NEWS: Tactical Animal: Regarding The Pain Of Being Right…Or More Reasons Mitt Romney Will Never Be Your President

CULTURE: Tactical Animal: Regarding The Pain Of Being Right…Or More Reasons Mitt Romney Will Never Be Your President

by ChrisSick

In which we provide a brief update on the ongoing self-destruction of one Willard Mitt Romney.

Let me take you a bit behind the curtain, dear reader. We have a bit of a turnaround time here at the ol' SG Blog, so on Sunday night I wrote:

Writing Sunday for publication Tuesday means that I wrote that, went to bed and woke up Monday to read:

So the Romney campaign has a great new strategy, they're finally going to tell us how they plan to slash taxes for the wealthy, increase military spending, and somehow pay down the debt despite reduced revenues and increased spending. I don't know about you, but I'm excited to hear this. Mostly because whenever Ed Gillespie speaks, my Intrade shares for President Obama's win become that much more valuable.

It's an exciting turn for the Romney campaign, and — to the rest of us — a patently obvious attempt to change the conversation from, among other failures, a long Politico article that describes the Romney Campaign as, more or less, a complete fucking shambles:

These sort of articles — rampant with finger-pointing, blame-gaming, and the like — are, naturally, pretty common affairs. Typically, though, they wait until after the goddamn election is over before they start the mad scramble to blame one another for their collective failure to get their candidate elected.

I knew, when I wrote Sunday that we were seeing the death throes of the Romney campaign, and that things were going to start getting weird. By which, I mean, more weird than “Lemon. Wet. Good.”

But, the icing on top of the shit-cake of sadness for the Romney campaign began to break yesterday, when video surfaced via Mother Jones of Romney speaking at a private fundraiser earlier this year.

This is Mitt Romney telling you how he really feels and you can add this to what is now a long and growing list of The Moment(s) Mitt Romney Lost the Election. November is coming like a bad hangover, there's 48 days until election day as of this writing, and in 49 days we'll be severely spoilt for choice about when, exactly, Mitt Romney Lost the Election.

But this week will surely be in the top contenders, and in closing, I'll let a much more talented writer than myself, but just as much at a loss for words as I am, sum it up:

Related Posts
Tactical Animal: Have You Got Yourself The Belly For It?
Tactical Animal: Sorry Folks, Election’s Over, Donkey Out Front Shoulda Told Ya
Tactical Animal: Politics In The Post-Truth Era
Tactical Animal: Now We’ve Got Ourselves A Race

Yep. What more can you say, really?

Until tomorrow or the next day when Mittens will again open his mouth and say something even more unbelievably stupid/crass/hypocritical.

The good thing is, you'll never run out of material until the election is over and the votes (hopefully) counted. That's the bad thing, too.

Don't get carpal tunnel from all the typing.

Every new news story is like Christmas and free rimjob day all rolled into for me.

why is he called mittens

Basically it's just a juvenile play on his name; digging at him the same way conservatives say 'NObama', or 'Billary' when Clinton was in office. We on the left really ought to be better than that, and take the high road of attacking him on his awful, awful ideas.

Oh, come on.

There is nothing wrong (on either side) with a little mockery.

Mitt has my vote!

Mock if you want to, but it cheapens your argument. If your goal is to change someone's opinion, you lessen your chances. I know if I'm reading a politics-related post, or having a discussion with someone, and they use a phrase like 'NObama', or 'Billary', or 'Mittens' I automatically reach the conclusion that the person has nothing of importance to say, so I usually stop reading, or listening.

Because it's funny.

Also, it makes me think of tiny adorable kittens, which surely can't be a bad thing for Romney. Right? Everyone loves kittens.

Does context matter? Would you have the same reaction seeing Team Mittens in my column as you would if I were commenting on the CE boards? Or vice-versa?

This isn't meant to be argumentative, I'm curious.

To some extent, but in the context of me be somewhat familiar with your posts and view-points.

Whether it's in a column or comment, your posts are mostly well-written and well-informed, so I ignore the occasional 'Mittens' thrown in every now and again, because I know from past experience that it's worth taking the time to read your posts.

However, if I were a brand-new member, unfamiliar with your writing, and either on the fence or conservative-leaning but open to counter arguments, I might not read too far. Especially if you open up with a 'Mittens' before getting into substantive points about why Romney would be an awful president.

