Mitt Romney, Hedge Manager and Liar-in-Chief

by Blueberry T

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.” 
• Severely Conservative:  “I was a severely conservative Republican governor.”  
• “Born Again Moderate”:  WaPo, NYTimes and Politico on Mitt's shift to a more moderate stance.    Here is classic Bill Clinton on the return of “old moderate Mitt.”  

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.  

But now, “moderate Mitt” says that there is nothing that he intends to change in current law regarding abortion, although his campaign walked back his comments the same day.  Of course, he previously said, "I will immediately defund Planned Parenthood" and vowed to be a “pro-life president”   More on the dizzying flip-flops. 

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-flops and 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 deductions for 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.  

As Bill Clinton brilliantly pointed out, the real problem is “arithmetic.”  The numbers don’t add up, plain and simple, no matter how often Romney claims they do.  

Here's some more accurate arithmetic:

Bain tenure:  

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:

Lobbying, getting money from Washington flip-flop

Guncontrol laws  

Immigration  

And for a little comic relief, here's a gem from Stephen Colbert on Romney's changing positions.  

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.  

*Here is a new "Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity," published after I finished this post.

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.  

Don't Get Me Started: You're a Liar, Mr. Romney

by Sunnyjane

It is well known that Mitt Romney can change his position on any one issue faster than a well-oiled weather vane in a cyclone.  He has, at one time or another, claimed he created one hundred thousand jobs...tens of thousands of jobs...and then thousands of jobs while running Bain Capital.

Fighting for America -- in France

But there are a couple other spin-the-stories that haven't gotten as much voter attention as they might warrant.  A prime example is Mitt's 4-D deferment from the draft as a minister of religion or divinity student so that he could, ahem, serve his country by trying to convert the French people to Mormonism.  [It is rumored that while the citizens of the country of the Franks found this offer sorely tempting,  they were somewhat reluctant to give up their fabulous wines and strong coffees for the rest of their lives.  This is a position I personally find very reasonable.]   When the Vietnam issue arose during his 1994 run for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, Mitt told the Boston Herald, I was not planning on signing up for the military.  It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam but nor did I take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.  [Well, I do believe that spending thirty-one months in France on a missionary crusade could be construed as taking yourself off the draft list.]  But, fair enough; I sincerely doubt that there were many young men who actually thought the idea of going to war was a great way to spend a couple of years.  However, when he was so anxious to be the 2008 Republican candidate, Romney made the statement that, I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.   [Oh, and just in case Sarah Palin gets her knickers in a knot about Barack Obama's not fighting in Vietnam, it shall be noted here that the President was a one-year-old when President John F. Kennedy sent troops to Vietnam, and he was twelve years old when the war ended in 1973.]   While American veterans currently favor President Obama, it will be up to those stalwart warriors of democracy to determine if Romney's record is a reason to vote against him in November.

One other example of Mitt's spin problem is the  issue of his inheritance from his father. George Romney died a wealthy man in 1995 at the age of eighty-eight, three years before his wife, Lenore.  After their mother's death, the four children inherited what must have been a very substantial estate.  Let's be clear on this: there is absolutely nothing illegal or even morally wrong with inheriting money.  So, why lie about it?   Why spin a tale that makes people narrow their eyes, purse their  lips, and say, Hmmmm?  When responding to questions about his wealth and where he got it, Mitt has given three disparate answers, the most disingenuous being, I didn't inherit money from my parents. What I have, I earned. I worked hard. The American way.   Then on another occasion, I did inherit some funds from my dad. But I turned and gave that away to charity. In this case I gave it to a school which Brigham Young University established in his honor.   Will the third time be the charm?  The next way he spun this head-scratcher of a tale as, What I got from my parents when they passed away I gave away to charity and to my kids.  As Nick Baumann of Mother Jones points out, a common estate-tax reduction strategy known as a dynasty trust relies on skipping generations. Did Romney pass on his inheritance to his kids for tax reasons? It's hard to know without seeing his tax returns—and that's another reason why he should release them. 


Flip-Flopping is Out, Lying and Hypocrisy are In

Perhaps it's because Romney's core convictions have proven to be as resolute as a strand of overcooked fettuccini that he's now reduced to Lying for the Lord and the White Horse he came in on -- or something like that.  It's all too wearisome to think about. But if we thought the garbage coming out of the 2008 presidential campaign had reached an all-time low, we were wrong: the Romney campaign has gone dumpster-diving in the rancid landfill of national politics.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out recently, Romney lied in the first anti-Obama ad his campaign put out in November 2011.  The Romney ad quoted President Obama as saying at a campaign rally, If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.   This was a lie, pure and simple.  The truth is from a 2008 rally where then-candidate Obama actually said  was, Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’


When reporters who knew full well that the quote was from the 2008 campaign questioned Romney on falsely implying that it was President Obama's current quote, Mitt employed the old sauce-for-the-goose defense -- which I suppose is the sophisticate's use of the childhood taunt of na-na, na-na boo-boo, stick your head in doo-doo.   Real classy.


