Democracy for America reposted the above graphic which appeared in an article published today at Mother Jones which simply and brilliantly in graphic style illustrates eleven good reasons why women in particular need to vote on Tuesday. This election is a vital one for women. If you haven't had time to vote please do so as soon as you can.
To
understand Mitt Romney, I've come to realize that his modus operandi is as a “hedge manager” - by which I mean that he is always hedging his
bets about everything, so that he can claim all sides of an issue.He does this in several ways, all closely
inter-related.
He hedges by taking steps to
leave his options open, so that he can choose whichever one is convenient
at any point in time. Think: Massachusetts
residency, Bain Capital departure date.
Another hedging technique is
to have so many shades and nuances in his positions and language that it
is at best confusing, at worst impossible, to discern what he really stands
for. This is what he is currently
doing on health care and taxes.
Closely related, he exploits
the fact that many of these issues are complicated and often technically
challenging, so that the average voter cannot independently analyze them;
this allows him to invent whatever message is most convenient for the
audience about the implications of what he is saying, or to deny the
interpretations of others (even independent experts) who try to analyze
his proposals.
As everybody knows, he
shamelessly flip-flops, taking whatever position is most expedient at the
moment, while denying that there is any inconsistency with his earlier
position(s). Here is the NYTimes
on “Multiple Choice Romney.”
I have saved the biggest and
most important for last. Surprise: he also
lies constantly and shamelessly; this is undeniable and well documented. Here is just the latest of Steve Benen’s
excellent series, “Chronicling Mitt’s Mendacity, Vol. XXXVII”* Scroll down to the bottom of the article for links to hundreds
of earlier lies. Whether this chronic lying is pathological, I will leave for others to judge.
This
level of inconsistency and dishonesty from a presidential candidate is
unprecedented. It means that nothing he
says can be taken at face value. (Yet he
says “trust me.”) It is a staggering injustice to voters and to our democracy
that such fudging and lying is allowed from our candidates, let alone
protected.
As others
have pointed out, his propensity to lie may reflect his interpretation of
Mormon “lying for the Lord.” Numerous
ex-Mormons have made clear that, “Every Mormon
grows up with the idea that it’s OK to lie if it’s for a higher cause.”Here (and here) is more on the topic (most of meat in Part 2).
The “higher
cause” is for Romney to “fulfill his destiny…and for that to happen, he’s got
to do politics,” according to none other than Ann Romney.
This discussion of Mitt’s “destiny” logically leads to the WhiteHorse Prophecy, about which I prophesize that no one will dare to ask Romney
because doing so would be “politically incorrect.” It is exactly the nature of this prophecy,
though, that makes it not only fair game but an essential topic for the media
to address – because the prophecy specifically has to do with the Mormon
Church’s involvement with our government, where church and state are supposed to be separate. Here is more information on what the Romneys may see as Mitt’s destiny.
One more
thing about “lying for the Lord.” In my
opinion, Romney’s biggest take-away from his father’s failed presidential bid
was that his father lost because he was honest.
He told the truth, and he failed. He didn’t “lie for the Lord,” so he didn’t fulfill
“destiny” or the prophecy. I believe
that one lesson – perhaps THE lesson - that Mitt learned from his father’s campaign
was that honesty is not the best policy.
George Romney’s honesty about Vietnam propaganda and his frank
comment about “brainwashing” were fatal to the campaign. Mitt also rejected his father’s example of
openness, famously including the release of 12 years of tax returns because
“one year could be a fluke, done for
show.” Maybe the real reason Mitt writes “Dad” on a paper at each debate (if
indeed he does so) is to remind himself that honesty didn’t work for his Dad,
and so it helps him rationalize “lying for the Lord.” My theory.
Now, let
me get back to “hedging” before I delve into fudging, flip-flopping and flat-out lying. ;-)
I got to
thinking about how Romney is often hedging, after talking with a friend who reviewed
some of the evidence from the lawsuit challenging Romney’s residency when he
ran for Governor of Massachusetts in 2002.
