolina.

Five days until the election and things are looking great for the president!

Monday, October 29, 2012

And this is the guy that is going to do a better job with our debt and deficit?

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Uncertainty Preferred

For those of you out there who are voting for Mitt Romney, I have a simple question for you: what does he stand for?

We've seen him change his mind on every conceivable issue and it's obviously beyond my comprehension why anyone would vote for him. This rings ironic when you consider that many of these same folks that are voting for Mitt Romney aren't voting for Barack Obama because they are afraid of what he might do (and what he may do has no bearing on reality, considering how he has governed and actions he has taken in the last four years).

In the final stretch of the campaign, Mitt Romney has no planned interviews and refuses to answer reporters questions about things like Richard Murdock (the only Senate candidate he has endorsed) and abortion. He simply has his staged campaign appearances and reads from his pre-ordained talking about points which seem to revolved around three things: momentum, Obama sucks, and momentum. Am I the only one that see this as a losing strategy?

If I'm wrong (and there is about a one in four chance that I am wrong), politics in this country will have taken such an ugly turn that I'm not entirely certain things would ever be the same. We'd have, as president, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch...someone willing to do or say whatever it take to get elected, including saying things that are diametrically to something he said even a few days previously. Many of you may chuckle and say, "Ah, but Mark, this is what politicians always do."

Stop and think about this for a minute. This is different. This is worse.

Now, I'm not saying that you have to love and adore President Obama and think he's a savior but you do know what you are getting with him. He's been a moderate president...cutting taxes in many ways for the middle class (the payroll tax, the stimulus), robust national security (drone attacks, getting bin Laden), passing health care (the GOP idea for an exchange with mandate, modeled after Romney's plan for MA) and expanded local oil and gas drilling. That's going to continue if he is re-elected. Anyone thinking otherwise, isn't thinking rationally.

So, if there are still any fence sitters out there or people leaning Romney, I'd like an answer of what exactly he is going to do (based on what he has said) if he is elected and why this (ahem) uncertainty is preferred.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

Geography 101

As a social studies teacher, I'm frustrated and perplexed that people haven't wondered if Mitt Romney is qualified to be president having such a poor understanding of Middle Eastern geography.

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

And There Goes The Senate

If there was any whiff at all that the GOP had a chance for the Senate, it is now completely gone.

What's the deal these guys and rape? Sheesh...

And will this hurt Mitt Romney considering this?....

Campaign Speak

Jonathan Chait has another great take on the momentum bluff coming from the Romney campaign.

Obama’s lead is narrow — narrow enough that the polling might well be wrong and Romney could win. But he is leading, his lead is not declining, and the widespread perception that Romney is pulling ahead is Romney’s campaign suckering the press corps with a confidence game.

A confidence game...that's right. In fact, they now say they are going to win handily! Why?

This is a bluff. Romney is carefully attempting to project an atmosphere of momentum, in the hopes of winning positive media coverage and, thus, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If there's one thing that the Right have in abundance, it's hubris...and it's often very unwarranted hubris. You can always see this if one looks more closely.

If you look closely at the boasts emanating from Romney’s allies, you can detect a lot of hedging and weasel-words. Rob Portman calls Ohio a “dead heat,” which is a way of calling a race close without saying it’s tied. A Romney source tells Mike Allen that Wisconsin leans their way owing to Governor Scott Walker’s “turnout operation.” That is campaign speak for “we’re not winning, but we hope to make it up through turnout.”

Over the last week, Romney’s campaign has orchestrated a series of high-profile gambits in order to feed its momentum narrative. Last week, for instance, Romney’s campaign blared out the news that it was pulling resources out of North Carolina. The battleground was shifting! Romney on the offensive! On closer inspection, it turned out that Romney was shifting exactly one staffer. It is true that Romney leads in North Carolina, and it is probably his most favorable battleground state. But the decision to have a staffer move out of state, with a marching band and sound trucks in tow to spread the news far and wide, signals a deliberate strategy to create a narrative.

If this is all his campaign is going to be for the next two weeks, I have to say that I'm relieved. Momentum? That's it?

One other thing to note...when a campaign starts talking about another campaign "resorting to blah blah blah" because they are in trouble, it's the opposite that is actually true.

