You are here: Home » General » The “Bataan Clown March”
This sums up Romneyshambles pretty well, I think:
Even if you feel neutrally about Romney, it’s impossible to escape the sensation that he believes Basic Competence murdered his family and that he must have his revenge against it. Things are so bad that any second now Matt Drudge might run a link claiming that Romney’s VP pick will actually be a fully Weekend at Bernies‘d Ronald Reagan.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney
Sarasota Law Firms
Need Cash? Sky Loans can
help you! quick and easy money loans.
Bridging Loans
Paul Campos, Above the Law 2011 Lawyer of the Year
Erik Loomis, HNN Cliopatria 2011 Best Series of Posts
For administrative, advertising, or other inquiries, please e-mail here.
Who is this person who feels neutrally about Romney? I can’t think of anyone who is “neutral.” He’s either the biggest screwup presidential nominee from a major party in years, or the guy who’s going to whitewash the White House again.
To be fair, only about 8 years, so it’s hardly a Herculean streak.
I don’t think Republicans particularly care for him.
You need to go hang out with some apolitical people for a bit. There are PLENTY of people who feel neutrally towards Romney and Obama both.
I just had a very polite conversation yesterday with a guy (20-something) who hasn’t really started thinking about the election. The conversation boiled down to “I think Obama’s a great guy personally, but things aren’t really working so I should probably vote for the other guy.” That’s a summary, but the phrase “the other guy” was actually what came out of his mouth.
There is still a chunk of the electorate who thinks its Obama vs. Generic Republican, believe it or not. They won’t start paying attention until after the Olympics. Or perhaps after the conventions. Or maybe as they drive to the polling place in November…
I think that this refers to the people who haven’t heard of him yet.
The “people who feel neutrally towards Romney” are the people who are planning to vote for him.
Name another contender for the Republican nomination who would have screwed this up this badly.
I’ll spot you Herman Cain. Name another.
New Gingrich.
Lol.
I meant to write Newt, of course.
I still meant to write “Lol.”
As in, that is a laughable assertion.
Disagree. And have to concur with DrDick’s assessment below that basically all of the GOP field with the exception of Huntsman are capable of this level of fuckuppery.
Biggest marketing disaster ever. I hear they’re planning to bring back Classic Gingrich.
Thats two days in a row I have literally laughed out loud at a comment you have written. Thank you
It worked for Nixon . . .
Nixon could afford better people. Or rather, Nixon could afford people.
Nixon was actually a really good politician. A nasty, paranoid, antisemitic, racist sumbitch, but a really good politician. But he’d never have made the ear-of-tin basic mistakes that Mittster has.
I mean, can you imagine Mittster doing anything even remotely resembling the “Checkers” speech?
For Nixon to go to the very pinnacle of American politics with his looks, voice, and demeanor, while advocating for what was, throughout his career, an unpopular political viewpoint, is a testament to his skills as a politician.
Drunk/stoned Rick Perry.
Okay, Rick Perry on the back pills might have screwed this up this badly.
Michelle Bachmann; she, too, could have screwed this up this badly.
Michele Bachmann would have been such a diplomatic fiasco that, while her hardcore groupies would have hooted and thrown feces at each other, formerly-undecided voters would have quietly started checking into how to vote early for Obama in their precincts.
Both of the above are right. Nobody is worse the Perry, and Newt also would have been a horrible candidate. That Mittens is terrible doesn’t mean that his opposition wasn’t even worse.
Newt would have been a horrible candidate in lots of ways, but there is no way he turns an easy glamor jaunt to the Olympics into the Bataan Clown March.
I could easily see Newt going on about where’s Lord Kitchener in the opening ceremony, he knew a thing or two about keeping the
wo, um, fightingcolo, uhGingrich has actually done high profile events overseas before, when he was Speaker and after. The reason nobody remembers them is because he was able to get through them without completely screwing up.
There was the high profile event overseas where he went with Mrs. Gingrich on a two-week Mediterranean cruise immediately after announcing his candidacy, and his campaign staff resigned en masse. Though arguably the disaster did not technically take place overseas.
Neither of which is an example of what Mitt Romney is doing here.