There was substantial documentary evidence that the plaintiffs’ claims were correct,
most importantly the fact that Romney had filed his taxes as a Utah resident, and filed a non-resident tax return in Massachusetts. The evidence also included a sworn statement
from a Utah reporter, testifying that Romney
told her that Utah
was his primary residence for tax purposes.
However, once back in Massachusetts, Romney publicly lied about this
for months, before admitting under oath that he “retroactively” amended his tax
returns to show Massachusetts residency.
He (with his Harvard Law degree) claimed, under oath, that he had not
read the tax returns that he had signed under pains and penalties of perjury. (The form says this right above the signature
line.) Daily Kos covered this story in detail, and this report includes Rachel Maddow’s analysis of his blatant lie about his
tax returns. (But he still says, “trust
me.”)
Of
course, there were other, conflicting pieces of evidence and opposing legal
arguments that supported Romney’s claim that he never abandoned Massachusetts as his
primary residence. In my opinion, this appeared
deliberate; it seemed that he had calculated all along that he wanted to be
able to argue either side of the question.
Ironically, a state attorney in the residency case told my friend that the
pivotal moment in the hearing took place over a rather trivial point, when the
opposing attorney tried to use Mitt’s charitable donations to the United Way of
Salt Lake City as proof that he had severed his Massachusetts connections, but Romney
showed that several donees were Massachusetts organizations. He also said that he had returned to Massachusetts several
times on Bain business. (More on that
later.) These points, which seem rather
trivial compared to the tax returns and witness’s testimony, swayed the Election
Commission’s decision in his favor.
To me, the
key point was that Romney deliberately played it both ways regarding his
residence. He knew that he wanted to use
the Olympics as a stepping stone toward fulfilling his “destiny” of building a
political career, eventually aimed toward the Presidency. After his 1994 bid for the Senate had failed,
Romney’s personal master plan was now to run for Governor – but Governor of
which state, Utah or Massachusetts? He didn’t know yet, so he set the stage to
choose whichever one seemed most possible and politically expedient, once the
Olympics were over. I suspect that he
was originally leaning toward Utah, and thus filed
taxes showing that Utah was his primary
residence and a “non-resident” Massachusetts
return. But, my sense is that by 2002,
he realized that the Huntsman family (and possibly others) would not step aside
to allow him to run in Utah. So, he had to go back to Massachusetts, where Jane Swift, the
Republican Acting Governor, was considered likely to lose. He probably also figured that it would
burnish his credentials as “bipartisan” and “effective” to be a Republican
Governor in a “blue state.” So, he rode
back to Massachusetts
on his high horse, summarily dismissed Swift, and took over the Republican
Party. He miscalculated how far to the right the
Republican Party would shift in just a few years, making his role in Massachusetts more of a
political liability than he expected, and forcing him to distance himself from
his own record with the GOP base.
In the
big picture, the message that I take from this is that this how Romney
rolls.He is always hedging his bets, so that he can argue both sides of
an argument, or choose whichever position benefits him at the time.And when that doesn’t work, he flat-out
lies.Here are some other instances of
Romney fudging, hedging, flip-flopping, lying, any of ‘em, all of ‘em:
Where he is on the political
spectrum:
Independent: “Look, I was an independent under
Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Moderate/Progressive: “I think people recognize that I’m not a
partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views
are progressive.”
This video
highlights “moderate Mitt” on abortion; timetables for troop withdrawals;
climate change; stimulus package; TARP bailouts; Second Amendment/gun control;
immigration reform; and health insurance reform (“I like mandates”).As Bill Clinton brilliantly pointed out, this
guy suddenly showed up at the debate recently, after being MIA for the past
several years. Abortion:
Romney
has taken so many positions on abortion that this issue makes a great example
of how he operates. Originally, he was
pro-choice. Back in the 1994 Senate
campaign, he said he would protect a woman’s right to choose, “and you will not
see me wavering on that.” He cited his
cousin’s tragic death from a botched abortion and his mother’s commitment to
safe, legal abortions.
In 2002,
he said his personal position on abortion was pro-life, but that he would not
allow that to interfere with his role as governor in upholding the law of the
land. Here is a video that summarizes
his position on abortion as stated during the 1994 Senate campaign and the 2002
gubernatorial campaign.
