The Romney File

[Tiassa]

Willardistillery

Willardistillery

A little-noticed line in a Politico article last week: "Advisers say the [Romney] campaign has no plans to pivot from its previous view that diving into details during a general-election race would be suicidal."

This is the same Romney campaign that in April blasted President Obama for keeping is policy outlook secret. At the time, it was of course worth a chuckle because Romney was trying to hit Obama for policy outlooks that are already on the record. The crowning irony, of course, was when Mitt Romney explained, "Unlike President Obama, you don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are."

Maybe it's a good line. Not great, but it could be a pretty good zinger. Except, of course, for that pesky thing called reality.

As Stephen F. Hayes noted in April:

But Romney, ever cautious, is reluctant to get specific about the programs he would like to kill. He did this in his bid for the Senate 18 years ago and remembers the political ramifications.

“One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don't care about education,” Romney recalled. “So I think it's important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we'll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I'm not going to give you a list right now.”​

It would seem that, much like his tax returns, policy specifics are something Mitt Romney would like to keep close to the vest because some might criticize the details. Indeed, one could be forgiven for wondering if Mitt Romney thinks he's running for sixth-grade class president; then again, perhaps he wouldn't tip his hand about whether or not to use class funds to get a Coke machine.

You don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are.​

That was April. This is now. Etch-a-Sketch, anyone?

Well, not for this, apparently. Jennifer Bendery explains:

Mitt Romney started to lay out his energy plan at a Tuesday event, but because there were reporters in the room, he decided against doing so.

During a Houston fundraiser, Romney told a room of about 125 donors that he planned to unveil his comprehensive energy plan this week. He said his proposal will specifically relate to fossil-based fuels. But then, he said no more.

"I know that we have members of the media here right now, so I'm not going to go through that in great detail," Romney said, according to a pool report from the event.​

Well, so much for that?

You don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are.​

Perhaps one need not wait until after the election to find out what Mitt Romney believes in, or what he plans. But, apparently, you do need to be a rich Republican donor in a secure room at a secret location where nobody else will ever hear what Mitt Romney believes in, or what he plans.

You don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are.

I know that we have members of the media here right now, so I'm not going to go through that in great detail.​

This is Mitt Romney, distilled for consumption. Kind of like a zen martini; there's nothing there at all.
____________________

Notes:

Allen, Mike and Jim Vandehei. "Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan pursue united front strategy". Politico. August 17, 2012. Politico.com. August 22, 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79814.html

Hayes, Stephen F. "Risk-Averse Romney". The Weekly Standard. Vol. 17, No. 28. April 2, 2012. TheWeeklyStandard.com. August 22, 2012. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/risk-averse-romney_634427.html

Bendery, Jennifer. "Mitt Romney To Donors: I Would Explain My Energy Plan, But Reporters Are Here". The Huffington Post. August 21, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. August 22, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/21/mitt-romney-energy-plan_n_1819682.html

 

[Tiassa]

Sugar Me This ....

You are Still Going to Die One Day. Deal With It.

Today in Endorsements We Didn't Need ....

Why is Romney raising more money than Obama? The answer may lie in which candidate do millionaires prefer in this upcoming Presidential Election. SeekingArrangement.com, the world's largest sugar daddy dating website, posed this question to over 10,000 of its American Sugar Daddy members after Romney announced Paul Ryan as his running mate.

While Sugar Babies preferred Obama to Romney by a ratio of almost 3 to 1, wealthy Sugar Daddies on the other hand agreed with the website's endorsement of Mitt Romney for President earlier this year:

* 42.06% said they prefer Romney
* 34.59% said they prefer Obama
* 14.65% said they prefer neither candidates
* 8.71% said they are undecided

The poll further asked each respondent how much money they have or will contribute to their preferred candidate's campaign. Over 73.2% of the Romney millionaires say they have or will contribute an average of $1,758 to his campaign, while only 58.1% of the Obama millionaires say they have or will contribute an average of $1,192 to his campaign.

"While poorer female sugar babies had chosen Obama over Romney by 3 to 1 in an earlier poll, millionaires in America prefer Romney for President," says Brandon Wade, Founder & CEO of SeekingArrangement.com. "What is significant is that millionaires who support Romney are more willing to contribute money to his campaign than are millionaires who support Obama. Romney will have a significant fund-raising edge with millionaires over Obama in this upcoming election."

(qtd. in Marshall)​

As for the commentary: "So wealthy men who think they can buy love favor Mitt Romney?" asks Paul Constant. "Who could've possibly seen that coming?"

Well, duh. Nothing like low-hanging fruit, especially where sugar daddies are involved. As punch lines go, there is obvious, and then there is that.

Caveats: "If it's occurred to you that a site that's in the sugar daddy business might not be the most reliable when it comes to statistical methodology and best practices," note TPM editors, "yeah, that occurred to us too. But we figure you know that."

And, as Constant pointed out: "Confidential to sugar daddies: No matter how young your girlfriends and wives get, you are still going to die one day. Deal with it."
____________________

Notes:

Marshall, John. "Romney Owning Rich Goober Vote". Talking Points Memo. August 22, 2012. TalkingPointsMemo.com. August 22, 2012. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/romney_owning_rich_goober_vote.php

Constant, Paul. "Sugar Daddies for Romney". Slog. August 22, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. August 22, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/08/22/sugar-daddies-for-romney

 

[Balerion]

It would seem that, much like his tax returns, policy specifics are something Mitt Romney would like to keep close to the vest because some might criticize the details

Well, to be fair, he wasn't saying the details would be criticized, he was saying that the details would be exploited and misrepresented. His example was that cutting the education department is turned into "He doesn't care about education." Both sides do this. Has Obama been more specific?

I mean, I get it. Obama isn't the one saying that Romney is holding voters hostage by withholding his plans until he's elected, so if he's vague he's not also being hypocritical. And I don't agree that "They can exploit my position" is an excuse to remain elusive about the issues. It's the candidate's job to overcome that.

 

[Syzygys]

"New CBS News/New York Times/Quinnipiac University poll numbers from three important swing states show a tight presidential race getting tighter.
The poll shows President Obama's lead in Florida is down to just three points. Mr. Obama had a six-point lead there at the end of July.
The president is still leading Mitt Romney by six points in Ohio. In Wisconsin, home state of Romney's running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney's now in a virtual tie with the president with just two points between them."

As long as OH and FL hold, I am not worried....

 

[elte]

I've been hearing a lot of stuff about being self-made from the Romney interviewees during special attention given to his campaign on NPR these days. It is actually a rare person who is self-made.

 

[madanthonywayne]

While Sugar Babies preferred Obama to Romney by a ratio of almost 3 to 1, wealthy Sugar Daddies on the other hand agreed with the website's endorsement of Mitt Romney for President earlier this year:

* 42.06% said they prefer Romney
* 34.59% said they prefer Obama
* 14.65% said they prefer neither candidates
* 8.71% said they are undecided


As for the commentary: "So wealthy men who think they can buy love favor Mitt Romney?" asks Paul Constant. "Who could've possibly seen that coming?"

So young women who want someone else to take care of them prefer Obama. Who could have seen that coming? Both their sexual partners and their politics are driven by dependency.

And, as Constant pointed out: "Confidential to sugar daddies: No matter how young your girlfriends and wives get, you are still going to die one day. Deal with it."

I don't think the sugar daddies see sex with young hot women as a path to immortality, but as an end in itself.

 

[joepistole]

I've been hearing a lot of stuff about being self-made from the Romney interviewees during special attention given to his campaign on NPR these days. It is actually a rare person who is self-made.

Well Romney, despite his PR, is certainly not a self-made individual. Romney was born into a very wealthy family. He received the best education money could buy. He received all the advantages money can buy including access to capital. He like George II was born with golden spoons in his mouth. And he like, George II, wants to be POTUS to one up his father. The question for voters this fall is; do we want to sacrifice the welfare of the nation so that another son of a wealthy man can placate his ego?

 

[joepistole]

So young women who want someone else to take care of them prefer Obama. Who could have seen that coming? Both their sexual partners and their politics are driven by dependency.


I don't think the sugar daddies see sex with young hot women as a path to immortality, but as an end in itself.

Does your wife want you to take care of her?

 

[madanthonywayne]

Does your wife want you to take care of her?

Do you know what a sugar baby is?

1. sugar baby
A young female or male who is financially pampered/cared for by a sugar daddy or sugar mama in exchange for companionship (i.e. sexual favors).
Mary Ann bought her sugar baby a new iPhone, brand new lapop, and a nice flat overlooking the water after he gave her a decent humping last night.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sugar baby​

 

[joepistole]

Do you know what a sugar baby is?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sugar baby​

Answer the question.

 

[madanthonywayne]

An analysis by the University of Colorado that has correctly predicted every election since 1980 is predicting a Romney win this year:

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

According to their analysis, President Barack Obama will win 218 votes in the Electoral College, short of the 270 he needs. And though they chiefly focus on the Electoral College, the political scientists predict Romney will win 52.9 percent of the popular vote to Obama’s 47.1 percent, when considering only the two major political parties.

“For the last eight presidential elections, this model has correctly predicted the winner,” said Berry....“

“What is striking about our state-level economic indicator forecast is the expectation that Obama will lose almost all of the states currently considered as swing states, including North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida,” Bickers said.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releas...nts-romney-win-university-colorado-study-says​

 

[joepistole]

An analysis by the University of Colorado that has correctly predicted every election since 1980 is predicting a Romney win this year:

Another partisan making partisan predictions. I have a better more proven model. I have never been wrong in almost 60 years. And I don't share his opinion, nor does the most recent polling.

 

[quadraphonics]

So young women who want someone else to take care of them prefer Obama. Who could have seen that coming? Both their sexual partners and their politics are driven by dependency.

