The Romney File

Billy T said:
I know my vote will not elect Obama -it just the idea that I don´t want him as POTUS when GWB´s depression hits.
Click to expand...

GWB's "depression" hit in 2007. Obama got elected partially in response to it, has already governed through the worst of it, weathered the craven partisan attacks blaming him for it (and seen a GOP resurgence in a midterm election stemming from such), and is now capitalizing on the recovery from it.

It's kind of hilarious that you've continued to run with these future-tense predictions for years after the events in question already occurred. I guess they weren't as dramatic as you'd hoped for (!!!) so you're just blithely discounting them, but you should understand that this makes you look pathetically out-of-touch.
 
Romney got caught with a Swiss Bank account and an account in Lichtenstein, the drug laundering capital of the world.
Those in Europe may not find this unusual, but, and perhaps unfortunately, Europeans don't get to vote in the U.S. elections**

At best it makes him look shrewd. At worst it makes him look sinister, suspicious, underhanded, and not to be trusted.

It is U.S. fingers which alight upon the voting pencil in the U.S. election. Many significant last-minute choices are made in the voting booth, and such thoughts of unresolved mistrust, as formerly raised here, could spell instant disaster for Romney.

Amazing too, this is only the first salvo fired against Romney by the Obama camp, and it has no doubt struck him deep. Perhaps terminally so. Maybe, just maybe, a one-punch K.O.
(Romney's people could counter later that the long Republican primary "loosened the catsup bottle cap" for Obama, but any U.S. voter should be able to agree, that this was a most masterful and devastating "ouchy" served up by the Obama team, coming off the start blocks).
Very nasty blow.

**mores the pity, because they seem to have the right to do so, since U.S. elections affect their lifestyles and economies so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BillyT may thank Obama for not to have noticed the passing years of GWB's depression, now somewhat behind us in synergy.
Where would we be today in a McCain recovery? Bigger crowds living under the bridge. All women in chastity belts and forced birthing stations. McCain would still be lighting the aircraft carrier decks, and having his daddy-warbucks bailing him out.
In other words, under another Republican** mess pile.


**When will they get a clue that they ruined that brand-name enough to retire it. When BillyT?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Something About Mysterious Ways?

Something About Mysterious Ways?

Dan Amira offers up the obvious point:

The end—sorry, um, suspension—of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign is a major milestone in the primary race, clearing the way, as it does, for Mitt Romney to cruise here on out to the nomination essentially unchallenged. But Santorum's withdrawal is also a major milestone for God, the beloved all-powerful deity whose personal endorsement somehow failed to secure the nomination for any of the numerous Republicans—Santorum, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry—whom he reportedly encouraged to run for president. It is unclear at this point whether God will even bother to offer anyone his apparently useless endorsement in the general election.​

It is also unclear what would be God's purpose in telling several candidates to run, but isn't that how the saying goes? Something about mysterious ways?
____________________

Notes:

Amira, Dan. "Every Candidate Endorsed by God Has Now Lost to Mitt Romney". Daily Intel. April 10, 2012. NYMAg.com. April 14, 2012. http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/god-2012-president-campaign.html
 
Ouroboros

Ouroboros: Right-Wing Bigotry Bites Right Wing Behind

Perhaps the greatest gift of Mitt Romney's campaign for the White House is the seemingly eternal flow of irony; the former Massachusetts governor's candidacy is a font of contradiction and strangeness in which up is Tuesday from Hell to breakfast.

To wit, Jerry Falwell, Jr., has invited Romney to speak at commencement ceremonies for Liberty University, a religious propaganda school founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. This should not raise too many eyebrows among liberals, as we're aware that Republicans and conservatives are struggling with the issue of whether Romney's Mormon faith has been a factor in GOP voters' reluctance to rally to the party's presidential frontrunner.

In that specific aspect, of course, well, yeah. Something about irony, contradiction, and strangeness:

Liberty University students and alumni are accusing the Christian school of violating its own teachings by asking Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints whose adherents are called Mormons, to deliver its 2012 commencement address.

By Friday morning, more than 700 comments had been posted on the school's Facebook page about the Thursday announcement—a majority of them decidedly against the Chancellor Jerry Falwell Jr.'s invitation, citing that the school had taught them Mormonism isn't part of the Christian faith.

(Bernardini and Merica)​

According to CNN, one student wrote of the commencement ceremony, "I can't support Romney and I am happy I decided not to walk this year. Liberty University should have gotten a Christian to speak not someone who practices a cult. Shame on you Liberty University."