We’re talking – well, I’m talking, anyway – about a specific field of politicking: the public overseas tour.
Coming up with any and all bad things that a candidate or his campaign did does not demonstrate that the candidate screwed this up.
Even as speaker of the House I doubt that Gingrich would get as many opportunities to go off script (i.e., step on his dick) in front of reporters as a presidential candidate does.
Eh, I disagree. He would be talking about how women shouldn’t play beach volleyball because they get infections.
It would be okay, Scott, to say “Okay, Romney is particularly awful at this aspect of campaigning. Still, he has other strengths that make him a better candidate overall.”
You don’t have to stand up for Mitt Romney’s performance in London out of some kind of “Not One Step Back!” stubbornness.
No, it is highly unlikely that Newt Gingrich (who actually has acquitted himself on the world stage without calling to mind large numbers of people climbing out of a tiny, brightly painted car) would have screwed this up this badly.
OK, you have a point. But given that the GOP presidential primary was a three ring circus it’s not gonna be hard to find another clown.
Who the hell is standing up for Romney’s performance in London? It’s terrible! My point is that Newt is also a terrible candidate with an extensive history of saying stupid things who may well have also said stupid things during a trip to London. (And I still don’t know why you think Newt is a formidable candidate, when he has shown 1)an ability to get elected as a Republican in suburban Atlanta, and 2)that’s it.)
You forget 3) the ability to say stupid things that piss off liberals, which carried him a long way toward the speakership. Unfortunately, the people who put him in as speaker discovered at length that Newt says stupid things that piss off everybody.
You could have answered the argument instead of going on a tear about a semantic quibble involving my phrasing.
So it should be trivially easy to come up with examples of Newt Gingrich completely blowing a PR jaunt day after day, like Romney has done, given that he’s been a prominent national politician for a quarter century, and went on numerous overseas trips while occupying a high-profile position.
Speaker of the House? Golly, what’s that?
Most prominent figure in the 1994 elections? Meh, what could the Republicans’ nationalized strategy in the 1994 elections possibly have to do with the political skills of their most prominent spokesman?
Jim Wright? Gosh, who’s he?
Rick Perry’s concealed handgun would have accidentally discharged, most likely that would have been worse.
Only if he was very excited.
Accidently wounding the Queen . . .
Each clown has their own special style.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Clown#Types
All of them, except Huntsman.
Santorum is more disciplined and – away from issues touching on the theocracy – is not such a freak as the rest of the field. His ideas are terrible – really, really awful – but they’re more conventionally terrible ideas than Cain’s insanities or Newt’s latest half-bright notion, and he’s more human than Willard. I’d put him in the category of “Probably able to go to London and smile without starting a war”, unlike Willard or the rest of the field (bar Huntsman).
Santorum’s theocratic streak would not play well in the U.K. Also, I follow politics fairly closely, and I can’t remember anything that Santorum has ever said about foreign policy, other than the generic Republican line. It wouldn’t have shocked me if he had bungled things even more.
I would buy that as well.
He said some crazy stuff about Iran, even more so than the average Republican.
Why would his theocratic streak play at all in the U.K.? Why would it even come up, unless he brought it up?
Romney didn’t screw this trip up be expressing his serious positions, only to find them unpopular. He screwed up by making gaffes – by saying really stupid, in appropriate things. Rick Santorum’s problem with modernity wasn’t going to make him blab about the head of MI6, or diss his own wife’s sport, or blabber about London not being ready.
I don’t know if you could really call Bachmann “a contender”, as she seemed the longest of shots, but I could see her adding her own uniquely comic touch to this situation tragedy.
As far as the longest of long shots, here’s Scott on Bachmann, slightly more than a year ago:
I musunderestimated Mittens!
And overestimated Bachmann, perhaps? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Santorum, rather than Bachmann, emerged as the right-wing alternative to Romney.
well the odds are Santorum’s a dude. That didn’t hurt him
Yes, I thought Republican racism would trump Republican misogyny; I was very wrong.
All of them, Katie.
Yet, the polls are real tight, and it’s gonna be a close election. As for the Weekend at Bernie’s comment, I heard on good source that the Obama campaign full expects Pawlenty to be the choice.