Monday, October 22, 2012

The Last Debate and the Current State of The Race

Tonight is the last presidential debate and the subject is foreign policy. My prediction is that not as many people will tune in as they did to the first two debates. The simple fact is that many Americans do not care that much about foreign policy (which I think is truly a drag) and are more focused on the economy and jobs. I'd look for each candidate to try to pivot back to domestic issues as much as they can.

In addition, I don't think there will be any surprises tonight and both candidates will likely come out even and that's just about where the race is at present. Take a look at the latest polls.

General Election: Romney vs. ObamaCBS NewsRomney 46, Obama 48Obama +2
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaPolitico/GWU/BattlegroundRomney 49, Obama 47Romney +2
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaABC News/Wash PostRomney 48, Obama 49Obama +1
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaMonmouth/SurveyUSA/BraunRomney 48, Obama 45Romney +3
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaGallupRomney 51, Obama 45Romney +6
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaRasmussen ReportsRomney 49, Obama 47Romney +2
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaIBD/TIPPRomney 43, Obama 47Obama +4
General Election: Romney vs. ObamaWashTimes/JZ Analytics*Romney 47, Obama 50Obama +3

What a giant pile of muddled mess. At least in the national polls, the race is tied. But what about the states?

RCP Average10/12 - 10/21----47.645.7Obama +1.9
Suffolk10/18 - 10/21600 LV4.04747Tie
PPP (D)10/18 - 10/20532 LV4.34948Obama +1
CBS News/Quinnipiac10/17 - 10/201548 LV3.05045Obama +5
Gravis Marketing10/18 - 10/191943 LV2.24747Tie
FOX News10/17 - 10/181131 LV3.04643Obama +3
Rasmussen Reports10/17 - 10/17750 LV4.04948Obama +1
SurveyUSA10/12 - 10/15613 LV4.04542Obama +3

With Ohio, the president maintains around a 2 point lead. On election night, if the president wins Ohio, it's over. Actually, if he wins Virginia before the Ohio results are in, it's also over. Here's Virginia.

RCP Average10/4 - 10/18----48.048.0Tie
Rasmussen Reports10/18 - 10/18750 LV4.05047Romney +3
ARG10/12 - 10/14600 LV4.04847Romney +1
NBC/WSJ/Marist10/7 - 10/9981 LV3.14847Romney +1
CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac10/4 - 10/91288 LV3.04651Obama +5

I'd like to see some more polls out of Virginia other than Rasmussen who doesn't call cell phones but this one is as much of a tie as anything can be with perhaps a slight edge to Romney. If Romney wins it, then the president pretty much has to win Ohio in order to get to 270.

Another odd state these days is New Hampshire which, with its mere 4 electoral votes, could be an early indicator of how either candidate is going to do on the night.

RCP Average10/9 - 10/21----48.447.4Obama +1.0
UNH10/17 - 10/21773 LV3.55142Obama +9
PPP (D)10/17 - 10/191036 LV3.04849Romney +1
Rasmussen Reports10/15 - 10/15500 LV4.55049Obama +1
Suffolk/7News10/12 - 10/14500 LV4.44747Tie
ARG10/9 - 10/11600 LV4.04650Romney +4

The latest poll from UNH is likely way off and I'm more inclined to think that it's pretty even with the president up slightly. I'd say this last debate really isn't going to make much of a difference with the polls. Nearly everyone has decided who they are going to vote for and some have already done so.
The one thing that I just keep shaking my head at is the "Do it again, only harder" mentality of the Right. We've seen what happens when we adopt conservative policies: our country was driven into a ditch. Now there are people that want to go back to that? Why? I think a lot of it has to do with Romney's campaign slogan versus the president''s "Believe" vs. "Forward."

This is perfectly exemplified by the guy that puzzles me the pal, last in line. Obviously, I'm hoping he responds here but I just don't get how won't accept the fact the president essentially saved his 401K. He did a better job than President Bush on a score of issues and Mitt Romney has made it very clear he wants to go back to that.