When CNN contacted another student, a fifty-three year-old freshman, about her angry sentiments, "She also sent a copy of the page of the freshman textbook The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics which includes the passage, 'Mormon doctrine stands in stark contrast to Jewish and Christian monotheism, which teaches that there is only one true God and that every other 'God' is a false god.'"

Her daughter, also a Liberty student, said she was glad to not be graduating this year: " I would not want to end my studies at a Christian university by being sent in to the world at commencement by a Mormon. We came to Liberty because of our faith in Jesus; not for political reasons."

Yet another student explained, "I am glad that my husband and I won't be attending his commencement. Mormonism is not Christianity. My commencement is next year. Hopefully they choose more wisely."

One wonders what response the school expected. Mark DeMoss, an advisor to Romney's campaign who also serves on the school's Board of Trustees, responded to the controversy:

We have had a Jewish commencement speaker, we have had a Catholic commencement speaker, and so, I think people are certainly entitled to their opinion. Social Media certainly provides an outlet for people's opinions, but I think it is a great thing for the university.​

Which may not, generally speaking, be the worst possible response, but we might also note that DeMoss is reminding of a longstanding dispute that only really persists in deeply evangelical quarters about whether or not Catholics are Christians.

In fairness, though, we should note that not all Liberty students are so disgruntled about Romney's appearance at the school. One student noted, "Mitt Romney has been invited to give a motivational speech, not a religious sermon. His religious beliefs do not have anything to do with his ability to give a motivational speech at commencement." And another suggested that she is "pleased that the future President of the United States will be speaking".
____________________

Notes:

Bernardini, Laura and Dan Merica. "Liberty's choice of Romney leads to angry student response". CNN Belief Blog. April 20, 2012. Religion.Blogs.CNN.com. April 21, 2012. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/20/libertys-choice-of-romney-leads-to-angry-student-response/
 
Christian right wing irony and hypocrisy has been astounding to watch over the course of the last few decades. Apparently there is an unwritten or a secret exception to the Ten Commandments for the Republican Party. For decades it has been acceptable to bear false witness, to lie, to cheat, to steal, to deceive if it is in the interest of the Republican Party and it's financial backers.

Now the fundamentalist Christian church is supporting an acknowledged apostate for president. What will the Christian right wing – God's church on Earth – not do to support the Republican Party?
 
Last edited:
La hipocresía es la "estrategia birther", planeado por delante de esta elección, para crear tal cobertura para el abuelo de Romney "borrar el Etch-a-sketch" en cuanto a la decisión de elegir entre el mexicano y ciudadano de los para sus hijos nacidos en un polígamo colonia en Chihuahua. El gobierno mexicano tomó esa decisión por ellos (tal vez la razón del resentimiento latente de la familia tiene hacia los mexicanos sigue siendo hoy en día), y salió de México de forma permanente.
Sí, sabían que el tema iba a venir va a llegar ...

The hypocrisy is the "birther strategy", planned way ahead of this election, to perhaps create cover for Romney's grandfather "erasing the etch-a-sketch" as to the decision to choose between Mexican and U.S. citizen for his children born in a polygamist colony in Chihuahua. The Mexican government made that decision for them (perhaps the reason for the latent resentment the family has toward Mexicans still today), and they exited Mexico permanently.
Yeah, they knew the issue was coming going to come up...
 
quadraphonics said:
GWB's "depression" hit in 2007. Obama got elected partially in response to it, has already governed through the worst of it, ...
It's kind of hilarious that you've continued to run with these future-tense predictions for years after the events in question already occurred. I guess they weren't as dramatic as you'd hoped for (!!!) so you're just blithely discounting them, but you should understand that this makes you look pathetically out-of-touch.
Click to expand...
No that was only a recession with slow recovery. What I am (and long have been), speaking of is the “worst ever depression” that follows collapse of confidence in the dollar as a store of value. I.e. when US can not buy oil for printed green paper, etc. but must produce most of what it needs, with coal, natural gas and some nuclear power being nearly all of US´s energy system for industry, transport and electric power.

Here is a six year old post describing part of what I mean by “worst ever depression” – a broken society struggling to avoid total chaos, as unlike the 1929 depression, few have a garden or a few chickens, etc. they can at least feed themselves from (and there is now more than one hand gun per person, with sales rapidly growing):
Billy T said:
... To transform the US economy from the "suburban infrastructure" it now has, built on cheap oil during the last 70 years, (with the average transport distance of your food being greater than 500 miles) into one that can be sustained on coal will take at least 35 years.