What amazes me is that the more liberal among us utterly refuse to learn from history and seem to have no way to process the concept of increased revenue via more transactions.

In the '80s we reduced taxes and there was a huge surge of revenue to the federal treasury. Period. It's fact. I know you Obamaites don't want to hear that but it's true. I suspect even Obama knows it (remember he said you don't raise taxes in a recession but Obamacare is going to do just that anyway).

How this happens is that when you lower taxes people engage in more economic activity, they buy more, do more, because the hurdle is lower and they mind less giving over a chunk of change to the government.

When taxes are high, it discourages and depresses economic activity. This is obvious to anybody who has ever bought two or three items of something on sale. It's common sense.

The great JFK knew this too if you check your history books kiddies - he also lowered taxes to grow the economy. It's only the modern democrat it seems that wants to encourage class warfare with the mantra that the rich need to pay more. You're being deceived and lied to by a party that wants to divide the nation among class lines and convince you that the rich aren't paying enough when they already pay 90% of the taxes. They want to convince you that the very businesses that hire people and give you a job aren't paying enough in taxes. So, what happens, is they increase taxes, business can't expand or hire you, you go on welfare and complain about your lot in life, your self esteem is destroyed, and a nice RICH democrat the Obama convinces you that the rich aren't paying enough yet. You folks that want this cycle are nothing but tools to the democrats that are using you for their own power.

A powerful central government is only for the elites which is why the U.S. constitution was framed to decentralize power. You folks that vote for Obama are only undermining your own liberty and making yourself more dependent on the scraps the democrats toss at you. It's so so sad. You're being used folks. Try this... look up JFK... see what he did.... he's a hero. By the democratic standards of today they wouldn't even let him in the front door.

I often have the same thought about conservatives. They seem to be completely ignorant of a little thing called The Great Depression. They also seem to have no knowledge of 'Hoovernomics', even though it's exactly the same thing as 'Reaganomics' and what the Republicans are still trying to sell to this day; trickle-down economics. It has never and will never work.

I realize you don't want to hear this, but, ummm....Reagan raised taxes in the 1980s. Oh, he lowered them first, to the point that, had he not done something to offset the lost revenue, we were headed right back into the Great Depression.

So, umm...yeah.

Link

Let me help you out here, someone actually did "learn from history" those liberal slackers at the Congressional Research Service (cough, actually a nonpartisan gov't agency, in case the sarcasm didn't land) recently studied six decades worth of data between tax policy and economic activity. How fortuitous for us! What'd they find, you ask?

Also?

There's a big correlation/causality issue when stating that Reagen's tax cuts from--off the top of my head-- ~70% to ~40% helped economic growth, but even if we grant the premise, it wouldn't be shocking that halving the highest tax rate would stimulate economic activity.

But taxes are at incredibly historic lows, there are virtually no taxes to cut and still have the sort of government most Americans want.

So what else you got besides snide, condescending bullshit that's easily disproven?

True, kittens are so cute, wobbly, unable to care for themselves sucking on a teet. Exactly who we want for a Prez.

Maybe I'm being too much of a liberal dreamer and conservative realists here but I think both parties are totally fucked up and if either one of them are given a majority control of the government we're going to head towards a ditch on either side of the road. Both sides think they have all the answers and that the other sides idiots and liars. I've learned that there are three sides to ever conflict. That side, this side and the reality in the middle. The Reality is, neither side has all the answer and if either side had total control it would all implode.

I hate to agree with Obama, because I don't much have a lot of respect for him as a President, although I think his intentions are good, but he said it best; "You can't change Washington from the inside." It's probably one of the more honest things he's said... and yes, I'm being a little a harsh and no it's not because I'm a racist piece of shit.

The reality is that both parties are corrupted by decades, if not centuries, of political aristocracy and privilege. Neither of them have the Nation's (or it's peoples) best interest in mind. Instead, they are focused on the interest of their largest constituency; the big corporations, foreign governments, Labor Unions, Religious organizations, and secular special interest groups. Oh, and lets not forget their own Party.

Every benefit we Americans get from either groups political activities is a by-product or necessary collateral that has resulted from their personal and Party pursuits.