“Romney/Pawlenty: A bridge in every river”
The Somnific Duo: You’ll never need sleeping pills again!
A guy who couldn’t get the slightest traction in a Republican primary logically nobody should have been able to win. Seems about right!
To be fair, Scott, Pawlenty probably should have stuck around a bit longer. The dynamic of the GOP campaign was that everyone (except Huntsman) who bothered not to drop out early got 15 minutes of near-front-runner status. I have no doubt that TimPaw would have been the Not Mitt of the Moment at some point if he hadn’t folded so fast.
As I’ve said before, I agree.
And you thought infrastructure couldn’t be outsourced.
I’d love the jokes involved in a R-Money-a-P
awlenty ticket, the Robot and the Charisma Vacuum united at last – but I somehow doubt it’s going to happen. It will be someone who’s a 70-year-old-white-guy’s idea of young and dynamic (i.e. like Romney himself). Some other Ken doll, right off the Mattel factory line. Paul Ryan or Eric Cantor aren’t likely – they’re a bit ontroversial, they’d be giving up a good gig – but someone like them. Not a schlump like Pawlenty.Thune? He’s tall, has nicely-cut suits, has the all-important VP superpower of becoming invisible, boring, and both thoroughly retrograde and thoroughly corrupt in his politics.
Thunee’s pretty damn stupid too. I thought he made considerably more than $220,000 lobbying for DM&E. In any case his lobbying for South Dakota Companies paid off big now that DM&E have moved to Minnesota
No prediction here. And without being a name-dropping asshole (im a completely different type of asshole and would prefer to stay that way), I’m just relaying what I’ve been told that top campaign people are saying at swanky fundraisers which I would never be invited to attend.
It will be someone who’s a 70-year-old-white-guy’s idea of young and dynamic (i.e. like Romney himself). Some other Ken doll, right off the Mattel factory line.
The obvious choice? Ben Quayle!!
Two generations of idiots is enough.
I still think it’s going to be Portman. Who is like Pawlety but without the obvious disasters of a falling bridge to provide the optics for jokes.
Yeah Portman was GWB’s budget director, but that doesn’t lend itself well to the visuals.
Yeah, but it gives us a predictable debate gotcha’ line, doesn’t it? As soon as Portman mentions the deficit in the debate, Biden springs the trap: You were George Bush’s budget director. Bill Clinton left you with a [$$] surplus, and in eight years of unnecessary, unfunded wars, you turned it into [$$$] of debt.
To be fair to Portman, Mitch Daniels squandered the surplus. Portman just hid wars off-budget in order to make ridiculous budget deficits seem like huge deficits.
That sounds like the level of detail that would be completely lost in a modern debate format.
What’s really funny to me, is that when he was asked about the London games, Mitt had to act like he was some expert on the Olympics, and had to show than he knew more than Obama if he’d have been asked the same question.
‘Well, Brian, I can see some weak spots – like security and the little people striking. And the Brit’s may not be as enthusiastic as our American people were… yadda, yadda, yadda.’
Mitt, YOU didn’t save the SLC Olympics – the Utah and American taxpayers did!!!
All at a cost of over TWICE as much as Atlanta’s Summer Olympics – with a lot less events and athletes.
Mitt couldn’t just say it should be great, and that he looks forward to the games, and that he’s sure London, and all of Great Britain will be great hosts.
NO!!!
He had to act like some dipsh*t corporate raider, assessing the pluses and minuses of some company he and his cronies are about to devour.
If I lived in Israel, I’d welcome him with a sign that says, “Welcome Mitt – you’re not a twit. You’re a f*cking PUTZ!”
And the real kicker to this story is, that after reprimanding Obama for security leaks and apologies, he goes and “outs” MI5, and has to walk back every comment he made (aka: apologize) prior to his “Good Will” tour – which was NOT good, but WILL be remembered for decades in, as far as Romney’s concerned, no longer so Merry Ol’ England.
What a dope! WHAT A MAROON!!!
cund gulag: i believe the full bugs requires several extra “o”s, more along the lines of WHAT A MAROOOON!!!
You never go full bugs.
Well, unless you’re, you know… Bugs.
That’s a good point, and one I haven’t seen elsewhere: when Mitt was dissing London’s preparations, he was trying to praise himself.