This GOP campaign is turning into a perversion of the Golden Rule.  Their version sounds a tad like Do it unto them before they do it unto you.

On May 31, Romney was reduced to engaging in a bit of political theater when he shanghaied a group of reporters for a super-secret bus trip to the empty headquarters of now defunct Solyndra, explaining conspiratorially that there are people who don't want to see this event occur.

Huh?  If he was intimating that his hoped-for drama would somehow incur the wrath of the Obama campaign such that they would try to shut down his visit to an empty office building, Romney was sadly disappointed; his little act was a complete fiasco.  Is there a still-drawing-breath human being over the age of fifteen in this country who doesn't know that Solyndra was a solar technology company that was given a government backed loan through the Energy Department as part of George W. Bush's stimulus package?   And then, unable to compete with more conventional solar technologies after silicon prices fell dramatically, went bankrupt in 2011?  It is true that President Obama supported the company, and that it's demise was unfortunate, both for the company and its employees and for the green technology industry.  But Romney could have phoned in that story instead of resorting to such a ridiculous performance.  According to the amusing reporters' tweets who went on this little trip with the GOP candidate, that's pretty much what it amounted to.  Makes you wonder who in the Romney campaign thought this massive fail was a good idea.  As Mitt himself likes to say, That's capitalism; some businesses succeed and some don't.

But if Mitt was aware of their disdain, he trudged on valiantly by saying to the kidnapped reporters, Two years ago President Obama was here to tout this building and this business as a symbol of the success of his stimulus. Well you can see that's it a symbol of something very different today. It's a symbol not of success but of failure.  But he's where Mitt stepped into the Big Lie:  It's also a symbol of a serious conflict of interest. An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded the administration had steered money to friends and family, to campaign contributors. This building, this half-billion taxpayer investment, represents a serious conflict of interest on the part of the president and his team.


And where did he get the dynamic, show-stopping piece of information that An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded the administration had steered money to friends and family, to campaign contributors?   When requested by Michael Grunwald of Time Magazine  to provide that information, the Romney campaign supplied him with a Newsweek article asserting that Energy Department inspector general Gregory Friedman “has testified that contracts have been steered to friends and family.”  Except that the Newsweek article was an excerpt from the book “Throw Them All Out,” written by Peter Schweizer, a right-winger who has served as an adviser to Sarah Palin’s PAC, edited one of Andrew Breitbart’s websites, and written a slew of books portraying liberals as pond scum. Not exactly a disinterested source. And it turns out that the inspector general never testified that stimulus contracts were steered to friends and family. 


If Romney thought his hypocrisy on this issue would go unnoticed, he is more out of touch than previously believed.  As the Boston Herald reported in December 2011, when Romney was governor, the state handed out $4.5 million in loans to two firms run by his campaign donors that have since defaulted, leaving taxpayers holding the bag.


And just a couple of days after Romney's big Solyndra sham, another green technology company that received state loans while he was governor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection.

So how's that Slam-Obama thingy going for ya, Mitt?

The Lyrics of a Liar

With humble apologies to the Bellamy Brothers, I believe with just a few word changes that one of their best pieces of music could become Romney's campaign theme song:

I’ll Lie To You For Your Vote

I can tell you what you wanna hear, but never truths about myself.
I can tell you I’m the best there is, there'll never be nobody else.
Yeah, I'm runnin' for president, I got money to burn.
But I’m just hoping that you never learn...

That I'll lie to you for your vote.
I'll lie to you for your vote.
Yes, I'll lie to you for your vote.
And that's the truth.

End Note

Remember, Americans: we get what we vote for, and this is what Mitt Romney wants us to vote for in 2012

Dusty's Corner - Why Americans Vote for Mitt Romney & Newt Gingrich Plus Bonus Game Change Trailer The Sarah Palin Edition

Why Americans are voting for anybody but Willard “Mittens” Romney boils down to just one simple point- The man could not tell the truth if a gun was held to his head and nor does the man understand the concept of empathy for others. 

Most Americans know Mitt is rich and they do NOT have an issue with his wealth nor do they care that he has offshore bank accounts. Rich people and offshore bank accounts and evading paying their fair share of taxes all go together in America. Admit it, it is not his wealth or the fact that he has offshore bank accounts and he obviously knows how to only pay the bare minimum in taxes that bothers you, it is the lying and the lack of empathy for his fellow Americans. 

The real issues with Mitt is that the man sees absolutely nothing wrong with lying about anything- big lie, small lie it doesn’t matter to Mitt. Politicians, Lawyers, Sales and Marketing professions all know how to ‘lie’ within the context of their professions to market themselves, their clients or their product otherwise they wouldn’t be successful. Lying is an accepted practice known as just ‘Politics’ or just ‘Sales’ but in Mitt’s case his lying goes much, much deeper and is much more dangerous as he has been running for President for quite a long time and he has very, very deep pockets in which to pay his way into office. Time and time again it has been proven that people do not like nor do they respect a liar.

