Mitt Romney proves again that he was unfit to be POTUS

From CNN -

Romney says if he were president he would have immediately pardoned Trump

Utah GOP Sen. Mitt Romney said that if he were President Joe Biden he would have “immediately pardoned” former President Donald Trump.

“Had I been President Biden, when the Justice Department brought on indictments, I would have immediately pardoned him,” Romney told MSNBC’s “The 11th Hour with Stephanie Ruhle” in an interview set to air Wednesday. “I’d have pardoned President Trump. Why? Well, because it makes me, President Biden, the big guy and the person I pardoned a little guy.”

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, faces 88 charges over four criminal indictments in Georgia; New York; Washington, DC; and Florida — with the latter two being federal cases prosecuted by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee for president, lost that race rather resoundingly.

Maybe it was due to the way that he tied his dog to the roof of his car and drove off.

Maybe it was due to the way he dismissively stated that 47% of Americans didn't pay income taxes and all of them would vote for Barack Obama "no matter what".

One can now add his desire to give Cheeto a free pass on his criminal acts to the list of reasons he was utterly unqualified to be president.

Note: To the best of my knowledge, a POTUS can only pardon someone in relation to violations of federal law, and Cheeto is facing some state charges.

I've never said anything positive about Mitt Romney, but I'll give credit where it is due. When he's right (which isn't often), he's right.

Pointed to this by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

And this applies to US Rep. Liz Cheney too.  I may never agree with her politically, and I consider the Cheney family to be almost purely evil, but right is right.

For both, I attribute it to "stopped clock syndrome" :) .

Romney gave an interview to CNN today.

From the transcript of that interview (emphasis added by me) -

[snip]

BASH: You talked several times during this interview about the world seeing the difference between good and evil.

I want to bring that closer to home and talk about something that Congresswoman Liz Cheney tweeted yesterday about sitting Republican House members appearing at a white nationalist gathering.

She said -- quote -- "As Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar speak at this white supremacist, anti-Semitic, pro-Putin event, silence by Republican Party leaders is deafening and enabling. All Americans should renounce this garbage and reject the Putin wing of the GOP now."

Do you agree?

ROMNEY: Absolutely. Liz Cheney was right with that statement. And she's been right for a long time.

And I also saw that Ronna McDaniel came out with a statement as well talking about how repugnant these white nationalists are.

Look, there's no place in either political party for this white nationalism or racism. It's simply wrong. It's -- it's -- as you have indicated, speaking of evil, it's evil as well.

And Marjorie Taylor Greene and Paul Gosar, I don't know them, but I'm reminded of that old line from the "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" movie, where one character says: "Morons. I have got morons on my team."

And I have to think anybody that would sit down with white nationalists and speak at their conference was certainly missing a few I.Q. points.

Public figures calling Paul Gosar a "moron" get some respect in my book; of course, morons everywhere are like "Really?  That was low."

2nd debate: A clear win for Obama

After watching last night's debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, I was sure that Obama won the debate handily - he was engaged, on point, and on his game, while Romney was often flustered, usually vague, and always arrogant.

However, I am also sure that I have a "bit" of a partisan bias; OK, I'm a partisan hack. :)

But I'm an honest and (I like to think a) fair one, so I decided to sleep on it before writing about my impressions of the debate in Hempstead.

Summary:  no change.  Obama won, going away.

The bottom line is that while Obama wasn't perfect, he did a very good job in Hempstead.  On the other hand, Romney in the second debate looked like the San Diego Chargers in the second half of Monday night's NFL game - even when he did something right, he followed it up with something so wrong that it more than counterbalanced the thing he did right (on Monday night, the Chargers steamrolled their way to a 24 - 0 halftime lead over the Denver Broncos, only to see that lead disappear in a litany of turnovers and penalties as the Broncos went on to win the game 35 - 24.  The word "epic" is overused these days, but it was definitely a collapse of epic proportions).

I'm not the only one who thinks that the president won the debate - even some Fox News commentators think so too -

Neil Cavuto: “The President put in a better performance tonight.”