I think "Mitt the hedge manager” shifts his position to deliberately confuse voters. President Obama sought to point out that the
recent change in Romney’s stance was an attempt to “cloud” the issue of where
he stands. Here is more on the abortion flip-flopsand here is an interesting long read (from February, so it doesn’t have
the latest developments) about Romney and the abortion issue, which focuses on
the many nuances and surmised psychology of his shifting positions. Here are two more recent reports on Romney’s “evolving” position on
abortion. Our reader HonestyinGov has pointed out this article from Salon and this long-read, in-depth article from Slate. (Thanks, HIG!)
I cannot
leave Stericycle out of the abortion discussion, although most of the coverage
does omit this. It is apparently not a
violation of Romney’s faith or morals to profit from abortion, just as it isn’t
to profit from “harvesting” businesses, eliminating jobs and robbing people of
their pensions. Profiting from something
you consider immoral may be acceptable on the planet Kolob, but here on Earth,
his behavior does not pass any reasonable ethical test.
Taxes:
Romney
has said for months that he would lower the tax rate for each income bracket by
20%. Despite his denial at the debate,
his own website said so, even after the debate. In fact,
it still says so as I write this! So, this goes far beyond “hedging.”It’s
just a flat-out lie, as Daily Kos points out here.
He also
says he’ll close tax loopholes and eliminate deductions, but won’t specify
which. Tax and budget experts say that
you cannot make up the lost revenue from the rate cut by closing loopholes and
deductions. Here is a new piece from Bloomberg on how Romney's numbers don't add up and another on how eliminating deductions only accounts for 4% of the cost of his proposed tax cuts. Earlier this year, he said
his plan “can’t be scored” because of the lack of detail; that is deliberate hedging, so he could do just what he did during the debate: deny its implications. Recently, he said he would allow up to $17,000 in deductionsfor all but the wealthy, who would have a lower number. Right.
Also, did you notice how his “tax plan” seems to be a work in progress,
with major changes and new elements coming out several times a week? This is a classic moving target and
obfuscation technique. It leaves President Obama "trying to nail jello to the wall." Here is an excellent timeline from Think Progress on Romney’s “evolving” tax plan.
His
statements and documentation show that hedger Romney played it both ways
regarding his tenure at Bain – now claiming that he was not actively involved
after February 1999, but with ample evidence that investors and regulators were
told that he was still actively involved after February 1999. What is abundantly clear is that he and Bain
deliberately hedged about his role, claiming on the one hand that he was not
only still there but that he was solely responsible.
But in
the parallel universe in which he seems to also live, he “retroactively” left
Bain in February 1999 and emphatically claims that
he had no involvement after that date.
The reason? So he won’t get
tagged with the many politically unpalatable actions by Bain after that
date.
The Boston Globe broke the story about how
Romney was at Bain for 3 years after he claimed to have left.SEC
documents showed that he was the “sole
stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer and president”
until 2002.In Romney’s
own sworn testimony in the aforementioned residency case, he stated that he
returned to Boston
on numerous occasions after February 1999 for board meetings and other Bain
business.Here is an accounting of the
timeline and conflicting and false statements by Romney about his Bain
departure. MoveOn has asked the Department of Justice to investigate Mitt's statements about his tenure at Bain.
Interestingly, BuzzFeed reported that a similar fudging of dates occurred in
the early 1990s, indicating that this was a deliberate, previously used tactic
on Romney’s part, to absolve himself of responsibility for Bain’s unsavory
business practices.
HuffPo
reported again this week on the more recent timeline story, this time in
relation to the revelation about Bain profiting from tobacco sales, which one
would think would be a moral issue to a Mormon who is forbidden from using
tobacco. (As noted above, one would be
wrong to think that moral issues would interfere with Romney profiting,
however.) And here is Rolling Stone's report on how Romney lied about the profitability of Bain while he was there. The key point is that Romney plays it both ways (with this and so many other issues) so he can claim responsibility for the successes, but not the failures.
Here are
just a few of the many other topics on which Romney has flip-flopped:
Tax Returns: Ironically, there is one topic on which Romney has actually not
flip-flopped: releasing his tax
returns. During the primaries, when
asked whether he would follow his father’s example, his answer was
“Maybe.” (You’ll enjoy that video, “Dancing Around the Issues.” He also gave a very fudgy answer about
releasing them in April (tax season).
Ann
Romney said that “no more tax returns will be released” because they were
attacked regarding the first release and giving more would only provide
“ammunition.” That was pretty
telling. Later,
Romney invented a new reason for not doing so: privacy about tithing.Of course, his father did not seem to think
this was a concern. As Rachel Maddow and others have pointed out, Romney's refusal to release his tax returns did not stop him from demanding that his opponents release theirs.
Anyone
with a brain can figure out that the real reason he won’t release his returns is that he is
hiding something – likely more than one thing.
The question is – will voters give him a pass, or will we hold him
accountable for his secrecy? By the way,
it is not just Democrats and liberals who have called for the release of the
returns. Here is
an Obama Campaign video on the subject.
Here is a brand-new article from Rolling Stone about Romney's taxes. (I hope Rolling Stone wins a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage of Romney's economic shell games.) BTW, if
you enjoy seeing Romney taking every possible position on every possible issue,
this site is for you. And here is The
Daily Beast, fantasizing about Romney actually saying what he means. This was of course before the release of the 47% video, which is so
damning because it reflects what Romney actually believes, when speaking
“unfiltered” without the press around.
Bottom Line: Romney will say anything to get elected. He has proven that he is untrustworthy, yet he continues to say "trust me." Don't. I’ll end
with the truest statement that the Romney campaign has ever made.
UPDATE: Here are links to a piece from Mother Jones and another from Now Public on Mitt Romney's investment in and profit-making from Stericycle. This story relates to the timeline of Romney's departure from Bain, as the purchase of Stericycle by Bain took place in November 1999, ironically 9 months after the reported departure; yet Romney signed the papers to purchase Stericycle. Hmmm.
In some ways Mitt Romney belongs to a political era of twenty or even thirty years ago. Back then, it was quite possible to go from town to town and say variations of essentially the same message. In his speech, the candidate could alter the tone, or emphasize a few of the words somewhat. Bill Clinton was able to turn on and off his country-boy accent when necessary, for example. This sort of thing is nothing new, of course, been around since people began running for public offices.
However, where Romney falls into trouble- in any day and age- is being so adamant about one particular view, only to come back years later and be so equally adamant about its opposing side. He really seems to ooze sincerity and strength of character but then.. it all means nothing.
I submit as evidence these two clips. Here is Romney in 2008.
It all seems pretty clear cut without much doubt to where Mitt Romney stands on the issue, doesn't it? Mitt Romney is against abortion. Mitt Romney is pro-life.
But hold up a sec. Check this out. It comes from 1994 in a debate with the late Edward Kennedy. It is clear that- when taking on Kennedy- who Mitt perceived as weak because of the changing political tide against the Democrats- it was obvious that Romney was in way over his head.
I think the same thing is happening all over again. A very slick Don Draper type but when push comes to shove, he's very hollow.
By the way, I love the way Kennedy gently punctures Romney's balloon. Mitt Romney- the Multi-Choice Candidate.
As one endures the endless Republican debates, it gets easier to feel that what the GOP lack is both consistency and class. Two things that the Kennedys- whether you liked their views or not- seemed to have in abundance.
Leading up to the 2010 elections, the Republican Tea Party candidates all echoed the same talking point message: “Jobs Jobs Jobs”. However, since the elections, the only JOBS they have created thus far have been for far-far-right-wing religious nutjobs to write their wacky anti-abortion bills. If and when any of their bizarre anti-abortion legislation passes, (some have already passed), there may be millions of positions available as uterus police to monitor the menstruation cycle of every female over the age of fourteenthirteen twelve. Other employment created by the right-wing anti-abortion movement has been to fund college kids like Lila Rose to dress up as pimps and hookers (yawn) to secretly film Planned Parenthood. I am always amused at the self-anointed hoity-toity Republicans and their extreme fascination with everyone’s sexual life.
