so they did

if they want more stuff from government, tell them to go vote for the other guy

mitt romney

july 11, 2012

so what happened to my guy? (concluded)

The great criticism of Mitt Romney, from both sides of the aisle, has always been that he doesn't stand for anything. He's a flip-flopper, they say, a lightweight, a cardboard opportunist who'll say anything to get elected. 

The critics couldn't be more wrong. His legendary flip-flops aren't the lies of a bumbling opportunist – they're the confident prevarications of a man untroubled by misleading the nonbeliever in pursuit of a single, all-consuming goal.  

Yet unlike other politicians, who at least recognize that saying completely contradictory things presents a political problem, Romney seems genuinely puzzled by the public's insistence that he be consistent.  It's an attitude that recalls the standard defense offered by Wall Street in the wake of some of its most recent and notorious crimes: Goldman Sachs excused its lying to clients, for example, by insisting that its customers are "sophisticated investors" who should expect to be lied to. 

i struggled with the second part of this post, because i couldn't for the life of me come up with a way to present my problems with this guy in a way that hadn't been done a thousand times before--and then matt taibbi came along and did it for me.  the above quotes from his recent, superb rolling stone piece (mashed together for my own purposes--sorry, matt) perfectly encapsulize and explain the great mitt romney conundrum with which i've wrestled for so long; namely, how a guy who is so seemingly principled in so many aspects of his life can justify, in his own mind, being such a hypocritical liar.

the answer:  he honestly doesn't think he's doing anything wrong.

and once you grasp the enormity of this truth about the man who would be king, i want you to read the referenced article--every word--and then send the link to everyone you know.  because if you think the mental disconnect which allows such breathtakingly complacent hypocrisy is limited to his policy positions, just wait'll you get a load of how this man who decries debt and promises america jobs actually did business.

*     *     *     *     *

i gotta admit, i watched with dark amusement as the ramp-up to the republican convention dovetailed perfectly with the formation of a hurricane that looked like it might turn out to be katrina's little brother. because i knew exactly what was gonna happen--hell, i could almost write the news copy in my head, accompanied by footage of white, fat-cat republicans partying in air-conditioned comfort in tampa juxtaposed with images of barack in shirtsleeves in louisiana, aiding and comforting the victims.

but, unbelievably, that didn't happen--turns out the obama campaign was so intent on chasing every last buck that it blew a golden opportunity, let mitt get there first, and ended up playing awkward catch-up after the fact.

you don't get do-overs often in life, but mr. taibbi has just handed the obama camp one on a silver platter--everything that is needed to completely destroy mitt romney in the eyes of the undecideds is contained within this article.  will they use it?  i dunno--they've played it pretty dumb so far, and they may not even need it--but i hope they do, because it's something every voting american needs to know before they step into that little booth in november.

so what happened to my guy?

[ok, enough obama-bashing for now; let's turn to the other side.]

so, even now, i get the questions all the time: "you think your guy's gonna get the nomination this time?", "you think paul ryan will help your guy?", "you think this todd akin thing will hurt your guy?", and, of course, the ever-popular, and usually said-with-a-sneer, "so whaddya think of your guy now?"

it doesn't seem to matter that i broke it off with mitt four years ago; the fact that i carried such a huge, flaming torch for him for so long sticks to me like stink on shit, and i can't shake it no matter what i say now.

*     *     *     *     *

i remember the first time i laid eyes on the guy; it happened back in 2002, shortly after the close of the salt lake city olympics.  he was giving a long, informal interview about his role in transforming those particular games from a massive too-many-cooks clusterfuck into the fine swiss watch they became under his leadership.  he was relaxed and loose under the camera's gaze, and spoke easily and articulately, outlining the process he undertook to turn the event around, and relying very little on the words "I" or "me" in the telling of the story.  i watched, spellbound as i always am when confronted with that rarest of human qualities--true competence.

as the interview ended, i turned to the guy i was watching it with and said, "holy shit, this guy's gonna be president one day."

and why not?  his dad had almost made it--hell, probably would have, had he not told an inconvenient truth before the american people were ready to hear it.  and mitt seemed to be his dad's son--an honorable, self-effacing guy who just happened to have a knack for fixing complex things that were broken.

i cheered when he became governor of massachusetts.  my admiration only grew when he and his team crafted a badly-needed healthcare fix for that state that not only received the full bipartisan support of its legislature, but even earned the endorsement of his arch-enemy, ted kennedy.

i admired his discipline and his character.  here was a self-made guy who hadn't relied on daddy's money to make his mark on the world, and had seemingly avoided all the temptations to which so many rich, powerful men are prone--there was no hint of scandal in either his personal or professional life, and he had managed to successfully adhere to the strictures of a demanding religion without rubbing it in everybody's goddam face.

when he threw his hat into the presidential ring in 2008, i cheered once more.  finally, my dream candidate--a fiscal conservative/social moderate, non-career politician who, unlike all the aforementioned assholes, had actually proven himself in the real world and knew how it worked.

and then he opened his big, fat i'd-sell-my-soul-to-be-president mouth, and it all went to shit.

[part 2 to come--excuse me while i go sob into my pillow.]

revenge really is a dish best served cold, ain't it?

I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say "This is bad work. This is good work." The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.

oh, bill, bill, bill.

you timed it perfectly:  tail-end of a hellish week for The One, in which the stock market and economic indicators tanked, his opponent not only clinched his party's nomination but came out swinging at what should've been his administration's teapot dome, and, despite his handlers' best smear efforts, the differences between his own record of public-sector failure and said opponent's "sterling business career" couldn't be more blazingly apparent.

or so i thought, until you opened your mouth on CNN yesterday and put the icing on the cake.

and the beauty part?  later, you can be all, like, "what--what'd i say?"

welcome back, baby--i've missed you.

[i know i said i was gonna stay outta this one, but when something this rich comes along, it's just too irresistible to pass up.]

quote of the day

. . . some of this is also generational. You know, when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it.

while everyone else is either jumping for joy or rending their garments, depending on their own views, i'm looking at the political calculus that went into the president's decision to come out in favor of gay marriage at this point in time.

he's been holding this card for a long time, after flip-flopping on the issue more than once [a bit romneyesque, that, dontcha think, barry?] and i dunno whether it was because his hand was forced by his idiot VP or because he decided it was time to rally the base, but whatever motivated this move, it sure as hell wasn't conscience.

he had to know he'd piss off the black folk, who tend to be very conservative as regards the homos, but then he also knows he could leave michelle and marry rielle hunter and they'd still be behind him in 90%+ numbers, so he figures he's probably safe there.

and, of course, he's right about young people.  whether lliberal or conservative, they increasingly don't see gay marriage as an issue; and their elders--the ones who do--will be dead soon enough.

so this may win him a few votes from the young'uns, but those old folks?  for now, they're still with us.  and boy, do they vote.  and this may prove to be the lever his opponent has been looking for to pry the evangelicals away from their fear and loathing and into his camp.

so did he do the right thing or the wrong thing in taking this uncharacteristically bold and risky stand (politically speaking, of course, which is all that matters to this guy)?  i dunno, but of one thing i'm fairly certain.

i smell fear.

why i'm sitting this one out

in 2008, guttermorality began life as a political blog, and i published dozens of posts during that year leading up to the election, operating as i then did under the delusion that such things still mattered.

no more.

amuse yourselves if you wish with this year's diversion, and argue endlessly over contraception and gay marriage and how best to get the economy moving again (or whatever other straw men they throw out there for you to squabble over), and why your guy is a better servant of the people than the other guy. knock yourselves out.

me?  i'll continue doing what i've been doing since my eyes opened--trying to figure out the real game, and hiding what little non-paper wealth i have in safe places.

 

who'd have ever thought

.

i'd live to see a day in america when a republican presidential front-runner without a hint of scandal in either his professional or personal life would be excoriated for being smart, driven and successful, and his wife for choosing to stay at home and be an actual mother to their five bright, well-adjusted kids?

seriously, folks, would you really prefer some inept, mediocre slob with three ex-wives and two kids in rehab running the country, just so you can take comfort in knowing he fully identifies with the common man?

there's a lot you can say about mitt romney, much of it deservedly critical, but i've really had about enough of this particular line of bullshit.

can we just cut to the chase already?

.
to the red team:

it's gonna be mitt.  it was always gonna be mitt, because that's who the money wants; the others were merely a collective sideshow whose individual stars were programmed to rise and fall in rapid succession leading up to iowa and new hampshire.  ron paul's stubborn refusal to go quietly wasn't part of the plan, but he'll be dispatched quickly enough--in fact, his assassination is already well underway.

so, face it--you're stuck with a loser, whether you want him or not.


to the blue team:

unlike the red team, you're blessed with a candidate who inspires fierce passion among the rank and file of your party, and who wins regardless of what the match-up turns out to be.

problem is, she's not about to challenge an incumbent who's willing to hold your party hostage with his automatic lock on 90% of the black vote regardless of how spectacularly unfit for office he's proven himself to be.

so, face it--you're stuck with a loser, whether you want him or not.


to america:

either way, guess what?  you lose.
.

somebody just kill me now

.