Mitt Romney Disqualifies Himself from the Presidency of the United States
Mitt Romney has disqualified himself from the presidency. He probably had done that already by showing his incompetence and dishonesty during the crisis in which Americans were killed in Libya, and when he was caught writing off as “freeloaders” half of the country, but now he has declared himself, in his own words, to be disqualified to be President.
See this video as one example.
This, of course, has to do with his intentional manipulation of his 2011 tax returns in which he took fewer deductions than allowed. Why would he do this? Especially after having declared that only a fool would do so?
For political expediency, of course.
Mitt made a political statement saying he paid “over 13%” in taxes all of those years. Except his 2011 taxes were about to prove otherwise. So he told his tax preparation team – the same ones who hide millions of dollars of income overseas to avoid paying any federal income tax on it – to “miss” taking deductions. To artificially pump up his tax rate over 14%. To keep from being called a liar.
His loss, right? Well, no. He won’t lose a cent.
Right after the election, when no one is paying attention, Romney will immediately file an amended return to claim all of the deductions he and his highly paid team of professional tax lawyers somehow “missed.” So he will retroactively get all those deductions he “missed.”
Kind of like he “retroactively” retired from Bain Capital. And yet somehow still gets paid by them today.
So whether Mitt and his team of professionals are incompetent or dishonest isn’t really important. Either disqualifies him from being president.
CNN has a good analysis of why Mitt Romney chose to be dishonest in the release of his 2011 tax returns and why he is still hiding his previous tax returns even though he gave them to John McCain four years ago (ever hear of a copy machine?).
UPDATE: The Romney campaign has issued a statement declaring that, in fact, they manipulated the tax return purely for political purposes.
Racist? Second country, second round of screwing up foreign policy for Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney is now in the second country of his foreign policy “coming out” tour. As previously noted, he started off in the UK by insulting the British three times in one day. Now he’s in Israel, where on the first day he managed to offer his support for going to war against Iran and then offered what has been interpreted as racist statements against the Palestinians.
Besides not seeming to understand the basic fact that Israeli occupation just might have a teensy bit of influence over the economy of the regions it occupies and controls, he also got all the numbers wrong. Not even close, as this Washington Post article explains in depth. A certain amount of leeway is given to “the new guy” who obviously doesn’t have access to all the Intel as the actual President, but come on, his buffoonish platitudes would suggest that I have more Intel than he does. One of his advisers is Dan Senor, the former spokesperson for the Coalition Authority in Iraq during the early days of the Bush war there, so it’s not like he doesn’t have someone there to tell him what to say (though perhaps Senor is acting more in his role of Fox News commentator instead of on actual factual knowledge).
At this pace he ought to have completely destroyed our foreign policy relationships with much of the world by the end of the week. With his next stop being Poland, everyone is praying he does the wise thing and not talk. At all.
Hilary Rosen, Ann Romney and the Dishonesty of the Republican Party
By now everyone has heard of Hilary Rosen and her comments related to Mitt Romney’s touting of his wife Ann as his go-to person on women’s economic issues. The Rosen comment is a perfect example of how the Republican party has devolved into abject dishonesty. After her comment the Republicans immediately extracted it from its context and created a completely new – and false – meaning for it, which they then have been browbeating to death. The goal is to distract from the original point.
So no, Rosen wasn’t saying anything against mothers, women, or any of the other straw men (or straw women) that the GOP has created out of whole cloth. She wasn’t even chastising Ann Romney for her choice to be a full time mom. Her point was directly, clearly, and unambiguously about the hypocrisy of Mitt Romney’s touting of his wife as some sort of mentor on “women’s economic issues.”
That concept is, of course, ludicrous. Mrs. Romney has zero experience dealing with “women’s economic issues.” She has enjoyed an economic life of comfort, attending private schools when young and then being considerably wealthy for most of her adult life (can we say “dressage”). She chose to be a stay at home mom to their five children and has endured serious medical issues, and done so with aplomb. Everyone acknowledges both her contributions and her tribulations. That isn’t the point.