Yes, definitely an astute pick-up. I imagine he has a huge ego, and seems to have the constant need to prove he’s smarter than everyone else.
First thing you learn in business is to always sound smart, whether you know anything or not.
I think the second is to be proactive. Or maybe it’s to synergize.
It’s frightful what “survival of the fittest” equates to in the modern GOP. The “winner” is a weird, awkward and out of touch metaphorical robot. (Wasn’t it rumored that most of the fellow GOP primarians really didn’t like him?)
If he doesn’t gaffe it, he misses it. He has had so many positions, we never know which operating system is in play at any given moment.
But what burns through the Romneyshambles is that he and Obama are neck in neck. I get that things aren’t great under Obama for many, many Americans. But the Romney and his cadre of terror/advisors will not, absolutely will not make it better.
I get that things aren’t great under Obama for many, many Americans.
Under Obama isn’t quite right. But we shouldn’t expect your average couch potato/punter/independent/low-information-voter/proud redneck/mama grizzly to understand that.
Obviously that’s the problem. Obama will never be able to convince people it’s not his fault that the economy sucks.
I think he’s wise to not try to put out his side of the argument, only to tear down Romney (cause it’s so easy, and fun!) and defend his actions.
And yet, Obama is tied with Romney in both tracking polls…if Romney is so horrible, why isn’t Obama way ahead? HMmmmm…
Pay more attention to polls in battleground states. See, e.g., today’s story on fivethirtyeight.com re Ohio.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are looking like swing states again while Obama continues to decline in Virginia…
I said look at the polls. Apparently, you haven’t.
the question is why isn’t obama way ahead: the question is why isn’t romney way ahead.
and the answer is, he’s horrible.
Yet the “horrible” candidate has a 50/50 shot of beating what liberals apparently consider the Most Brilliant Politician Ever(tm). How can that BE?
you know, anonymous, if you insist upon being a dullard, no one can help you.
it’s really very simple: given the state of the economy, any republican should be kicking obama’s ass. the fact that none can is the salient detail here.
That’s not what what the historical record (according to 538) says. Yes, the economy is bad. But Obama is still an incumbent in peacetime, which gives him huge advantages. The result of a weak economy + incumbency is a (perfectly predictable) small but real advantage for Obama.
Wartime. Incumbent wartime President.
Citizens united.
FINALLY! Someone gets the right answer.
The Super PACs will win it for Romney.
Is it bootleather that you like to taste on your tongue, or whatever it is that your masters have been walking through that day?
It is not their boots that he licks.
But if he keeps up the good work, some day it will be!
I don’t know what is worse. The fact that you could be right, or the horrifying knowledge that you think this is okay.
When are you going to declare VICTORY!?
Yes, we’ve seen your act before. In fact you’re acting out elsewhere, today, aren’t you?
Don’t know where you’re getting 50-50 from. Fivethirtyeight.com, the best site out there for this sort of thing, has Obama with a 69.1% chance of winning, with today’s headline “Ohio polls show trouble for Romney.”
Not a sure thing for the incumbent, to be sure, but he’s the favorite now.
I’m operating on the assumption that our Anonymous troll friend is part of Romney’s Legion Of Trolls operating as an astro-turf organization being paid from UNLIMITED SUPERPAC MONEY to do … something. I’m sure whatever it is it’s part of a cunning plan – a plan as cunning as a fox who’s just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.
Because the alternative is that our troll friend is doing it for free. And that’s just plain sad, licking all that bootleather without getting paid.
If he is getting paid, you can put “hiring decent astroturf trolls” as yet another thing Romney can’t do competently.
*squeee* Ahem, sorry about that.
I have the biggest crush on circa-1987 Rowan Atkinson, it’s a bit embarassing.
The Dunny-on-the-Wold by-election remains the filter through which I view all UK politics…
Why restrict yourself to the UK?
Because far too many people operate under the delusion that the President has the ability to do something about a bad economy.