Charles Krauthammer:  “I think on points, if you’re scoring it on points, Obama wins on points

Juan Williams:  “I think Obama won the debate.”

To be fair, the Fox News commentators did try to minimize the scale of Obama's victory, but even they couldn't deny the fact of the victory (OK, many of them weren't that honest; the spin this morning is dizzying as Fox's morning show talking heads proclaim the debate to be a resounding victory for Romney).

Two takeaways from last night's debate:

- "Binders full of women" is the second debate's "Big Bird" moment. 

During the first debate, Romney pledged to balance the federal budget by cutting the federal subsidy to PBS, which broadcasts the beloved Sesame Street with Big Bird, among many other educational programs.

During the days after the debate, Romney was hammered with that comment

During the second debate, Romney responded to a question about his position on the issue of women not receiving equal pay for equal work by telling a story about how he had "binders full of women" available to him while he was filling cabinet positions as governor of Massachusetts.  He managed to sound evasive and condescending at the same time.

And has been getting hammered with that comment.

- The other takeaway has been a little lost in the rhetorical hubbub surrounding the "binders" comment and the other moments of interest during the debate (like Romney blaming gun violence in America on single mothers), but "please proceed, Governor" stands a chance of becoming a catchphrase meaning "you are doing such a good job of hanging yourself that I don't need to help you.  Much.  Here, have a little more rope."

During the exchange over the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during an attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Romney claim that Obama didn't call the attack an "act of terror" for two weeks.  The President responded that he did so the next day.  Romney thought he had the president on this point and honed in on it, reiterating his position and demanding that the president affirm or change his.  The president responding wth "Please proceed, Governor."

Romney did so, and was immediately fact-checked by debate moderator Candy Crowley, who pointed out that the president did, in fact, call the attack an act of terror the very next day.

It's probably doesn't help the credibility of a candidate to accuse another candidate of lying and then to turn around be caught lying himself.  Jus' sayin'...

If you didn't see the debate, the full debate video is available here, courtesy Huffington Post.  It's a little over 90 minutes long and well worth a look for those who wish to form their own opinions, something we should all do.

Takeaway from the debate: Mitt took round one on style points

...and rounds two and three can, and I expect will, have different outcomes.

Romney pluses:  Stated clearly and (for now) kept to his positions confidently, even aggressively.  Frequently interrupted and/or ignored the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, making it appear that Romney was in control of the debate.

Romney minuses: In spite of that, he didn't land a body blow, or even seriously sting President Obama, and he needed to do so tonight.

Obama pluses:  He had facts on his side, and he stayed calm and composed in the face of Romney's incessant lies and attacks.

Obama minuses:  He didn't call out Romney on the lies, letting a huge TV audience walk away from the event with the impression that Obama may not have the spine to stand up to Romney.


While the debate was a "win" for Romney, barely, the talking heads on the cable news networks think that this was a major "game changing" victory for Romney, and a brutal loss for Obama.

The problem with the talking heads is that they think like Washington insiders and expect that everyone else thinks the same way.

For them, the nuances of Simpson-Bowles, tax policy, and the deficit are the most vital topics of the day (and they certainly are important).

However, most parents with hearts will have a far more visceral reaction when their 3-year old cries -

"Mommy/Daddy!  Please don't vote for the man who wants to kill Big Bird!"

I can't take credit for the following pics from my Facebook friends, but they may illustrate the real takeaway from the debate for most people -

"Obama went after bin Laden; Romney is going after Big Bird".

 

 

 

 

 

Short Attention Span Musing

...Just a few things to think about on this, Labor Day 2012...

...Thank you unions for all the hard work, sweat, and sacrifice needed to get things like bans on child labor, overtime, sick time, vacations, holidays, safe working conditions, and more made a standard part of American culture.

While I've summed up their contributions in a single sentence, that's because there just aren't enough words in the English language to pay proper homage to those that truly deserve the title of "hero".


...During the Republican primary, Mitt Romney famously declared that he "likes firing people". 

Well, my guess is that he is going to particularly enjoy firing the political consultants who stage-managed last week's Republican convention in Tampa, whoever they might be.