All the trains have been converted to oil or electric. The number of functional coal powered locomotives that could be returned to service from museums plus those that could be built in 5 years could not haul enough coal from the mines {no electrofied rail lines go to mines} to power 10% of the nations coal fired generation plants and starving bands would not let them pass, if they thought there might be food on the train.

Some oil-fired power plants could be converter to natural gas in less than a year, but to keep the electric grid from total collapse, no power would be distributed to ordinary homes.

With all the guns privately held in the US, once there is too little food in the local grocery because the government is using most the available oil /gas for the army in a failing effort to keep order, and food trucks lucky enough to get "gas coupons" are being hi-jacked, etc., the decent into total chaos can take less than a month.

Surely there would be some successful efforts by US military to cease oil tankers bound for China or force loading of US bound one, etc. but the hatred of the USA in the Middle East is becoming so intense (mainly because of the one sided "Israel is only defending itself" position of the Bush administration) that the pipe lines to the ports will be destroyed. ...
Click to expand...
From: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1108987&postcount=20

I assume you will agree that the contraction of 2007 was nothing like the above, so it has not already happened. When I posted the above back in 2006, 99.99% of readers thought it was pure nonsense - could never happen in the USA, but now perhaps >1% think it is just a question of time until the dollar does collapse, etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
joepistole said:
The question now is who will Romney select for his running mate; Sarah the Barracuda , Rubio, Bush III, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Haley, Daniels, Christie, McDonald? ...
Click to expand...
"Rand Paul, who is a junior U.S. senator from the state of Kentucky, has had his name mentioned in the VP sweepstakes. ... If Mr. Romney asked him to be his running mate, what would he say? {Rand Paul´s reply:} “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honour to be considered,” ... {perhaps this is} why the senior Mr. Paul was not attacking Mr. Romney on the debate stage. ..."

Quote from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-become-romneys-running-mate/article2349286/
Which I think is a Canadian newspaper. I don´t follow politics much, but Morman Romney much closer to the center than some essential Right Wing Republicans, so Rand P. might prevent them from staying at home on election day and Rand Paul has a record not too far from his Father´s, I think, so the Ron Paul die hards (>15% of voters) would be more likely to vote for Romney if Rand P. were his VP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
"Rand Paul, who is a junior U.S. senator from the state of Kentucky, has had his name mentioned in the VP sweepstakes. ... If Mr. Romney asked him to be his running mate, what would he say? {Rand Paul´s reply:} “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honour to be considered,” ... {perhaps this is} why the senior Mr. Paul was not attacking Mr. Romney on the debate stage. ..."

Quote from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-become-romneys-running-mate/article2349286/
Which I think is a Canadian newspaper. I don´t follow politics much, but Morman Romney much closer to the center than some essential Right Wing Republicans, so Rand P. might prevent them from staying at home on election day and Rand Paul has a record not too far from his Father´s, I think, so the Ron Paul die hards (>15% of voters) would be more likely to vote for Romney if Rand P. were his VP.
Click to expand...
I'm betting Rubio. A Tea Party favorite, a Hispanic, & from a state Romney must carry to win.
 
The only problem with that ....

Madanthonywayne said:

I'm betting Rubio. A Tea Party favorite, a Hispanic, & from a state Romney must carry to win.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the only weird thing about that is how hard Rubio is trying to convince everyone that he doesn't want the job. A Romney/Rubio ticket would have to answer for what changed.

And then there is Andrea Saul, Romney's press secretary. Jonathan Karl noted some of her highlights:

- "Rubio has proved he is just another typical politician who uses his public office for personal gain and only comes clean once caught."

- "With each passing day, voters are beginning to see the real Speaker Rubio, a tax raising Miami lobbyist-politician who has used public office for personal gain and political donations as a personal slush fund."

- "This Marco Rubio is a wheeling and dealing Miami lobbyist and politician, always trying to scam the system for his personal benefit."

- "Instead of answering all of the many questions surrounding his questionable spending habits, Speaker Rubio instead continues to do the Rubio hustle and refuses to release his tax returns in a timely manner."​

That was in 2010. A Romney/Rubio ticket would have to answer for what changed.

And the appeal to Hispanics would be especially cynical; Rubio's idea for a GOP "Dream Act" would not only would be at odds with a prominent Romney advisor, Kris Kobach, but it also seems to lack a certain aspect of the American Dream:

We have not seen the Rubio proposal yet. But his plan, as he describes it, does appear to confer legal status on illegal immigrants.