The point is that she has had the major advantage of not having to worry about money while facing these motherhood and medical issues. “Women’s economic issues” were never even relevant to her decision-making or her ability to successfully raise a family. The same cannot be said for the other 99.9% of women and families. For the “not fabulously wealthy” of us, being a stay at home mom is not always a choice; it may simply be that day care costs would exceed the income generated from working outside the home. For most people a two-income family is a necessity, not a choice (even Mitt has admitted this as he sought to restrict funding for young mothers). And as far as Mrs. Romney’s medical issues, most people would have had to worry about both the costs of insurance coverage and the very real possibility that they would be dumped by their carrier for having the audacity to actually make a claim. Mrs. Romney did not have this concern.
In fact, Mitt Romney wasn’t even being serious when he said that he turns to his wife for “women’s economic issues.” He was merely trying to deflect an awkward question for which he knew he didn’t have an answer – why is the Republican party so arrogantly hostile to women? [The same can be said of the party being arrogantly hostile to gays, non-Christians, anyone not the super-rich, minorities, and a whole host of other groups that make up, well, the vast majority of Americans.]
It is this jokingly-offered ludicrous attempt at deflection to which Ms. Rosen was alluding when she made her comment. Romney’s stumbling assertion that a rich woman with no real economic concerns would be his source of insight for “women’s economic issues.”
But not wanting to miss a political opportunity, the Republicans took advantage of Rosen’s statement to create their lie and saturate the media with it. Their goal was to use a dishonestly reinterpreted comment by one of the thousands of self-avowed “strategists” as a means of distracting from the Republican party’s constant attacks on women’s rights.
Remember that prior to this fake controversy arising it was the Republicans who were spending considerable time arguing against something as basic as a women’s right to contraception. It is the Republicans who have been trying to roll back the legal right of women to make their own reproductive choices. It is the Republicans who have gone so far as to pass a law saying that women are pregnant two weeks before they even have sex, and that they must undergo an invasive medical procedure and be forced to adhere to the wishes of politicians prior to making the already difficult choice to do something they have the legal right to do. And those are only the most recent examples. The Republican party has a long history of attacking the very issues that allow most women to participate in the American dream. The very “women’s economic issues” Mitt Romney ridiculously asserted his wife is his source of guidance.
It’s clear why the Republicans have jumped at Rosen’s statement and intentionally reinterpreted it in their usual dishonest way – they recognize that American women are tired of having their rights attacked by Republican politicians and extremist religious zealots.
Jeb Bush Endorses Mitt Romney for President – It’s all over
The Republican spectacle of picking their nominee to run for President is over. Today Jeb Bush endorsed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination. So it’s “So long, Santorum,” “Goodbye, Gingrich,” and “Pack it in, Paul.” Elvis has left the building. The nomination battle is done. [Feel free to add your own silly platitude.]
Not that Jeb Bush controls the Republican party or anything. The very thought of having a Bush backing you is sure to become an Obama campaign commercial in September. But Jeb represents the establishment. The establishment that now sees that Romney is their guy, for better or worse. So expect to start seeing more establishment “leaders” rally behind Romney and calling for Gingrich and Santorum (and that other guy) to drop out. And expect to see the tea party hypocritically vote for the guy they have actively despised and hated for his hypocrisy.
Will Gingrich and Santorum take the hint? Probably not. Gingrich still has his one super-rich 0.01-percenter paying for his campaign (Romney has most of the rest of the super-rich). Santorum might have a shot at winning a few more states, primarily the anachronistic bigoted ones, so may stay in to see if he can get a prime speaker slot at the convention (which will boost further the post-election lobbyist consultant fees he plans to collect).
So congratulations, Mitt. You’re going to be the nominee. Welcome to Disneyland.
More about Jeb Bush’s endorsement of Romney here, here, here, and probably a million other places.
Does Santorum live in the United States?
Rick Santorum is giving his speech in Ohio before the votes are counted. That in itself says something.
But listening to his speech begs the question – what country does this guy live in? He seems to think he lives in a theocratic country, Iran perhaps?
In short, he seems unable to say anything that is remotely related to actual fact. He’s one bumper sticker after another. And I’m not holding him to a normal standard of actually being honest and reality based. After all, he’s a politician. But listening to him I have to wonder if he’s simply gone off into some parallel universe in which reality is whatever rhetoric he can come up with.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but the guy is unreal. Not only has he shown over the last few months that he is a maniacal bigot, he just seems not to realize that people actually are not all as uniformed as his rhetoric suggests he believes they must be.
Okay, Santorum won Tennesee and Oklahoma. That tells you something. What is interesting is that he is slightly ahead of Romney in Ohio with about a third of the vote in as I write this. That doesn’t bode well for Romney. But we’ll see that it bodes very well for Obama given Romney’s utter disconnect from anyone who isn’t a $200 millionaire.
Is this thing over yet? Seriously. The Republican party has effectively demonstrated that it is incapable of governing this country. Blame it on the tea party bigots.
Next.
Conservative icon, National Review, calls for Newt Gingrich to drop campaign for Republican nomination
The conservative icon, National Review, is calling for Newt Gingrich to drop out of the race.
According to a February 13, 2012 editorial:
“But it would be a grave mistake for the party to make someone with such poor judgment and persistent unpopularity its presidential nominee. It is not clear whether Gingrich remains in the race because he still believes he could become president next year or because he wants to avenge his wounded pride: an ambiguity that suggests the problem with him as a leader.”
And that’s from the conservative wing of the Republican party.
The National Review says that it is “Santorum’s Turn,” that Mitt Romney “remains the undramatic figure at the center of the primaries’ drama.” It’s not so much that Romney is the best candidate. In fact, “lack of enthusiasm for him has set it all in motion.” Worse, “Romney is trying to win the nomination by pulverizing his rivals” [i.e., his fellow Republicans]. So much for Reagan’s 11th Commandment, though clearly the same lack of adherence to that commandment is true for all the other candidates as well. Of course, you can add one or two (or more) other Commandments that Newt Gingrich has also violated.
How will this end? Likely very badly for Romney. Oh, and Gingrich? He’s pretty much toast.
Mitt Romney wins Maine caucuses…and wins CPAC straw poll…net gain of delegates – Zero
Ron Paul tried, but just missed beating Mitt Romney in the Maine caucuses. The margin was probably due to the fact the voting has been going on for a week (i.e., started before Romney got embarrassed on Tuesday) and the caucuses for Washington County were postponed due to a major snowstorm. Meanwhile, “severely conservative” Romney also won the meaningless straw poll at the end of the CPAC conference, beating out Rick Santorum as Ron Paul slid into fourth.
So with Saturday’s two wins Romney gets exactly the same number of delegates that Santorum got with his three wins on Tuesday. Which is, of course, zero, zilch, nada, null. The actual delegate choices come later in some cases and are non-binding in others, which makes one wonder why they spend so much time and money to hold these dog and pony shows.
In any case, this is good news for Romney since losing either or both of today’s non-events would paint him as a serial loser. And that really isn’t a good paint job for the campaign bus heading into a general election. Winning at CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference, aka, a conservative lobbying event, was actually quite a good outcome for Romney considering two important details. First, Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll the last two years, and second, it means Romney’s newest bizarre verbal gaffe didn’t hurt him too much. At least with the white guys in the room.
When PGH first heard that Mitt had emphasized his “severely conservative” ideology we were as confused as everyone else. “Highly” conservative? Maybe. “Largely” conservative? Sort of. “Always” conservative? Umm, no. But “severely” has essentially no positive meaning in this context. PGH’s first thought was “time to fire the speech writer.” Seriously. But then this was apparently an ad lib by the Mitt, and since the Republican party has fired pretty much everyone else that was running already, we guess Mitt is safe for now. [Though Gingrich seems to have had a belly bouncing guffaw that Romney had said something even more nonsensical than Michele Bachmann, aka, “the perfect candidate.”]
So Romney survives another day in his inexorably slow bumpy road to the nomination. The next few states (Arizona and Michigan on February 28 and Washington on March 3) seem to be tailor made for him. Notably, Daddy was Governor of Michigan, though this must be balanced against Mitt’s stated desire to have let the automobile industry in Detroit fail and millions of jobs go down the tubes. Who knows, Santorum could surprise everyone and do well in those states. Then comes Super Tuesday on March 6 when there are some substantial delegates available in a wide variety of states – pretty much something for everyone. Even Gingrich has Georgia (though not Virginia).
