An open letter to Mitt Romney
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington.Oh good grief. Screw you, Mitt. Seriously.
It would be nice to think that at some point American politics might evolve past this kind of fear-mongering, slanderous, baiting, verbal abuse. Yes, Mitt, Hillary Clinton is a terrorist. Her husband ordered a man's murder, didn't you hear? Barack Obama's name suspiciously rhymes with the name of Al Qaeda's leader, and we all know what that means, don't we?
You know what comments like that really say, Mitt? They say you're a horrible person. Comments like that say you're a vile, walking cesspool. Your sons can prance about in YouTube videos--I have yet to meet someone, not even among self-confessed pedophiles, who wasn't loved by somebody--but you're still a ridiculous little jerk with your thuggish, thoughtless jabs and jibes.
If your party still had any class, they'd censure comments like that. I'm not sure I've seen any signs of class in your party since Eisenhower, but one can hope, right?
You know, here's something funny, Mitt: I might disagree with your positions on issues, or at least the positions you were taking during your failed campaign (as others noted, you sure have had a lot of positions on things; I'm sure we agreed on something on at least one day during your speckled career), but I never would have challenged your patriotism. If somebody had asked me what motivates Mitt Romney, I imagine I would have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and answered that you thought you'd do a good job leading the country, no matter how misguided some of your policies might be. I'd never have suggested a vote for Romney was a vote for terror. Hell, Mitt, I've been trying to be even-tempered on some of the things I've said about Mike Huckabee, and Mr. Huckabee has suggested he doesn't support the Constitution of the United States, the document that defines what America is. And then you go and say something like this, and pretty much remove any benefit of the doubt. If I wondered what kind of man you really were, Mitt, I know now: you're an unprincipled, fear-mongering, low-class boob. A vainglorious stooge who really will say anything to get something he wants. A discredit to the supposed ideals of the faith he likes to strut in public. A sleazy conman in an expensive suit. A throwback to McCarthyism. A contemptible, wretched, bottom-crawling, coprophagous, wormy thing on legs that improbably walks like a man, as if it had evolved and wasn't merely parodying an upright stance and bipedal gait to impress a few slack-jawed, vacuous twits staring wide-eyed at the freakshow as they stuff their faces with fresh-roasted peanuts. You're a jerk, Mitt.
To hell with you.
Comments
Goddamn! That's almost exactly what I was thinking :)
If I ever get in trouble in your neck of the woods, I want you defending me.
::bow::
I am in the presence of a master.
It infuriates me. Like you couldn't tell from my post.
Interestingly, and maybe depressingly, the NPR coverage of Romney's resignation omitted Romney's "surrender to terror" comment, clipping that last bit off. It makes me wonder if his campaign released an edited version of the recording to the press, perhaps realizing that Romney overstepped.
That having been said, she's at least a highly-intelligent and well-educated candidate. I hardly expect her to unite anyone except the reactionary conservative opposition, but there can't be any doubt that her policies (if she's elected) will be thoroughly considered ones. I suspect that Hillary Clinton is at least as likely to get us into a war as any other candidate--Democrats have a history of overcompensating in foreign policy, and I expect Hillary will feel even more driven to "look tough"--but if she does, she'll have some semblance of an exit strategy. For all her faults, Hillary Clinton is constitutionally incapable of coming up with something as daft as "...and then everyone throws flowers at us and we go home--yay, democracy!" Rest assured, Mrs. Clinton is guaranteed not to appoint an underpants gnome as Secretary Of Defense. ("Step one, invade Iraq; step three, profit!")
Barack Obama, on the other hand, has a considerable history in the Illinois legislature of being able to reach across party lines and make compromises. Before that, he had a history as a community organizer of being able to motivate Chicagoans like few other leaders. Whether Congressional Republicans would allow a President Obama to reach out and make deals remains an open question, but he has a proven ability to win over opponents.
The primary example is the Illinois statute requiring law enforcement officers to videotape suspect interviews. You will be hard-pressed to find a group of police officers in favor of such things; indeed, police organizations become rabid in their opposition whenever such acts are proposed. And Republicans everywhere traditionally cater to those views--law enforcement is typically a strongly conservative constituency. But when Obama was in the Illinois legislature, he created bipartisan support for videotaped interviews, and even managed to win some grudging support from police organizations. Yes, he united people.
