The guy is shameless. I’m talking about Mitt Romney and his willingness to use any ploy, tell any lie, exploit any person, event, situation to pander to whatever the reigning opinion seems to be. When he was trying to court the Tea Party dopes now hyping the Republican right, he vowed that he was a conservative, always had been, and would cut taxes, end abortions, and pay no attention to 47% of the voters who were freeloaders anyway. Now, though, that he’s in the general election and trying desperately to curry the favor of the “undecided” middlers (how anyone could still be undecided about this race is beyond me), he’s saying he never intended to cut taxes for the rich and won’t, how he loves all the poor—including that 47%--and that limiting abortion “would not be part of his agenda.”
You pandering, ass-licking creep!
This latest flip-flop came in an interview with the Des Moines Register that was just published hours ago. The article—“Did Mitt Romney flip his stance on abortion—Again?”—points out that Romney actually started out as a pro-abortion-rights Republican (you can hear him saying this in a Buzzflash video), and then switched to “a firmly anti-abortion position shortly before his first presidential run in 2008.” He has referred to this as his “evolution” on abortion. As recently as September, he promised to de-fund Planned Parenthood—that bastion, in Republican eyes, of dastardly baby killers. But now, in the Register interview, he says “there’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” Another etch-a-sketch moment. And then, just as quickly, his campaign “clarified” this by asserting that Romney “would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life.”
Fortunately, he’s not getting away with all of it. Some Americans are actually paying attention to the etch before the current sketch. Like the mother of the Navy Seal Romney invoked in a recent speech. He had met this brave Seal, Romney recalled almost tearfully, and because he sort of knew him, he was doubly troubled by his death in the attack on the American Embassy in Libya recently. And he implied that were he the President, he, Romney, would have made sure no American would be killed in that type of ‘preventable’ attack—suggesting, with little subtlety, that the whole thing was Obama’s fault for not beefing up the protection for those poor heroes. What a craven asshole. Which is what Barbara Doherty, the mother of the slain Glenn Doherty said: that Mitt the Twit shouldn’t be using her son’s death to advance his own political campaign. “I don't trust Romney,” she said. “He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda. It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.” Amen. But Mitt has a tin ear when it comes to this stuff. Hell, he seems to think, why shouldn’t I use a hero’s death to advance my political career? Why not use abortion? Why not use everything available, including the suffering of half the people in the United States, if it will get me into the White House?
What can one say to such a plastic man? In an age when it seemed impossible for any politician to lower the standing of the smiling, damned villains supposedly representing us, Governor Etch-a-Sketch is actually succeeding in sinking to new lows every time he opens his dreck-filled mouth. What I can’t understand is how anyone could be taken in by Governor Etch-a-Sketch. Or which one they can be taken in by.
Lawrence DiStasi
4 comments:
This vulgar diatribe is an excellent example of why the political dialog has degenerated into a mud-slinging, name-calling cat fight. And I've received equally nauseating tripe from some acquaintences that denigrate Obama with profanity, vulgarity and gross inaccuracies.
When my friend Irving made me aware of this blog I hoped that it would be a forum for the exchange of ideas and opinions in a civil and sensible manner. It appears now that my hope was unfounded. This entry makes Maddow and company seem like pleasant, fair-minded centrists...
Incidentally, the attack you refer to wasn't on the American Embassy in Libya. It was the consulate in Benghazi that was attacked by terrorsts -- an obvious and simple fact that the Obama administratiion denied for days. And blaming it on an amateurish video that had been on the Internet for weeks was ludicrous. Now Hillary has thrown herself (or was pushed) under the bus, shielding her boss from deserved criticism. After all, the buck supposedly stops in the Oval Office...
Right, the gratuitous name-calling is unfortunate and the anger masks some serious issues. The fact is, as was obvious from the "debate" that Governor Romney is pushing the calumny that the Administration refused to recognize the Benghazi attack as a terrorist assault--despite the President's clear declamation the day following the attack he labeled it as "terror." Romney still insists on parsing every statement against his opportunistic theses. I'm not impressed by the usual confusion among officials at State in the wake of this tragedy. I'm also offended by Romney's cynical insistence that government oil leases and restrictions have reduced output when in reality he's referring to the oil-spill interregnum and passing over the increase in production under Obama. His continued exaggerations about his hiring of women as governor, his shifting positions on abortion and coal energy, his repeated misstatements about his so-called jobs plan beggars my patience and equanimity. The Romney-Ryan team make whatever missteps Obama has made pale in comparison. So, yes, stop the name-calling and let's call out the smoke.
I am not a Romney supporter. I am not a Republican. And I'm not sure Romney would be any better than Obama for the next four crucial years in this country. I suspect neither will be able to resolve very many of our pressing problems. Like Irving, I am put off and exasperated by those who blindly support anyone or anything.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time reading and posting on this blog, which appears to have almost no traffic. Nothing I write will change anyone's mind one iota. But responding to diatribes such as this one is probably good mental exercise.
It is incontrovertable to me that the Obama administration has lied about and covered up parts of the Benghazi tragedy. But virtually all administrations have done this. or worse. More telling to me is the series of cables and other communications wherein the lack of security was brought to the State Department's attention. Yet instead of providing more security, State withdrew what little was there in numbers. Inexplicable. So was Rice's talk-show position. It's inconceivable that the White House didn't direct her her to speak about Benghazi as she repeatedly did. So we have the administration protesting that Obama did indeed call it an act of terror on 9/12, then Rice saying the opposite on 9/16, and Carney dithering throughout the period.
Not very confidence-inspiring if you aren't a blindly loyal apologist for Obama.
Post a Comment