The entire system needs to be changed from the ground up. The President needs to be an Independent President who truly has the nations best interest in mind...maybe even a more 'common' man than what we have traditionally associated with the position of POTUS. After all, the 'non-official' requirements for being President are at the very center of the debate of social and economic inequality. The VP needs to be of an opposing Party to the President... get some balance in the decision making in the White House for fuck sake.

Appointments should be made based on who is best for the Job and not what Party they represent, thus the necessity for an Independent President... and there should be some serious and documented job qualifications for those appointments. I'm tired of some douche bag small business guy getting appointed to an Office because he shook the Presidents hand when he was a Freshman in college and got some girl to give him a blowjob at a Frat party.

The policies regarding social issues should be overseen by a committee of politicians that has a majority in the Democratic Party, with enough Conservative members to maintain a balance and ensure that its not a carte blanch to go ape shit with the dispensing of social justice.

As a side note: anything that has to do with womens rights needs to be overseen ENTIRELY by a sub-committee of women. Fuck balance. Until men have a uterus, and a pair of tits their friends stare at all day, they need to shut the fuck up and let women make their own decisions

The economic and foreign policies need to be overseen by a committee of Conservative majority with a similar balance of Democratic representation to ensure they don't start dropping nukes on ever Islamic nation in the world.

Both committees need to be forced to spend every waking hour with each other and not be allowed to scuttle off to their own parties every chance they get were they can talk shit about their fellow committee members and re-enforce their own messed and one sided world views.... that's 80% of the problem right now; the other 20% is a blend of bullheadedness, meanness and plain stupidity.

Yes yes... by now you are saying 'this guy is a idiot with no idea how the system works' It doesn't matter how the system works because the system isn't working now. The Parties can't work together and get shit fixed in Washington. The POTUS even says it has to be fixed from the outside but we can't fix that shit because we can't even agree about politics on a website filled with beautiful woman who are naked.

This is why I remain relatively certain that it doesn't matter who wins this election.. we are going to continue to be screwed, because a species we don't know what to do with ourselves if we aren't involved in some level of strife.

Neither of the major parties are ideal stewards of the public trust, beyond question. But there are substantive differences between their policies, ideals, and actions. There are differences between the calibre of person they have selected to be their nominee for the highest office in this country. It absofuckinglutely matters which one we back during the next election, most of all for president but throughout lesser races as well.

I think it actually matters much more at lower level races than at the Presidential level, myself. Having Mitt Romney in the White House would be horrible, but it would be horrible in large part because he's so beholden to his base and so afraid to stand up to them.

The lesson Republicans learned over the last few cycles, was the importance of controlling statehouses, controlling local and statewide election boards, and state Supreme Courts. There they could implement the agenda that's stalemated at a Federal level. They can't get Roe v. Wade overturned, but they can get local zoning boards to dramatically restrict the ability of abortion clinics to operate, or get statehouses to pass laws mandating pre-procedure "consultations" or ultrasounds. They can get implement draconian voter ID laws, they can redistrict long-time Democrats out of existence and create super-safe seats for Republicans.

I don't even have the energy right now to address (yet again) the "there's no difference" argument.

Scariest of all: Romney appointed Supreme Court Justices.

No lie. I guess the amended message is:

Be afraid. Be very motherfucking afraid.

Seriously. If it was just Romney, we could shrug it off. 4 years of ineffective government, then sit back and watch Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren grind Romney into a fine paste. No biggie, really. But in the next 5 years, I expect between 1 and 3 retirements on the Supreme court, (Ginsberg, Kennedy, possibly Breyer. Scalia as a long shot). If Ginsberg is replaced by a Thomas or even a Roberts, we're fucked for a generation. But, if we can get 2 Obama-nominated Justices, there is a chance to undo some of the fuckups of the last decade.

I don't disagree, but a lot of those lower level races are foregone conclusions. My congresswoman is Betty McCollum (a Democrat) and is almost certainly going to stay that way until she voluntarily cedes the seat. As much as Romney looks like he's going to lose right now, a bunch of left-leaning voters staying home on election day could easily change that.

I'd really hope it's clear I would not and do not advocate any voter stay home on election day...

...a few of them could stand to read some more before they leave the house, however.

Not what I meant. I'm just saying: if your local elections are contested, they certainly have the potential to be just as important or more so than the presidential election. But that one's going to be important for everyone.