Subscribe via RSS Feed

Things In Politico That Will Make Charles Pierce Want To Mainline Antifreeze

[ 134 ] September 29, 2012 |

Shorter Politico: Mitt Romney is likely to lose badly because he’s just too good for America to appreciate his qualities. Wonderful guy, but bad candidate. A Nice Guy who deserves America’s love but won’t get it because the American electorate is a bunch of stuck-up bitches. Your loss!

I especially treasure this bit:

Yet many of the folks who are despairing about Romney would actually love what he would do in office. Romney’s metric-obsessed transition team is fleshing out a “200-day plan” (100 days wasn’t enough time to pass a bunch of big bills) aimed at goosing the recovery and creating jobs by bringing corporate cash off the sidelines in the United States and attracting investment from abroad.

The weapons would include tax and regulatory policy and what one aide called a “very aggressive” series of executive orders, many already on the drawing board. Two of Romney’s friends told POLITICO he would be eager to sign a bipartisan grand bargain in the first four months in office to calm markets and ease partisan tensions.

Yes, if there’s anything the 47% is really dying for, it’s a neurotic misogynist a bunch of confidence fairy gibberish and big cuts to entitlements to finance upper-class tax cuts. It’s just amazing how the American electorate always wants what Politico editors and people employed by Fred Hiatt want, and that they want it is so obvious we hardly need any evidence to back it up!

Comments (134)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. c u n d gulag says:

    PolitiCLOWNS:
    Paul Ryan Mitt Romney is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.

  2. arguingwithsignposts says:

    to calm markets

    I admit that I haven’t been paying attention to the Big New York Cas1no on Wall Street, but have they been especially jittery lately? Or is that just more GOP bullshit?

  3. Davis X. Machina says:

    First we elect a black president. Then he wins the referendum we hold on throwing him out.

    If he beats the upcoming impeachment, I will be forced to conclude that as a nation we’re actually making progress. A 3-0 record means something.

    And someday after that, the Civil War finally ends — Happy 150th, Civil War!, by the way.

    • Murc says:

      I’ve actually cooled on impeachment.

      I was sure, I mean, would have been willing to bet money sure, that after the 2010 elections the House would find a reason to start serious, no-joke impeachment proceedings by September 2011 at the latest.

      The fact that they didn’t materialize has made me think that maybe the Republicans actually did learn some sort of lesson from the Clinton fiasco.

      • cpinva says:

        not at all:

        The fact that they didn’t materialize has made me think that maybe the Republicans actually did learn some sort of lesson from the Clinton fiasco.

        they were just way too busy passing anti-women, anti-poor people, anti-everyone not them legislation to get around to it. that kind of shit takes up a lot time you know.

        • Perhaps the complete lack of material the Obama administration has given them plays a role.

          I’m not saying the Clinton impeachment was right or fair, but he actually gave them something to work with.

          Barack Obama, and his administration, have been remarkably, uniquely clean.

          • Anon21 says:

            And I’ll bet that’s no accident. Given the way the GOP has treated his presidency as presumptively illegitimate, plus the popular association between black people and wrongdoing/crime, I’m sure his political team was planning on how to avoid impeachment from the beginning.

          • spencer says:

            Barack Obama, and his administration, have been remarkably, uniquely clean.

            Solyndra! Fast n Furious! Ummm ….. hang on a minute ….

            Yeah, you’re right. There really isn’t anything with any real substance for them to grab onto.

            • Cody says:

              The fact that a relatively small amount of loan money was given to a green energy company that went bankrupt and ATF agents not being allowed to prosecute illegal gun sales because of Republican DA’s are the two biggest scandals of Obama’s Presidency is disturbing.

              I know how hard Republicans are working to unearth things.

      • James E. Powell says:

        We are also blessed with a president who is as clean as a politician can be. It might be that he wasn’t in the business long enough or big enough to be involved with the kind of shady deals that are fodder for the scandal mills.

        • Reagan was free of personal scandals, too, but his administration was full of crooks like Ed Meese.

          Four years into the Obama administration, they’ve got a company that failed after receiving government loans, and a poorly-run ATF operation that never got above middle management.

          It’s enough to make you miss the Bush-era Mineral Management Service. Now that was a scandal.

          • BobS says:

            It’s my understanding that the DOE program that funded Solyndra and the ‘Fast & Furious’ debacle both originated during the Bush administration.

          • Warren Terra says:

            Reagan sold arms to terrorists in order to illegally provide arms to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua; some of the money was stolen by administration officials and some was lost by administration ineptitude. Clinton’s actions were of a much more personal nature, but Reagan was far, far more impeachable.

            • Reagan sold arms to….

              And half the country actively supported his policy. Ollie North became a hero.

              some of the money was stolen by administration officials and some was lost by administration ineptitude

              Yes, his administration was full of people who kept getting caught in scandalous behavior that gave his opponents openings for attacks. That’s what I said.

            • Offsides says:

              So there are quite a few veteran insiders of that era who claim that a deal was made in 1987 – Sen Howard Baker – one of those “trusted by both sides” Senators we used to have – would take over as Chief of Staff and clean things up and the Democrats would set aside impeachment hearings in the house.

              Can’t prove it, but in those days when there still was some genuine statemanship in both parties that is the kind of deal that was done. No one wanted a repeat of Watergate.

              Then the Newt crowd took power in 1995 and everything changed.

          • Heron says:

            Well there’s the “rocket-docket/robo-signing” scandal and the chicanery surrounding the mortgage “settlement” which stinks in all sorts of ways, but none of our elites, especially the Republicans, are in any rush to hold the banks, or even the individuals in charge of mortgage origination, accountable for their blatant criminality of the last decade or so years.

        • Warren Terra says:

          Though the Right sure tried to make a big deal out of his buying a strip of land next to his house at market rates.

      • Halloween Jack says:

        Probably the only lesson that they learned (and by “they” I mean the obvious non-mouthbreathers) was the old one about glass houses and stones.

    • Jesse Levine says:

      Never going to end.

  4. avoidswork says:

    Scott…it’s satire.

    Poorly executed, but satire nonetheless. For some reason, post-Simon’s “The Stench” crud, they decided to try their hand at it again.

    • sparks says:

      When their satire is indistinguishable from what they usually write, it’s time they close down shop. We already have an Onion.

    • commie atheist says:

      Satire? I only skimmed it, but I couldn’t find anything that might lead one to believe this was anything but straight analysis. Unless my satire detector is irreparably broken (and Simon’s piece did look real to me at first glance, so that’s a definite possibility), This seems legit to me.

      • patrick II says:

        The Politico article is not satire, however avoidswork comment is. So, while your satire detector is not irreparably broken, it might need a little fine tuning.
        Or it is possible this comment is satire about the state of your satire detector, I am losing track.

    • cpinva says:

      dude, i think you’d best pull out that dusty old dictionary, and look up the word “satire”.

      Scott…it’s satire.

      “you keep using that word. i do not think that word means what you think it means.”

      no, it’s not satire, at least not intentionally. you see, satire is, well, funny, intentionally. well crafted to give, at least for a brief moment, the appearance of seriousness, while simultaneously and subtly eviscerating the subject of said satire. no, this is simply the sad ramblings of a group of dispirited, intellectually stunted political operatives, attempting, badly, to convince someone that romney isn’t really the absolute, total dick that he is.

      if they were honest with themselves and their candidate, the campaign’s official icon would be a vibrator.

    • herr doktor bimler says:

      Back in the days of the Worm-Runner’s Digest, Jim McConnell used to mix up the serious science reports and the spoof articles. People complained that they didn’t know which was which, until he finally gave up and changed to a format with two front pages.
      At least the contributors generally knew the difference.

  5. mark f says:

    Two of Romney’s friends

    FACT CHECK

  6. Ragout says:

    You’re being to kind to Romney. “A very aggressive series of executive orders” doesn’t mean lowering taxes and cutting entitlements. You can’t do those things with executive orders. Romney’s guys must be talking about cutting environmental protections, labor standards, non-discrimination protections, anti-fraud regulations, and that kind of thing.

  7. Jim says:

    Is the only named source in that story Newt Gingrich? And are they actually basing their argument that he would be a good president on the opinions solely of Romney campaign officials?

  8. laura says:

    The weapons would include tax and regulatory policy and what one aide called a “very aggressive” series of executive orders, many already on the drawing board.

    He’s going to do stuff! Bold stuff! We don’t know what the stuff is, but it’s on the drawing board! Some if it anyway!

    Two of Romney’s friends told POLITICO he would be eager to sign a bipartisan grand bargain in the first four months in office to calm markets and ease partisan tensions.

    I’m wondering if it would be possible to find a politicians who would say no to the “bipartisan grand bargain”. For politicians it would be like saying you hate your children.

  9. sleepyirv says:

    A 200 day plan? I feel that’s sort of like putting 11 on your guitar amp.

    Of course, this is after the Republicans argued for months which candidate would do the most in the first 15 minutes of their presidency.

    • cpinva says:

      you could do that.

      I feel that’s sort of like putting 11 on your guitar amp.

      and it would probably have a greater affect than mitt’s “200 day plan”.

      • Warren Terra says:

        You’ve confused “affect” and “effect”.

        I only point this out because Mitt so often is displaying an inappropriate affect for the script he’s reading (given it’s Mitt, maybe that should be “for the script he’s running“).

  10. Roger Ailes says:

    “In the end, it’s Mitt.”

    That’s enough to bring back anti-sodomy laws.

  11. vacuumslayer says:

    Here’s the thing, though: It ISN’T Mitt. It’s what the Wingnutty base/majority of the party has forced him to be. This is not a rejection of Mitt, it’s a rejection of modern conservatism. So actually the whole premise of the article, satire or no, is WRONG.

    • James E. Powell says:

      Who forced Mitt to do or say anything? He’s rich, fuck-you-money rich. He doesn’t have to do or say anything unless he wants to.

      Who asked him to run for president?

      • vacuumslayer says:

        When I say “forced” I don’t mean that in a literal sense. I just think that if Mittens had believed he could win as a moderate he would have run as one. But the base “forced” him to act the loon.

        • Spuddie says:

          I just think that if Mittens had believed he could win as a moderate he would have run as one.

          Why would he bother? Its not like the guy has ever shown actual personal convictions when it came to election time. Being a wingnut benefits him personally, so be it. It wasn’t entirely necessary anyway. Romney did it because he really is a wingnut.

          Its not like the crazies want to have a black man in the white house for another 4 years. He could have promised the most left wing radical program out there and still get their votes.

          • James E. Powell says:

            Right. And he could have done a triangulation act that would have had the Village crown him emperor.

            • vacuumslayer says:

              I think that would have been harder to do than it sounds. Any step out of line would have his base losing its collective shit.

              • Hogan says:

                There’s a story on TPM to the effect that some conservatives have finally decided if Romney needs to say slightly nice things about Romneycare in order to win, well, maybe that’s OK.

              • NonyNony says:

                Honestly, I think that if Romney had pulled a “Sistah Souljah” moment with his base, told them to go pound sand openly, and tacked to the center, he wouldn’t be doing any worse than he’s doing right now.

                But he’d never do that because he actually agrees with his base on pretty much everything when it comes to policy. I’ve read up more on how “Romneycare” got enacted in Massachusetts and Romney got credit for it in exactly the same way that Clinton got “credit” for Welfare Reform – it was obvious that it was going to happen anyway with the legislature that he had to work with so instead of fighting it tooth and nail he got out in front of it and claimed credit for it.

                He was a moderate through pragmatism, not because of any belief in moderation. And given a situation where he doesn’t have to moderate himself he has chosen not to.

                • Romney got credit for it in exactly the same way that Clinton got “credit” for Welfare Reform – it was obvious that it was going to happen anyway with the legislature that he had to work with so instead of fighting it tooth and nail he got out in front of it and claimed credit for it.

                  Also, like Clinton and welfare reform, jumping on board allowed him to change the outcome incrementally in his direction.

                • James E. Powell says:

                  That’s my sense, too. He would have pissed off the rank and file, but their leaders would have seen it as a winner and dampened that down by the convention. The rank and file would have gone along with it because there is no greater cause than putting the White House back in white hands.

        • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

          Do we know this with any degree of certainty? Isn’t it just as likely that the Massachusetts electorate (and legislature) “forced” him to run (and then govern) as a moderate? I’ve seen very little evidence for the notion that Mitt Romney (Governor of the Bay State Edition) was the “real” Mitt Romney.

    • efgoldman says:

      It’s what the Wingnutty base/majority of the party has forced him to be.

      “Dammit, woman, its your fault I have to beat you up,”
      Alternatively, the [Mormon] devil made him do it.

    • DocAmazing says:

      Mitt is like tofu: he take on the flavor of whatever he’s sauteed with. During the primaries, he was sauteed with wingnut. Hence, moo goo nutty white gai.

    • laura says:

      Very true. But in Politico’s world, politics is a soap opera and the only thing that explains any shifts is the personal appeal of the candidates.

    • Scott Lemieux says:

      This is true too. I mean, Romney’s pretty terrible, but he meets the minimal standards under which a guy selling attractive policies could win; he won a statewide race in Massachusetts as a Republican. But even a good candidate would have trouble selling a shit sandwich hold the bread.

      • Incontinentia Buttocks says:

        Especially if less than half the voters are sewer rats. The GOP’s problem is that they constitue a very sizable majority of its primary electorate.

  12. herr doktor bimler says:

    a “very aggressive” series of executive orders, many already on the drawing board.

    Aggression! Boldness! Edicts! Unitary executive!
    So the latest shake of the Etch-a-sketch features Peremptory Romney, CEO of America, governing by willpower and diktats… is this Politico’s idea of what will appeal to people?

  13. herr doktor bimler says:

    Will Make Charles Pierce Want To Mainline Antifreeze

    I heard that all the cool kids are buttchugging it.

  14. charles pierce says:

    Mmmmmm, Prestone!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site