Not because his acceptance speech hasn't been well-received, nor has he received the traditional post-convention "bounce" in public opinion polls.

Nope.  The managers of the show called the Republican National Convention (and yes, the Democratic Convention will be just as tightly-plotted and controlled) allowed their boss to be upstaged by an old guy talking to a chair.

On national television.

On the biggest night of his political life.

Probably not the sort of epic failure that any political operative wants on his/her resume.


...One of the big media memes today was the question "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" 

First made famous more than three decades ago by Republican Ronald Reagan while he was campaigning for president against Democrat Jimmy Carter, the Republicans have started trotting it out against President Obama.  Mostly in hopes that the American people have forgotten who actually presided over the cratering of America's economy.  They haven't.

The Republicans reacted with glee, however, when MD Governor Martin O'Malley and a couple of other Obama surrogates fumbled when faced with that question.

Well, let me be unequivocal -

I, and we, are better off today than four years ago.

While the economy is far from perfect, four years ago, the reality was poor and the outlook worse, with no end (recovery) in sight.  An Arizona-focused report on the economy, courtesy the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) is here. 

Today, the recovery is ongoing, even if stunted somewhat by Republican obstructionism in DC and elsewhere. 

The best chart in support of that is this one, courtesy The Maddow Blog -

...Maybe America's unemployed and underemployed should follow the lead of one of the Republican Party's standard-bearers and just "massage" their resumes. 

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer -

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan has been described as dazzling, but several fact checkers say his words aren’t exactly that.

 

After his convention speech Thursday, a Fox News writer described it as deceiving and distracting. A Mitt Romney pollster, Neil Newhouse, told buzzfeed.com “we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”

 

{snip}

 

In a radio interview last week with conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, Ryan said his personal best time for 26.2 miles was “Under three [hours], high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something.”

 

{snip]

 

Turns out Ryan didn’t come anywhere close to the 3-hour mark in his only marathon, according to Runner’s World, who looked into his bogus claim.

Based on Ryan's habitual lying and his continued veneration by the R establishment, I should be able to claim that I was there taking pictures when the late Neil Armstong walked on the moon in 1969, and be able to do so without repercussion, right?

I mean, I was all of three years old when Armstrong made his historic walk, but that just means that I was a prodigy, right?*

Armstrong on the moon.  Pic courtesy NASA.

* In case you couldn't tell, I did NOT take pictures on the moon, in 1969 or any other year.  Us writer-types have an arrow in our literary quiver called "hyperbole."  I used it here.

Romney: No new gun laws because they won't prevent all 'bad things'

Interesting.  Mitt Romney's response to calls for discussion of possible new gun laws, calls stemming from last week's massacre in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado is that we shouldn't do so because no laws will remove all "bad things" from society.

From Yahoo! News, written by Holly Bailey -

Mitt Romney suggested new gun control legislation likely wouldn't stop a massacre like last week's movie theater shooting in Colorado, but "changing the heart of the American people" possibly would.

Romney made the comment during an interview with NBC's Brian Williams in London, the first stop of the presumptive Republican nominee's seven-day overseas tour.

NBC released an early excerpt of the interview, scheduled to air on Wednesday's NBC Nightly News:

{snip}

[Quoting Romney in the interview] And so we can sometimes hope that just changing the law will make all bad things go away. It won't.

Under that line of reasoning, we wouldn't have drug laws (it's not like drug use has decreased under those laws, much to the immense joy and profit of the prison industrial complex), we wouldn't have traffic laws (people still do unsafe things with motor vehicles, no matter what the law says), or, for that matter, we wouldn't have most criminal laws (murder, rape, robbery, etc, still happen even though all of those things are "illegal").

The attitude exhibited by Romney in this matter is almost Libertarian.

I know that Romney changes his policy positions almost as often as the rest of us change our socks, but does anything about Romney scream "Libertarian", except when laissez-faire policies benefit him personally?

Romney crashes the Antoinette family reunion

OK, not really, but he spent the weekend partying with his friends in the Hamptons, and charging the "friends" $50K a head for that rather dubious privilege.