The irony of this stepped-up crazed anti-abortion anti-choice movement is that Sarah Palin is considered by her bots as their exalted leader. If you take Sarah Palin at her word (gafaww!), she said in her speeches that she considered an abortion (would that be exercising a choice, Sarah??). In fact, the only reason Sarah Palin would have aborted her faked pregnancy of Trig is if John McCain had lost the Republican nomination on 3-4-08. Instead of announcing she was 7 months pregnant on 3-5-08, Sarah Palin would have had the simplest abortion of all time, as no surgery is required to remove the long scarves:
Jason Linkins at Huffington Post did an admirable job setting forth some of the absolutely outrageous proposed anti-choice legislation nationwide, ranging from justifiable homicide of abortion providers to the death penalty for having a miscarriage:
1. Iowa Bill allows the “Justifiable Use of Deadly Force” to protect the unborn:
Bill Premise: Two bills have been combined into one to essentially define an unborn fetus as a person. In protecting that person, the Iowa legislature wants to allow the use of deadly force against abortion doctors or family-planning practitioners. The far-reaching consequence is that if this bill passes, persons that harm or kill abortion providers would be protected under state law from persecution.
2. Nebraska Bill Revives “Justifiable Homicide”:
Bill's Premise: In an effort to expand a bill that started in South Dakota, Nebraska's bill uses justifiable homicide as a means to curb abortions. In the event that a woman wants to protect her unborn fetus, the bill expands to third parties in addition to the pregnant woman, her husband, parents, and children to protect under the law the use of force against abortion doctors or others that endanger the fetus.
The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit "justifiable homicide" in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.
3. Georgia Moves to Criminalize Miscarriages:
Bill's Premise: A Georgia lawmaker wants to make abortion illegal in the state, but doesn't simply stop there. The way the bill is worded effectively criminalizes miscarriages, and the death penalty looms as a punishment. Mother Jones' Jen Phillips calls this measure "the apex...of woman-hating craziness."
4. South Dakota’s Pioneering Foray into “Justifiable Homicide”:
Bill's Premise: South Dakota has the bill that Nebraska emulated regarding this issue. It altered "the state's legal definition of justifiable homicide by adding language stating that a homicide is permissible if committed by a person "while resisting an attempt to harm" that person's unborn child or the unborn child of that person's spouse, partner, parent, or child." That meant that is theoretically would have allowed "a woman's father, mother, son, daughter, or husband to kill anyone who tried to provide that woman an abortion--even if she wanted one."
5. Pennsylvania Wants to Regulate Clinics:
Bill's Premise: A bill showed up in the Pennsylvania state house that would change the classification of abortion clinics. The bill's sponsors want "the state to apply the same regulatory standards to abortion clinics that are applied to other freestanding surgical facilities." This, in turn, would lead to the shuttering of many facilities that perform legal abortions. Restricting the ability of women to have these procedures is the intent of the bill; no one is sincerely concerned about enhancing the safety of these patients.
6. Kansas Considering Two Laws Limiting Abortions:
Bill's Premise: Two bills recently passed the state house. One is an enhanced parental consent bill, that would "require doctors to obtain parents' consent before performing abortions on minors.to limit abortions in the state." The second is a fetal personhood bill that would place "strict limits" on abortions after the 22nd week of gestation, "based on disputed research that fetuses can feel pain at that point of development."
7. Virginia Cracks Down on Clinics:
Bill's Premise: The Virginia Senate approved a measure similar to Pennsylvania's proposed bill, to reclassify abortion clinics. They want them to "meet the same regulatory and architectural requirements as outpatient surgical centers." As with Pennsylvania, the intent here isn't to enhance or improve patient comfort -- it's to shut down clinics. The implications for Virginians is that this law could close "17 of the state's 21 outpatient clinics."
As one of the bills supporters said: "This is about protecting women's health, and you can look at me like that if you want." The reason anyone was looking at him "like that," is that people have a way of looking at people who are disingenuous liars.
Bill's Status: Passed.
8. House Passes Planned Parenthood Defund:
Bill Premise: House Republicans proposed an amendment to H.R. 1, a complete de-funding of Planned Parenthood. The point was to prevent taxpayer money from going to Planned Parenthood that would have been used to fund abortions.