If Mitt can win all of the above then it’s finally over. If the results look like a blindfolded drunk dart thrower than at least the media have something to talk about. Because, after all, isn’t that the real reason they have these primaries and caucuses anyway – to give the media something to talk about for that boring two years leading up to an election?
Political Gum Hockey
He said what?
Political Gum Hockey 
Book Review: We Can All Do Better by Bill Bradley
Former Senator, New York Knick basketball player, and Olympic athlete Bill Bradley offers his substantial insights into the workings of government and how, by focusing on cooperation and the good of the country instead of party, we can all do better. And by “we” he means all of us – the politicians, the media, and the American people. We are all in this together and only by working together can we find resolutions to all of the challenges that face us here in America.
But accomplishing this won’t be easy. Bradley begins by reminding us that even though politicians all love this country, it is easy for the “members of the club” to become absorbed into the cynicism that dominates Washington DC today. The “duopoly” of the two parties cater to the extremes and the media play along because it is easier – and more profitable – to turn gossip into news than to report honest policy discussions. And the people – you and me – force politicians into playing the game at either end of the spectrum where compromise is seen as treachery, and then turn around and voice our perpetual dissatisfaction because politicians are dancing in the corners in which we have painted them.
Still, Bradley notes that “the sad irony is that many members of the club may be idealists underneath,” and like most Americans living their daily lives, continue to believe in the country’s fundamental health and promise for the future. In the chapter, “Breaking the Logjam,” Bradley offers some concrete proposals to encourage economic growth and job creation in the immediate, the proximate, and the long-term. He dispels some of the common myths (e.g., that the wealthy are “job creators”) and offers solutions that will improve the employment picture now while positioning us to lead the world in the future. His ideas are too numerous to list here, but well worth the time spent reading the book. One quote, though perhaps oversimplified, summarizes his philosophy:
“I cannot emphasize enough the requirement of balance: asking something from everyone. Democrats want the rich to bear the burden; Republicans want primarily the poor to sacrifice. Both political parties champion the middle class and neither asks anything significant of it in this crisis. A true solution cannot give the middle class a pass.”
In short, politicians need to put country ahead of re-election. They need to be honest with us as citizens. And we need to be honest with them – and with ourselves.
In “Celebrating Selflessness,” Bradley provides the most emotionally inspirational chapter of the book. In it he relates stories that contradict the assumption by both parties that human beings are basically selfish. Instead, he says, most people may actually prefer to be unselfish if given the chance by politicians and the media. In “Raising All Boats,” Bradley discusses the major source of disheartenment – that the system is rigged to give all the benefits to the very wealthy while the middle class bears the brunt of the burden. “The elevator is no longer working,” he quotes, meaning that the middle class and the working poor can no longer count on getting ahead by working hard and being honest. This dissatisfaction becomes fertile ground for demagoguery from both parties.
In the remaining chapters Bradley cites such disparate leaders as Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, and Eisenhower as recognizing the critical role of government and how “free markets” dominated during times of robber-barons, monopolies, and “too big to fail.” Further, he addresses our long-standing ambivalence about our role in foreign affairs and how our forthcoming challenges with China stem not from military prowess but from economic domination. In short, while America bickers amongst itself and accomplishes little, China moves its own future forward, which more and more intertwines with the future of the world.
Bradley argues that we need both “collective caring” and “personal responsibility” to move forward. In his final chapter, “The Path to Renewal,” he proposes that solutions should include taxing labor less and things more, adoption of a massive infrastructure program, investments in research, embracing talented immigrants while educating our own citizens for a lifetime in a world of constant change, reduction of our structural budget deficit, and leading the world “by example.”
There is so much more in this relatively short book and I strongly encourage anyone interested in the future of America to read it.
For a full discussion of the book please review the comments and links here.
August 4, 2012 Posted by politicalgumhockey | Barack Obama, Book review, Mitt Romney, Republican | Barack Obama, book review, commentary, Mitt Romney, vice-president | Leave a comment