But at least he wasn't gauche enough to make the party "BYOB"...

h/t to Taegan Goddard's Political Wire for the heads-up on this

From the LA Times, written by Maeve Reston -

As protesters assembled on a beach in advance of Mitt Romney's evening event at the home of conservative billionaire David Koch, the candidate slipped to East Hampton for his first of three fundraisers on this tony stretch of Long Island.

The line of Range Rovers, BMWs, Porsche roadsters and one gleaming cherry red Ferrari began queuing outside of Revlon Chairman Ronald Perelman's estate off Montauk Highway long before Romney arrived, as campaign aides and staffers in white polo shirts emblazoned with the logo of Perelman's property -- the Creeks -- checked off names under tight security.

The "Antoinette" quote came a little later in the story -

A New York City donor a few cars back, who also would not give her name, said Romney needed to do a better job connecting. "I don't think the common person is getting it," she said from the passenger seat of a Range Rover stamped with East Hampton beach permits. "Nobody understands why Obama is hurting them.

"We've got the message," she added. "But my college kid, the baby sitters, the nails ladies -- everybody who's got the right to vote -- they don't understand what's going on. I just think if you're lower income -- one, you're not as educated, two, they don't understand how it works, they don't understand how the systems work, they don't understand the impact."

"They don't understand"??  WTF?!? 

People understand that while the economy has grown over the last few decades, the vast majority of the benefits of that have helped only the wealthiest 1%.

And we understand that Romney will work only to widen the economic disparity that is devastating America.

Romney is widely viewed as aloof, dismissive and out of touch with the average American (if "average" means 99% of us).

It seems that his plan to remedy that, if there is a plan at all, is to hang out people who may actually be more contemptuous of America and Americans than him, and hope that he looks good by comparison.

Given that he pulled this stunt on the weekend before President Obama proposed helping America's middle class by extending the Bush-era tax cuts on income under $250K, I think he needs a new plan.

Ken Bennett learning lessons at Mitt Romney's knee

...And so crappie season begins...

Mitt Romney is renowned for his penchant to change his position on an issue, any issue, when he thinks it may be politically expedient.

He may be the consummate flip-flopper in American politics today.

Now Ken Bennett, Arizona's Secretary of State and Romney's campaign co-chair in AZ, is flip-flopping on a fundamental issue for his own political expediency.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez -

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who oversees state elections, reversed his stance on endorsing candidates this election cycle, saying detractors would still criticize him based on endorsements he made years ago.

During a televised debate with his Democratic opponent in 2010, Bennett, a Republican, told the audience it was improper for elections officials to weigh in on partisan issues.

Bennett is now co-chairman for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Arizona campaign.

"I do not feel it's appropriate that I take a position on either the propositions that the voters will be voting on, or endorsing candidates in elections," Bennett said.

Bennett has gone far beyond merely flip-flopping on the issue by endorsing Romney; he has crossed a serious ethical line by using his office to attempt to remove President Obama from the Arizona ballot to ensure that his candidate, Romney, has a clear path to Arizona's 10 electoral votes.

He truly deserves to be removed from office for abusing it so, but that is beyond my power as an individual.  That will be up to the voters in 2014 (maybe sooner if his arrogance in office inspires a recall drive).

Still, I can only award him the first Crappie Award of 2012 for the flip-flop.

For his shamelessly acrobatic flip-flop, Ken Bennett wins the most (not) cherished award of the election season - The Crappie...

Hey, at least Bennett and the rest of the birthers shouldn't have reason to whine about this particular type of crappie - this particular breed of crappie is called the "white crappie."

Romney may be the king of flip flops, but he is consistent about one thing: his endless supply of contempt for people who work for a living

Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on pretty much every issue under the political sun, usually changing his positions based on the audience he was/is trying to tailor his message to.

However, one thing he has been completely consistent about is his utter disregard for people who work for a living. 

When he ran Bain Capital, Bain's business MO (modus operandi) was to acquire successful companies cheap and run them into the ground in the way most profitable to Mitt and his cronies.

That way always included cutting the pay and benefits of the workers who made those companies successful before Mitt et. al. came along.

Mitt may not be "in business" any longer, at least officially, but his attitude toward people who work for a living hasn't changed one bit.