What separates Mitt from other Politicians, Lawyers and Sales and Marketing professionals is his complete and utter distain and lack of empathy for those who are not just like him. Mitt like Sarah Palin has completely mastered Personal Greetings and Charm School 101: How to shake hands, use eye contact and mutter the superficial greeting “Hi, how are you? Oh, that is great” and leave them charmed and blinded by your warmth. It is when the next person in line doesn’t respond as expected that the world (well only those who are really looking) sees the real Mitt. 

Mitt does not like other people who are different from him or his beliefs. He has no patience or empathy for anyone who is in need or doesn’t subscribe (Note to Sarah Palin- that is how to correctly use the word subscribe in a sentence) to Mitt’s rigid views. Mitt like Rick Santorum holds a very rigid view of the world and he only functions at his best when he is operating within the confines of his rigid views. Mitt will never support the Dream Act, Gay Marriage or the American Affordable Health Care Act unless his church tells him to or unless he sees an opportunity to make money or prestige.

Where President Obama has said repeatedly that he did not have the patience nor the tolerance for ‘politics as usual’ neither did Mitt. Mitt’s only public office was ten years ago as a one term Governor of Massachusetts. He did not run for reelection. Ten years ago he was the Governor of Massachusetts! A lot of things have changed in ten years, but the one thing that has stayed the same is Mitt. He did not understand the world outside his world then and he still doesn’t understand it now. A man who would allow a dog to ride in a pet carrier on top of his car while in distress is not a person who should ever be elected to a position that requires thinking outside the box. If anyone could get Mitt to tell the truth would anyone be surprised if Mitt said he didn’t run for reelection for the simple reason he could not govern within his own rigid sets of rules and ethics?

I am sure you are thinking now, well hell Dusty, why are people voting for Newt? Newt has issues with the truth & ethics and there is that whole thing with his warped family values too. The man just has a ton of baggage. So why would anyone vote for him?

The people who vote for Newt are those who hate or fear anyone who does not have their same pasty white skin color and refuse to deal with change. Newt is the polar opposite of President Obama. He is white, older, overweight, married multiple times, fiery personality aka a bully, he is the master in the ‘politics as usual’ game and his middle name is Leroy. How much more common can you get than with a middle name than of Leroy? Again no offense to anyone named Leroy or anyone who knows someone named Leroy. 

Newt is was master politician of his time, but that time has passed. I would have used the title of fly by night used car salesman but I didn’t want to offend any fly by night used car sales people out there by comparing them to Newt. I firmly believe that if Newt had not been run out office in 1999 he would still be in Congress today or had retired from Congress by now.

Average Americans generally don’t hold grudges for long so almost all of Newt’s ethics baggage is pretty much water under the bridge since it was 1999 when he was booted out of office. Multiple marriages and affairs while in office or out of office is par for the course for politicians and some Americans. However there has been an increase in race baiting and bullying since 2008 and quite frankly those who vote for Newt or support Newt cannot stand the thought of a bi-racial man as President of the United States. 

I am refusing to call President Obama a black man from this point forward because he is in fact a bi-racial man and I am sick to death of the racism that is once again running rampant in our county. To continually refer to President Obama as a black man discounts his white roots and his white heritage and places the focus on half the man not the whole man.

The people who vote for and support Newt are those who continue whine that President Obama is in a bubble and he doesn’t connect with the American people. That President Obama is too controlled and does not make use of the ‘bully pulpit’. Notice those two words ‘bully’ and ‘pulpit’? Yep those are the folks who will vote for Newt. Those who want a bully in office and those who failed to comprehend the separation of church and state.  

So while Calista Gingrich has contacted Nancy Reagan's stylist to assist her with revamping her image from one of the much younger third wife (wonder when they'll confess she is much older than 45) to an image of one worthy of an elder statesmen's third spouse it will be money ill spent as all that glitters is not gold and Newt will soon to be another failed politician.  

The world of politics has changed since 1999 and while Newt is digging in his old bag of tricks from the past, his biggest cheerleaders are Sarah Palin and Herman Cain. One a failed politician who has yet to meet a thought she can articulate coherently or correctly and a one a failed candidate who has the morals of an old dinged up alley cat.  Can't see anything wrong there can you? To the Moon Newt...To the Moon and Godspeed. 

Happy One Year Anniversary PoliticalGates! 

My gift to you is an awesome positive campaign ad that will bring a smile to your face. May this brighten the day of those who have been or who are currently being bombarded with the negative attacks ads that are the product of the republican party and their superpacs. 

UPDATE:
Sarah Palin sooooooo did not want to go back to Alaska. Glimpse the meltdown and the awful, dawning realisation by the campaign staff and John McCain that Palin is nuts. Trailer for the film Game Change h/t to Carriesblank.

  

+++


UPDATE 2:


Remember how Sarah reacted when she was asked about the upcoming HBO movie...?