Rubio said today that his plan gives non-immigrant visas to children who have grown up with illegal status in the United States. There are various forms of non-immigrant visas; some are for workers; others for students; still others for tourists. They all confer temporary legal status provided the recipient follows certain guidelines.

By all indications ... Rubio's plan would confer indefinite legal status on formerly illegal immigrants. A non-immigrant visa confers legal status, and Rubio is suggesting their new status would be open-ended.

(Sargent)​

Or, as the editorial board of The New York Times put it:

Take Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, who has recently been floating his stripped-down version of the Dream Act, a bill to legalize young unauthorized immigrants — Americans in all but name — who serve in the military or go to college. Mr. Rubio's idea to make it palatable to his party is to offer them legalization without citizenship. "You can legalize someone's status," he says, "without placing them on a path toward citizenship." He warns that if Dream Act youths became citizens, they could — horrors — someday sponsor family members to enter legally. This idea is nothing more than some newly invented third-class status — not illegal, but not American.

It's the Dream Act without the dream and should be dismissed out of hand, along with similar half-measures embraced by Mitt Romney and other Republican presidential candidates, who endorse legalization for military service but not college, and not citizenship in any case.​

We should remember that ethnic ties do not lead to automatic support. Michael Steele's tenure as GOP chairman did little to reconcile the party to blacks, and an even worse scenario is that Rubio could end up as an Hispanic version of the Alan Keyes experience. When the platform is, "We're going to screw you," it seems a tough gamble to hope that Hispanics are stupid enough to back Rubio because of his Latino heritage. Of course, if it's a close election, and it works in Florida, that might well be enough.

Of course, just about the same time Mitt Romney starts shaking his Etch-a-Sketch on immigration, Rubio himself has taken a new tack in the veepstakes, simply saying that he won't talk about it anymore, in part because "the last thing [Romney] needs is those of us in the peanut gallery to be saying what we would or would not do". And there was an interesting slip of the tongue last week when Rubio said, "If in four to five ears, if I do a good job as vice president—I'm sorry, as senator—I'll have the chance to do all sorts of things."

I wouldn't rule out a Romney/Rubio ticket, but there would be some pretty glaring questions raised by such an outcome.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Rubio moves further from VP consideration". The Maddow Blog. April 19, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. April 23, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/19/11288660-rubio-moves-further-from-vp-consideration

Karl, Jonathan. "Romney Spokeswoman in 2010: Marco Rubio is a 'Wheeling-and-Dealing' 'Lobbyist-Politician' w/ 'Questionable Ethics'". The Note. April 23, 2012. ABCNews.Go.com. April 23, 2012. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ng-lobbyist-politician-w-questionable-ethics/

Sargent, Greg. "Will right wing really let Mitt Romney 'pivot' on immigration?" The Plum Line. April 19, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. April 23, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...n-immigration/2012/04/19/gIQAJApTTT_blog.html

Editorial Board. "A Dream Act Without the Dream". The New York Times. March 27, 2012. NYTimes.com. April 23, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/opinion/a-dream-act-without-the-dream.html

Joseph, Cameron. "Rubio doesn't close door on VP slot". Hill Tube. April 22, 2012. TheHill.com. April 23, 2012. http://thehill.com/video/campaign/222931-rubio-doesnt-close-door-on-vp-slot
 
Tiassa said:
Yeah, but the only weird thing about that is how hard Rubio is trying to convince everyone that he doesn't want the job. A Romney/Rubio ticket would have to answer for what changed.
Click to expand...
That process has already started:
Rubio steps back from earlier denials of VP candidacy

Tiassa said:
And then there is Andrea Saul, Romney's press secretary. Jonathan Karl noted some of her highlights....

That was in 2010. A Romney/Rubio ticket would have to answer for what changed.
Click to expand...
This is politics! Don't forget it was Bush Sr who first described Reagan's ideas on the economy as "voodoo economics". This didn't stop him from accepting the vice-presidency under Reagan.
We should remember that ethnic ties do not lead to automatic support. Michael Steele's tenure as GOP chairman did little to reconcile the party to blacks, and an even worse scenario is that Rubio could end up as an Hispanic version of the Alan Keyes experience. When the platform is, "We're going to screw you," it seems a tough gamble to hope that Hispanics are stupid enough to back Rubio because of his Latino heritage. Of course, if it's a close election, and it works in Florida, that might well be enough.
Click to expand...
You've hit on the salient point. If Rubio simply brings in enough votes to carry Florida, he's worth it. If he also brings in some extra support from Hispanics, great. Not to mention that he's popular with the Tea Party which helps Mitt shore up his right flank.
6a00d8341c565553ef016765aa5a54970b-800wi

​
Romney has now turned his guns on Obama, combining the approach of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan in a recent appearance:

 
Why are Republicans fond of calling President Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, but they don't do the same for Romney? Romney's first name is Willard. So why are they not running around calling Romney, Willard Mitt Romney?
 
Last edited:
Cynicism: Banking on Hispanic Prejudice?

Madanthonywayne said:

If Rubio simply brings in enough votes to carry Florida, he's worth it. If he also brings in some extra support from Hispanics, great. Not to mention that he's popular with the Tea Party which helps Mitt shore up his right flank.
Click to expand...

To the one, isn't that a bit cynical? I mean, not that you're necessarily wrong about the plan; in fact, I think you've a better chance of circumstances proving you correct than otherwise. However ....

Accepting that this is the plan, isn't the plan itself just a bit cynical?

Trying to read the veep leaves swilling 'round the dregs of my political tonic is a curious exercise in futility. There is a certain realm of speculation that I have long disdained, but with which I share a curiously inverted relationship.

I probably could have said months ago that Rubio would be Romney's running-mate, except it really seemed a simplistic analysis with plenty of pitfalls to bite me in the ass as things went along. To the other, I could have tried ruling out the possibility for various reasons. In either case, it is my superstition that had I taken a position, I would end up exactly wrong.

Watching the GOP maneuver as Romney is officially granted de facto nominee status seems to be reasserting the case for Rubio, but even that is convoluted and, yes, cynical.

For instance, Steve Benen considers the idea of a "a 'Republican DREAM Act' to help his party with Latino voters", and then, of course, points to some obvious problems. Romney's inability to take a solid, durable position on immigration, and the fact that the "DREAM Act without a dream" just doesn't seem to help, lead the list.

But then there is this part of Benen's analysis:

And third, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), before Rubio has even finished putting his bill together, effectively told the senator yesterday not to bother ....

.... Boehner's comments come less than a week after Kris Kobach, Romney's right-wing immigration adviser, also said Rubio's conservative version of the plan is simply too liberal for the party's hard-line, anti-immigrant base.

Romney may want a "Republican DREAM Act," but Boehner's and Kobach's reaction to Rubio's efforts reinforce a larger truth: the GOP simply hasn't left itself any room to maneuver. George W. Bush's comprehensive immigration reform package from his second term is now seen in Republican circles as liberal nonsense; the DREAM Act that had enjoyed strong support from Republicans like Orrin Hatch, Dick Lugar, and John McCain has now been abandoned by the party altogether; and now a watered-down DREAM Act is dead on arrival before it's even been written.​

If Rubio is the nominee, then the end-for-now of the "Republican DREAM Act" appears to be part of the Etch-a-Sketch philosophy in which the Romney campaign would hope that people ("Watch the birdie!") completely forget recent history, such as the whole of the GOP primary campaign°.

Whatever else, Benen's analysis makes an important point: the GOP doesn't have much room for maneuvering on immigration policies. The DREAM Act, which arose from immigration considerations discussed during the Bush administration, and had Republican sponsors when crafted in the wake of two other legislative failures (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007). This is now too liberal a position for the GOP.

With Speaker Boehner recognizing the futility of a conservative alternative to the DREAM Act, one wonders where Republicans can go on the issue, for certainly the one thing we can reasonably expect they won't do is admit that the Democrats are right, the DREAM Act that has been circulating in various forms for several years should be passed, and everyone should simply get on with life.

And in that sense, we come back to the cynicism of a Rubio veep nomination. Is the gamble that Hispanics in Florida and around the nation will look at Rubio and say, "He might work against me, but he looks like me so I'll vote for him"? There are plenty of arguments about black people voting for President Obama that suggest some in the American conservative movement believe such things, and plenty believe that women will vote for a woman simply because of their shared womanhood, but history itself speaks against these arguments.

Alan Keyes, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle; these few names are prominent and recognizable, but even recent decades remind that history is littered with people who should have won if ethnic, gender, or other such labels guided the outcomes.

Rubio is certainly conservative enough to spark Florida's conservative voters, but the question remains whether or not his heritage will bring Hispanics to the polls to vote against their own interests simply because he happens to be "one of them".

The odds are unclear, but the logic strikes me as very cynical, indeed.
____________________

Notes:

° the whole of the GOP primary campaign — The Great Scrub is underway, as candidates and super-PACs begin pulling their primary-round attack adverts from the internet.

Works Cited:

Benen, Steve. "GOP left with no room to move on immigration". The Maddow Blog. April 27, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. April 27, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...-gop-left-with-no-room-to-move-on-immigration

Blumenthal, Paul. "2012 Republican Primary Candidates, Super PACs Scrub Attack Ads From YouTube". The Huffington Post. April 26, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. April 27, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...-primary-candidates-attack-ads_n_1456251.html
 
Personally I think Palin would be an excellent Veep choice for Multiple Choice Willard Romney. I miss her on SNL and all the many other comedy shows every weekend. She made for some great comedic fodder.

For some reason rats come to mind when I think of old Willard Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTKNahASSDI
 
Romney's staff now doing another Etch-a-Sketch, this time it's the auto industry bailout.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...o-rescue-was-actually-romneys-idea/?mobile=nc

Romney has been critical of President Obama's actions to save the auto industry for years now. Suddenly his staff is now trying to market the notion that President Obama was successful with the auto bailouts only because he took Romney's advice.

It always amazes me how publicly and blatantly the guys lie. The unfortunate fact is some people will buy it.
 
Romney: Opportunity Is For the Wealthy

Romney: Opportunity Is For the Wealthy

It would be erroneous to take the above title as a direct quote, but as Steve Benen points out, context matters:

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee was telling students at Otterbein University in Ohio about the virtues of starting new businesses. Romney added that President Obama has launched an "attack" on "success"—I still have no idea what that's in reference to—while he would prefer to "encourage young people."

"Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business."

This is important because it offers key context to Romney's approach to public policy. If you're a young person who can't afford rising college tuition rates and/or don't have the resources to launch a business venture, the GOP's would-be president has some advice for you: choose wealthy parents.

No, seriously. Romney has already said young people who can't afford to go to their college of their choice should "shop around" for some other institution, because a Romney administration doesn't intend to help with measures like Pell Grants or student loans. Now he's talking about entrepreneurial opportunities, not through programs like SBA loans, but through parental aid.

If you don't come from a wealthy family with tens of thousands of disposable income, well, that's a shame—no small business for you.​

The oft-abused accusation that someone is "out of touch" verges on cliché. Then again, Romney recently accused the president of being "out of touch" because Obama went to Harvard, an interesting point for someone who has two degrees from Harvard to raise. And with the question of the Blunt-Rubio Amendment on the table, Romney actually gave an "in touch" answer, but quickly retracted it after his staff reminded him what the amendment actually was. As Benen notes, the Republican frontrunner also told students to shop around for colleges, apparently not realizing that a large number of college loans and grants go to students at state schools—which cost considerably less than, oh, say, Harvard.

As with so many of Romney's gaffes, it is easy enough to sympathize and search for a useful argumentative point that forgives the man for his serial—chronic?—failures to communicate clearly. For instance, "Corporations are people, my friend." Well, yes, corporations are made up of people, but that's about it. One can suggest he simply phrased his point poorly, but even so, he ought to recognize that sympathy for a valence of business that has absolutely screwed up American society is not a popular notion among the electorate.

Something, then, about being out of touch.

Shop around for education. So you can't afford to become a teacher through the state normal school; get a welding certificate instead. Or a commercial driver's license and some long-haul training. You know, shop around.

Have an idea? Ready to take a shot at business? Go to your parents and borrow the money. As far as Romney can tell, everyone has parents who can loan thousands of dollars on the spot, right? Or will Romney admit that it didn't occur to him that not everyone's parents are former state governors or automobile corporation executives? Or is he really saying that opportunity should be reserved to the wealthy?

This is Mitt Romney's America, and if it seems hilariously detached from reality, I would only remind that it isn't really all that funny when you stop to think about the practical implications.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Always choose wealthy parents". The Maddow Blog. April 30, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.MSN.com. April 30, 2012. http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475051-always-choose-wealthy-parents
 
Last edited:
The republican "chaos creators" brought you oil-interest complicity in Iranian Shah destabilization, which became Jimmy Carter's "inheritance".

The republican "economy creators" brought you the Silverado Credit Bank Failure, which became Bill Clinton's "inheritance".

The republican "terrorist creators" brought you Bin Laden, which became Obama's "inheritance".

The only "job creating" the republicans have accomplished is creating custodial cleanup duties for democratic administrations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top