From Govexec.com (a publication of the National Journal) -

"We will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve," Romney said.

One of the great right-wing talking points is that federal workers, indeed all government workers, are paid more than private sector workers in the same fields. 

There is some debate on the subject, but there is one thing that Mitt's (and the Republicans') talking point blithely ignores -

Any "pay gap" between the public and private sectors is due, at least in part, to the stagnation and diminution of the compensation of private sector workers, not to a skyrocketing of government worker compensation.

Romney is already setting up his rationalization for gut-punching the one sector of the American middle class that has held up relatively well during the attack on the overall middle class over the last few decades.

By contrast, President Obama shows a healthy respect for people who work for a living.

From the American Society for Public Administration -

Each day, our country benefits from the efforts of dedicated federal, state and local government employees who do their jobs with pride and passion. So many of these men and women work tirelesly on behalf of their fellow citizens to confront the challenges impacting our communities and our nation. During Public Service Recognition Week, we recognize these committed civil servants and honor their efforts to ensure a brighter future for the next generation.

President Obama isn't perfect (who is?), but he understands that there is a difference between being a leader working to restore American economic vitality and being a vampire sucking the economic life out of the American middle class for personal profit..

Romney Economics: Bankruptcy and Bailouts at GST Steel

And before any Republican readers of this blog (yes, there are a few :) ) whine about "class warfare" or some such claptrap, I would remind you of observations of one Newt Gingrich, hardly a champion of the middle class -

Gingrich has maintained that negative and false ads launched by Romney supporters dragged his campaign down from a onetime frontrunner late last year.

He said Romney is a Massachusetts moderate “would be pretty good at managing the decay of Washington” with little hope of changing the culture of American politics.

Mitt Romney's business career isn't the epitome of economic capitalism, it's the epitome of economic cannibalism.

Dogs (and dog owners) rally against Romney in Tempe Friday

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is holding an event in Tempe tomorrow. 

It won't be the only event in Tempe tomorrow.

The (all new!) D26 Democrats and other folks who cherish our four-legged friends will be on hand to remind Romney that cruelty to animals isn't an endearing quality in candidates for public office.

From an email -

Dogs Against Romney Tempe Rally

What: Protest Mitt Romney's Tempe Rally
When: This Friday, 2:00pm!
Where: Papago Dog Park (NE corner of Curry and College in Tempe)

RSVP: On our website, on Facebook, or email us today!

Time to state the obvious: Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee

...Yes, for months it has seemed likely that Romney would be the nominee in spite of his tepid support (at best) among the tea party/most extreme wing of the GOP.  Every few weeks, a new darling of the screamers arose, only to fall by the wayside as their (metaphorical) warts were exposed by the glare of the light of scrutiny that all front-runners face.

Still, it's a large field, meaning that a candidate could win a state's primary/caucus with 20 - 25% of the vote.

Only now the field is getting smaller, without anyone actually getting out of the race.

From Time Magazine, written by Will Lester -

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have failed to qualify for Virginia's March 6 Republican primary, a setback in their bids for the Republican presidential nomination.

Also not on the ballot, courtesy the Arlington County (VA) GOP - Michelle Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Rick Santorum, and Gary Johnson.

That leaves Romney on the VA ballot alone with Ron Paul. 

Now, Paul has a small but dedicated core group of followers in the far-right reaches of the Republican Party, but his usually extreme (even by the GOP's standards) positions make him all but unelectable in a contested general election.

His party's poo-bahs (insiders and power brokers) won't allow him to get even within sniffing difference of the actual nomination, though he may win a few primaries or caucuses.

In the end, the R nominee will be Romney, with someone like Chris Christie or Tim Pawlenty as the VP candidate.

Next November's election will be about returning Barack Obama to office, perhaps with a Congress that won't be dedicated to keeping the economy cratered for political gain, or returning to the blindly pro-greed and pro-corporate bottom line policies that got the US and world into this mess.

Note: as of this writing, Romney and Paul are the only two "major" candidates on the ballot for Arizona's Republican primary, though the others have another couple of weeks to submit their names.