And self-serving old men who want to leverage their wealth to exploit others prefer Romney. Who could have seen that coming? Both their sexual partners and their politics are driven by exploitation.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Another partisan making partisan predictions.

On what basis are you calling this a partisan prediction? Do you have information regarding the political affiliation of Kenneth Bickers and/or Michael Berry or of Colorado University in general? They also predicted the election of Clinton and Obama, were they being partisan then?

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

Well, to be fair, he wasn't saying the details would be criticized, he was saying that the details would be exploited and misrepresented. His example was that cutting the education department is turned into "He doesn't care about education." Both sides do this. Has Obama been more specific?

Well, to be fair ... okay, okay. But it is an election.

A great example would be Romney's criticism that the president doesn't have a jobs plan. Great line, you know. Except Obama does have a jobs plan; we know what it is; congressional Republicans won't pass it. But we do, contrary to Mr. Romney's argument, know what that plan is.

Mr. Romney has also argued that we don't know what President Obama's immigration plan is. Again, great line, except the immigration plan is already on the table. The kindest assessment I can give Romney is that he's right because Obama hasn't told us how tall of a wall he's going to build, whether he wants it electrified, or if he plans an alligator-infested moat.

Meanwhile, even as he started pushing this line in April, Romney refused to be specific about departmental cuts. It's not quite as hilarious as Gov. Perry's "whoops" moment in the debate; instead of forgetting what he intended to cut, Romney chose to not tell anyone: "So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I'm not going to give you a list right now."

I mean, I get it. Obama isn't the one saying that Romney is holding voters hostage by withholding his plans until he's elected, so if he's vague he's not also being hypocritical.

True, I don't think Romney has used the phrase "holding voters hostage", but how do I reconcile your point with Romney's own words? "Unlike President Obama," Romney argued in April, "you don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are."

And I don't agree that "They can exploit my position" is an excuse to remain elusive about the issues. It's the candidate's job to overcome that.

I think that's sort of the point. In recent cycles, press and pundits have discussed the "horserace" aspect of campaigning; that is, if a candidate can't take the heat of the campaign, how can he or she endure the heat of the job? While this may or may not be fair, there is a growing perception that Romney is trying to run for office without actually running for office. It's like digging a hole in a way. I've been digging a hole this week, a big trench to build a retaining wall. It sucks. I'm sore. I sweat a ton. The very skin around my fingertips hurts. But, hey, I'm getting something for it, so ... right.

But it's kind of like Mitt Romney wants to dig a hole without sweating or getting sore.

He's trying to run an election campaign without sweating. He's trying to achieve the White House without feeling sore.

I think his stiff, rich-man image both hurts him here and grows as a result; it's as if he would rather hire someone to run for president for him.

And, yes, it's broad; one can pick nits with the detail. But it's metaphor. Allegory. It's not precise. I really do think you know what I mean here.

Mitt wants to run for president by different rules. In and of itself, that's not problematic; our political circus could stand a good hosing down. But it's also a standard, like others he has invoked, he would reserve to himself.

• • •​

I don't think the sugar daddies see sex with young hot women as a path to immortality, but as an end in itself.

Like I said, low-hanging fruit.

I think you're missing the point. If you're a fat, ugly, old rich guy, it doesn't matter how many sugar babies you do; you're still fat, ugly, and old.

Sugar relationships are not yet what "trophy wives" were in the eighties and nineties, and I doubt they ever will be. But there are underlying commonalities between the psychological outlooks, one of which is the reflection of the sugar baby or trophy's youth onto the older patron, which nobody but the patron actually believes.

 

[quadraphonics]

"Unlike President Obama," Romney argued in April, "you don't have to wait until after the election to find out what I believe in—or what my plans are."

Some kind of punchline along the lines of "... because I do not believe in anything, nor do I have any plans whatsoever! Jobs, troops, flag, socialism, taxes, jobs, troops, abortion!" goes here....

 

[joepistole]

I remember hearing Romney explain his Afghanistan policy a while back, it boiled down to this; he would do whatever his generals told him to do. And he calls that leadership?

 

[quadraphonics]

Well, this is the same guy who wants to run on the strength of his executive experience, and then turns around and insists that he spent years at Bain Capitol being CEO without doing anything or being in any way involved in or responsible for anything whatsoever.

Some days, it looks like nothing more than an exercise in white privilege. I guess the image of this rich stuffed shirt who gets to have it both ways all the time is somehow comforting to the paranoid white supremacist faction that now constitutes the GOP.

 

[Syzygys]

An analysis by the University of Colorado that has correctly predicted every election since 1980 is predicting a Romney win this year:

Except Bush lost the 2nd election in real life, and technically the first one too...

 

[madanthonywayne]

Except Bush lost the 2nd election in real life, and technically the first one too...

This model predicts the electoral college result. So in the first election, he didn't lose. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to Bush's second election. That one wasn't even close.

What is it, some conspiracy theory about Diebold?