9. GOP Tries to Redefine Rape:
Bill's Premise: H.R. 3, also known as the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," was an attempt to...well, prevent taxpayer money from going to fund abortions. This is something already enforced by the Hyde Amendment, but anti-abortion forces in Congress prefer to pretend this isn't the case, so that the specter of abortions being funded by Federal dollars can be raised time and again (see also: The Stupak Amendment). What made the language of this bill particularly mental was the way it redefined rape, making abortions only allowable in the case of "forcible rape."
That meant that if you were coerced, drugged or otherwise incapacitated by a rapist, too bad for you. Bizarrely, it also excluded statutory rape, and incest, unless the incest survivor was a minor.
10. South Dakota Tries Again:
Bill's Premise: After their "justifiable homicide" bill got shelved, South Dakota lawmakers set their sights a little lower and are debating House Bill 1217, which would force women into a veritable obstacle course in order to obtain a legal abortion.
Per Jillian Rayfield on TPM, the measure would require women to first meet with a doctor, then consult with a "pregnancy help center" (where she'd be pressured to not have an abortion), then wait 72 hours after this second consultation before having the procedure. The bill is designed to make it as onerous as possible on women seeking these procedures; it falls especially heavy on the poor, who would have to take additional time off work, and make extra long-distance trips in a state where 98% of the counties have no abortion provider at all.
Bill's Status: In debate.
And more recently, 'Ohio Senate committee schedules unborn child as witness.'
If James O’Keefe or Lila Rose are operating the “ultrasound” equipment, you can almost bet the fetus will “testify” under oath.
With all these so-called “Christians” leading the battle against abortion and invoking the word of God or Jesus as justification for their battle, where exactly in the Bible does it condemn abortion? {{crickets}}
In actuality, if you want to take the nearly 2000 year old Bible literally as God speaking, it seems God actually approves of inducing a miscarriage/abortion. Take a look at Numbers 5:11-
31. God says that if a husband suspects his wife has been unfaithful, she is to be given "bitter waters" to induce a miscarriage:
5:27 And when he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled herself and has acted unfaithfully against her husband, the (bitter) water that brings the curse shall enter into her and cause bitter pain, and her body shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away, and the woman shall become an execration (curse or swearword) among her people.
As a follow up on this “bitter waters” and “her thigh shall fall away” from the Bible, I found an interesting article: "History of Contraception (May 2009)", written by Malcolm Potts, MD Bixby Professor of Population & Family Planning, Division of Health & Medical Sciences, UCLA at Berkeley, USA and by Martha Campbell, PhD President, Venture Strategies, Berkeley, California, USA
Is this the “bitter waters” mentioned in Numbers 5:11-31?
Herbal remedies for bringing on delayed menstruation abound in history and in contemporary folk culture. One ancient method of unusual interest was the use of an herb called silphion exported from the ancient Greek city of Cyrene in North Africa. The plant was said to be worth its weight in silver. It is not clear whether it was an oral contraceptive or oral abortifacient, although extracts of related living species prevent implantation in mice. Efforts were made to grow the plant in other parts of the Mediterranean, but they failed, and the herb was harvested to extinction in classical times. Silphion was portrayed on the Cyrene coins.
Is this the reference in Numbers 5:27 to “her thigh shall fall away”?
Embryotomy to save the mother's life during labor is mentioned in ancient Jewish writings. Rhazes describes such a method:
If … the semen has become lodged, there is no help for it but that she insert into her womb a probe or stick cut into the shape of a probe, especially good being the root of the mallow. One end of the probe should be made fast to the thigh with a thread that it may go no further. Leave it there all night, often all day as well…. Some people screw paper up tight into the shape of a probe and after binding it securely with silk smear over it ginger dissolved in water.
The GOP/TeaParty's most useful rabble-rousing tool is anti-choice rhetoric to win the votes of the churchy-type folks who simply and blindly parrot theocratic babble verses from nearly 2000 years ago when the world was flat. While many say they feel comfort in reading the “Good Book” which contains extreme violence, I personally prefer “Game Change”. We live in the 21st century and I would feel a lot more comfort if all of our government representatives would use real life reason to solve our real life problems, not theocratic hyperbole.