I just don't get it.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

A Sunday Reflection

Today, I'm wondering how so many of the conservative Christians out there have no problem whatsoever with Mitt Romney being a Mormon. Personally, I could care less what or how he worships but my friends on the Right have assured me many times that Christian purity is of paramount importance in whichever candidate they choose.

After all, most believe that Barack Obama isn't really a Christian and is a secret Muslim. Or they think he is an agent of the Black Militia. Either way, his religion is questioned constantly yet Mitt Romey's faith is never questioned. Why is that?

Why do none of these folks have a problem with the fact that Mitt Romney thinks that God is a six foot tall man who lives on or near the planet Kolob?

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

With Friends Like These...

The subject of the Keystone Pipeline came up in last night's debate and Mitt Romney fell back on that very false talking point that the president has "blocked it." This has been shown time and again to not be true.

But Governor Romney might want to be careful about how vigorously he champions the pipeline. He might seriously tick off a very large group of heavily armed people who don't take kindly to foreigners ordering them around: Texans.

As the company pursues construction of a controversial 1,179-mile-long cross-country pipeline meant to bring Canadian tar sands oil to South Texas refineries, it's finding opposition in the unlikeliest of places: oil-friendly Texas, a state that has more pipelines snaking through the ground than any other. 

In the minds of some landowners approached by TransCanada for land, the company has broken an unspoken code. 

"This is a foreign company," Crawford said. "Most people believe that as this product gets to the Houston area and is refined, it's probably then going to be shipped outside the United States. So if this product is not going to wind up as gasoline or diesel fuel in your vehicles or mine then what kind of energy independence is that creating for us?"

Hmm...who else has been saying that for quite some time now?

TransCanada's pipeline, some landowners say, is more worrisome than those built by other companies because of the tar sands oil the company wants to transport. They point to an 800,000-gallon spill of mostly tar sands oil in Michigan's Kalamazoo River in 2010. It took Enbridge, the company that owns that pipeline, 17 hours to detect the rupture, and the cleanup is still incomplete. 

Ah, those landowners in Texas are just a bunch of fucking tree hugger hippie communists...fuckers...what right do they have?

Nearly half the steel TransCanada is using is not American-made and the company won't promise to use local workers exclusively; it can't guarantee the oil will remain in the United States. It has snatched land. Possibly most egregious: They've behaved like arrogant foreigners, unworthy of operating in Texas. 

Oh, there's that, of course.

I seem to recall a few people on here expressing unqualified support for the Keystone Pipeline and accusing those who didn't of being traitors. So, this story from AP begs the question...are Texas landowners anti-American because they won't let a Canadian company drill for oil on their land?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Thoughts on the Debate

For those of you wondering what happened to Barack Obama in the first debate need not wonder after tonight. He's back and in massively full force!!

The president did a fantastic job tonight touting his accomplishments and explaining what a second term would mean for the country. He called out Governor Romney for his blatant lies and complete policy about faces in a most excellent way. In fact, I think he spent some of his debate prep watching the videos below. For all you undecided voters out there, there's no need to listen to anyone else but Mitt Romney himself.

I wonder how long it will take (less than a second) for a "Voices in My Head" mouth foam...:)

Anyway, this calling out clearly rattled Romney and, unfortunately for Republicans, this brought out the old Mitt...repeating the same question over and over again ("Have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?")in a similar way to how he tried to bet Rick Perry $10,000...talking about binders with qualified women (?)...looking the perfect combination of hyper and flustered when told he was wrong about something (the president's post Libya comments)...among many other awkward moments that make it pretty clear that the president won the debate tonight.

On a personal note, I was shocked, I tell you, SHOCKED, to hear the president actually have the guts to say what I have been wanting someone in government to say in the last decade:

Some of those jobs aren't coming back.

Praise the Lord! Someone who is FINALLY honest about globalization. And he followed it up with a very thoughtful and intelligent comment about education and retraining workers. So what does all this mean for the race? I think it will stop the momentum that Governor Romney had and re-energize the Democrats which is really great because they are less enthusiastic about voting than the Republicans.

More importantly, I think it cements the electoral firewall the president has set up in Ohio, Wisconsin and Iowa which still makes this a very tough race for Romney to win. But it's still going to be closer than it looked before the first debate which makes it all the more exciting!