Romney's statements, quoted in my post, prove that Romney has no such ability and doesn't care to even try. They demonstrate that Romney is nothing but an inept panderer hawking the imaginary virtues of a decrepit and pathetic harem of clap-stricken crones. I'm quite sure that Romney doesn't really think that a Clinton or Obama victory would be a "surrender to terror." He'd probably be happy to accept a position from either one's administration if it was proffered, probably with some half-witted excuse about working for the interests of conservatives from within or bridging the gap. No, Romney offers such mold-covered tripe to the public because he thinks it will play well at the CPAC. It's the political equivalent of a man who sells French postcards from an alleyway six days a week and then goes to church on Sunday where he piously cries out against the sinful decline of society and plight of the unwashed masses who don't know any better. The only gap Romney bridges is between the people who are infected by nonsense like his CPAC comments and then spread it about like some kind of memetic gonorrhea: the Clintons and Obama are traitors and sellouts and terrorist sympathizers; two are murderers and thieves and the other isn't even a good Christian American. Again, keep in mind that Romney certainly doesn't believe this insane crap, it's just that he doesn't mind giving it to anyone who will get "familiar" with him (if you know what I mean, wink, nudge). He wants the nice folks at CPAC to know where they can have a good time if they're lonely the next time they're in town, you know.
Hey, I guess that's free-market capitalism after all: he's in the service industry, so to speak.
By the way, right is right, I believe there's a spelling error in your final sentence: you seem to have omitted an "s" and an "h." If anyone knows how to edit posts in blogger, I'd be happy to do what I need to if you want to change it.
Well, one can hope?
Sorry, dude put a fish in a barrel? Hand me a 12-guage? What am I to do?
Can you give us an example of something he says that makes no sense whatsoever, and also explain why it makes no sense? (Seriously. I want to see how you reached the conclusion you did.)
You cannot help the wage earner by fucking the wage payer.
How do you propose motivating the wage payer to pay helpful wages to the earners, then, instead of just pocketing all the profits?
What was my original post about? It was about how I might have respectfully disagreed with Romney ("I imagine I would have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and answered that you thought you'd do a good job leading the country, no matter how misguided some of your policies might be.") until he resorted to the kind of pandering to the slack-jawed that made Joseph McCarthy such a lovely and useful public servant. Let's be clear: the problem with Romney isn't that he has differing opinions, it's that he's willing to say foolish and poisonous things that he probably doesn't really believe in order to obtain some perceived advantage. He's a pimp, in other words; a greasy, useless, no good pimp.
And I'm not going to mince words about it either. Mitt wants to be a little bitch, I'm going to call it like I see it. You want to call it "venomous"? Whatever makes you happy. I consider it a purgative. I see no point in remaining silent while someone casts unfounded aspersions and engages in crass fear-mongering in the vain expectation he's not going to be busted for it.
Oh, and right is right, one more thing: I'm a liberal, and I'd like to think I'm zealous about it. I'm not sure if there are any Hollywood stars around here--I frankly doubt it--but I consider "liberal zealot" something of an unintended compliment, and a bit of a cheap larf when dittohead-types fling it around like it's supposed to be some kind of insult. Thanks. If you really want to earn some points, feel free to start ranting about how I'm a pointy-headed, bleeding-heart intellectual. I'll start digging my toe into the ground and blushing for sure.
The real question isn't about economy, it's about society. A functional society needs to come at the range of economic systems much like it's a buffet. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people want some form of regulated free-market system and accept that the government can perform some services better: people like freedom of choice, but they also like product safety laws, paved roads, and police officers, to roll off a few items on the list.
Profits are indeed the right of a corporation, but not at the expense of the common weal. Your corporation doesn't have the right to maximize profits by employing slave labor, creating a generation of monsters, or by colluding with other corporations to artificially keep prices high--hence we have laws against such things. But it's not a bad compromise for the corporation to give up some rights: the same laws that keep a company from employing slaves also prohibit an angry mob from burning down the factory.
As an aside, have you ever noticed this interesting phenomena where some corporate types hate laws and regulations until they're a benefit to them? They'll rail against the EPA, but I assure you that if someone rigs the basement of their office tower with high-yield explosives, they'll be more than happy to avail themselves of the publicly-funded bomb squad. Surely, if they're so fond of the free market, they ought to be obligated to hire a contractor for a reasonable rate within the next 28 minutes, 47.6 seconds, no?
Anyone is entitled to feel that Obama isn't qualified, and many people do. Many of them, in fact, are Democrats. Presumably, if Hillary Clinton thought Obama was qualified, she'd cede the primaries to him. I feel there is evidence that rebuts this viewpoint, and I encourage folks to seek it out. And I am certainly willing to evaluate evidence that supports the claim that Obama isn't qualified, although I haven't been impressed with the quality of what's I've seen offered.
And thank you, right is right, for the thoughtful reply.
In fact, however, the only way for wages to come down (maximizing a company's profits) is if there is a certain level of basic unemployment sufficient to make workers willing to take lower-paying jobs but not sufficient to reduce demand for products. That's not something a functional society can have much patience for--aside from the fact that it's cruel, it also leads to social problems--crime, addiction, homelessness, hunger.
And historically, of course, you have issues of class and race and gender and regional development and so on. Not everyone actually has the same opportunity to get the same education: some people are too poor, or too ethnic, or too female, or simply made the bad decision to be born in rural Alabama instead of Silicon Valley. Not everyone, in other words, actually does have the freedom to improve their situation.
What should society's role, if any, be in dealing with the above? That's the golden question, isn't it?