Tag Archives: romney

The Fascist Ratsocrats strike again

I like this story from Politico. Once again, the ratsocrats think they are special, and they want to be able to veto the president’s appointees. The ratsocrats have no respect for the law. The only thing they care about is their own power, and its perpetuation.

Well, I think having the FEC hamstrung until President Romney is sworn in would be just ducky. I’d like to think that the republicans in Congress took the time to actually read the Bill of Rights, and noticed for the first time the words “Congress shall make no law…”

I can just see it: Mitch McConnell had to poo really bad, and the only thing he could find in a hurry to take with him to read was a 1977 copy of Newsweek (Jimmy Carter wearing a cardigan on the cover), and a little pamphlet of the Constitution and all the amendments. He comes out of the cloakroom bathroom, and clears his throat nervously and asks uncomfortably, “Now, when this says ‘Congress,’ are they talking about us?” Heads nod all around.

“What does this word ‘no’ mean, as in ‘no law’?” Surely it doesn’t really mean NO law!” Someone looks up the word “no.” They are all shocked. They look around for Fellatio Boy, hoping that he will perhaps be able to provide a different spin on this word’s meaning. But Fellatio Boy isn’t there, he is giving mouth-to-mouth 24/7 to Fellatio Girl’s campaign (using a dental dam, I am quite certain).

“Now, if we pass a law restricting freedom of speech on candidates for election to federal office, wouldn’t that be a law, so, how can we do that if this thing says NO law?”

Silence fills the room as they realize they have made perhaps a little boo boo.

This is what I’d like to think happened. Bye bye, McCain-Feingold!

Is Romney a flip flopper? Mitt’s change of heart on abortion

One of the troubling things about Mitt Romney is something of a pattern of “convenient” changes of position, notably on abortion. As a candidate for governor and senator in Massachusetts, Romney was pro choice, a stance which could be fairly described as “well calculated” for maximizing his electoral prospects in that state. Now, as a candidate for the republican nomination, he is pro life, also a well calculated position.

There are other topics on which his public views have apparently changed, where he has changed to a position more likely to see him nominated. This raises the very fair question, what does he really believe? Can we believe anything he says, given an apparent tendency to change what he claims to believe apparently based on his calculations of political advantage?

Romney addressed the abortion point on Russert’s show this morning. I was struck favorably by his detailed description of the specific situation which caused him to change his mind. To me, his story has the ring of truth, and his story is supported by the public record. I was also struck by his remark that, although he changed his mind about the government’s proper role in the abortion issue, he honored the promise he made while campaigning for governor, that he would not seek to change the state’s laws on abortion.

I am convinced that Romney would prefer to see an America where abortion was essentially banned, with narrow exceptions rooted in the preservation of life. However, I am also convinced that he is not going to make abortion law the centerpiece of his administration. It is clear that the nation will not support such a dramatic change in the status quo at the moment. I think Romney would resist expansions of government-sponsored activity that threatens human life, and would gladly seize upon opportunities to roll back the destruction of human life. I would be satisfied with that. It would be wrong for the president to attempt to violently impose a revolution in abortion law on the nation.

So, is he a flip flopper? I think he is. He has changed his tune on several other topics: immigration and gun control, notably. But when you drill down on the change of tune, there is a similar story. Romney talks a lot about what he is going to seek to do, in a fairly pragmatic, concrete manner. He views these remarks as a kind of contract with the electorate: vote for me, and this is what I am going to try to do. Not surprisingly, his description of what he is going to try do changes depending on the position he is seeking, and the electorate he is seeking to represent, or to lead.

I can live with this kind of flip flopping, as long as he accurately describes what he is going to try to do, and substantially sticks to it.

I liked his response to Russert, that if you are looking for someone who never changes his mind, no matter what, then Romney is not your guy. When I was hiring people at my consultancy, I used to ask more experienced candidates to tell me about a time when they changed their mind about a matter of some importance. I had a hard time hiring someone who claimed he never changed his mind. Real life just doesn’t work that way. Who is always right from the very beginning?

I think Romney holds the right core principles. I am more persuaded after seeing this interview that we can trust what he says.

Ask all the candidates about their underwear

Fellatio Girl

Apparently, a reporter from the Atlantic mag asked Mitt if he wears the Garment, a sacred one-piece knee length undergarment.  He should have said with a straight face, “oh man, once you’ve gone commando, you never go back.” 

His answer was somewhat more dignified. It boiled down to “none of your fucking business.”

I do think the press should now ask all the candidates about their underwear.  In fact, I think all future press conferences held by fellatio girl should deal exclusively with underwear.