Why isn’t Obama ahead? Hard to believe that anyone could ask that question given his abysmal record. But for starters there’s the complete and total failure to address the depression, the massive corruption indicated by the failure to prosecute even a single corporate wrong-doer, the massive giveaways to the corporates and the rich, the loss of close to a third of the net worth of working Americans, the expansion of the American war machine fueled by the largest war budgets in US history, and, above all, the utter disaster that is Obamacare. Much as I despise the Repubs it’s hard to believe that anyone would even consider voting for Obama after Obamacare, the biggest corporate giveaway ever by a long shot and a devastating blow to working people, one which has put the struggle to reform our health care system back by decades. Romney may be a disastrous president, but there’s no way he can be more right-wing, more corrupt, or more incompetent than Obama. Or a greater embarrassment. And the constant, rude, thoughtless never-ending trashing of anyone who doesn’t think like them certainly isn’t making the Democrats any friends.
Great parody!
It’s not easy to type like that when you’re under a bus, and simultaneously having your face slapped.
I think we’ve got a Paulbot here.
Best comment I ever saw on Ron Paul was from the Great Orange Satan, to the effect that he was like a doctor who often got the diagnosis right but when you asked him about the treatment, said “Just a moment, I have this hand grenade in my briefcase….”
Not a Paulist, just a plain old Firebagger.
Not a Paulist, just a plain old Firebagger.
Of course, there’s increasing overlap between the two categories…
I say a Republican pretending to be a firebagger.
Not a dimes worth of difference?
Srsly? Again?
Do you remember what is said about those who refuse to learn from history.
That they finally don’t get taken for granted?
That they are at long last no longer ignored?
That now their contributions will get the consideration they have always deserved?
I’m keen to guess…
Obama is ahead. Fivethirtyeight.com and Intrade both have him as the favorite. Pay attention and learn.
I also remember when liberals laughed at Ronald Reagan and said there’s no way he could win…
that’s quite some memory you have: too bad it’s inaccurate.
No, it was true. It was also 1976.
I also remember when
liberalsCalifornians laughed at Ronald Reagan and said there’s no way he could win… the country’s hosed…FTFY
Okay, so I have no skill with strikethrough.
I also remember when conservative trolls were posting about how the “Bradley effect” was going to sink Obama in ’08.
Yeah, except that never happened. Liberals began laughing at Ronald Reagan a few years into his presidency, when he started doing things like falling asleep in cabinet meetings and forgetting stuff.
During the actual 1980 campaign, Reagan was considered a formidable opponent, running on a strong record as governor of California, who has very nearly upset an incumbent President in the 1976 primaries, who had nailed it when given prominent speaking spots in previous Republican conventions, and who had been traveling the country giving high-profile policy speeches since the early 60s.
Remember that 1980 was too close to call until the last week–when people finally decided to answer “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”
Something to keep in mind before popping the champagne corks.
Clearly, what America craves is some more of that Bush/Cheney magic.
Yes, God forbid we go back to the horrible, oppressive days of 5% unemployment!
Or the policies which produced the current massive deficit and the worst economic crisis and depression since the 1930s.
Or the foreign policy disasters that let 9/11 happen, and then let its mastermind run free for years.
Plus the federal government’s excellent response to Katrina, under the Bush-decimated FEMA.
I’m with Anonymous on this one. Too many of you completely forget about the collapse of the housing bubble that Obama oversaw in 2006 that sucked over a trillion dollars out of the economy and sequed into the Obama recession starting in 2007.
I love this comment. I want to pop it it a Baby Bjorn, walk around town & demand everyone aknowledge the tiny, tiny genius of it.
Even the GOP doesn’t want W anywhere in sight this year.
What I remember most about 1980 was the treasonous arms-for-hostages deal the Reagan campaign negotiated, reminiscent of the treasonous actions of the Nixon campaign in undermining the VietNam peace talks. By the way, there was a very good account of the Reagan years (“Reagan: the Real Story”) on Counterpunch a few days ago.
Counterpunch is a magazine nostalgic for the days of Brezhnev. Hardly a good source.
Alexander Cockburn said that the day the hardliner coup in the USSR failed was one of the saddest of his life.
On the other hand, Alexander Cockburn never engaged in treasonous negotiations with foreign governments, unlike many Republican presidential candidates.
Die Kaelber Marsch….
Maybe Romney just needs a good translator: