Subscribe via RSS Feed

“You’re Walking Blind Without A Cane, Pal.”

[ 38 ] October 7, 2012 |

If you’re at all informed, you have to be one world-class sucker to think that the Mitt Romney who presented himself at this weeks debate will bear any resemblance to how Mitt Romney would govern as a Republican president. Well, Ross Douthat is that sucker. The idea that congressional Republicans would pass a tax bill that prioritzed over reform over cutting upper-class tax rates, in particular, is remarkable.

Comments (38)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. JazzBumpa says:

    Nope. I will not let you goad me into reading Douthat.

  2. RepubAnon says:

    Mitt Romney will do about as much middle-of-the-road governing while in office as George W. Bush does brush-clearing now that he’s no longer in office.

    “None at all.”

  3. Linda says:

    Douthat doesn’t believe that himself, but he’s willing to go along with the gag, now that the right has soberly concluded that if there’s no lying, there’s not going to be a Republican in the White House for a long time. Seriously, if the tea party version of Romney were ahead by 10 points in the polls, would Douthat or Brooks be cheering for a (different) fake Romney? Of all conservative pundits, onlySteve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune takes a dim view of the newest fake, because he’s fake.

    And it’s not like nobody knows he’s a fake. The only problem for Republicans is that 2012 is too close to 2010, and people might actually remember what Republicans did when they promised to create jobs and proceeded to spend 2011 trying to outlaw abortion, defund Planned Parenthood and bust unions.

  4. JR says:

    That’s the problem… for some people they won’t believe it unless we all live it. It will take electing Mitt for them to believe those silly paranoid Democrats. But President Christie will be much better.

  5. Joshua says:

    John Dickerson at Slate claims it is “impossible” to know which Mitt would govern as President. I guess on some level this is Slate being Slate, but I really wish that site wouldn’t so insistently take their readers for fools.

    Mitt with this Republican Congress would make Dubya look like Jimmy Carter.

    • Pestilence says:

      thats the whole predicate of that sites’ existence

    • Aaron says:

      Why the feigned confusion? It’s not like there’s more than one Mitt Romney. It’s not like he mixes his messages when he’s speaking to his major campaign donors. Up to a few days ago, he was pretty clear on what he stood for – tax cuts for the rich, and screw the working class and poor. I doubt that there’s a Republican donor who sees his “pivot” as anything but as cynical marketing. They don’t think he’s going to be ‘revenue neutral’ with their tax cut, and they certainly don’t think he’s going to attack “too big to fail” financial institutions.

      If you look at the very few things Romney was consistent about coming into the debate, that’s what he stands for. The rest is about getting elected. He’ll govern in the same way – push his very small agenda to the benefit of his peers, push whatever other agenda he believes will help him get reelected, and flip public positions every time a poll tells him it’s what the public wants to hear.

    • witless chum says:

      Exactly. Mittens’ deep, personal soul might not be as right-wing as his campaign (or it might be) but the idea that Mitt Romney that is going to engage in a bunch of principled fights with his own party to moderate the Republican legislative agenda is too stupid to entertain for longer than a minute.

  6. Jon H says:

    Yeah. Basically the only way it would be safe to think passed legislation would resemble Nice-Moderate-Romney’s claimed policies is if, as in Massachusetts, the Democrats held 80% of the seats in Congress.

    That would be enough that Republicans would have a hard time obstructing, and even Democrats of the Ben Nelson variety would have a hard time causing problems trying to pull things to the right.

  7. fourmorewars says:

    Regarding the passing of the ‘Beck moment’ that the link mentions, check out Bill Whittle…have become acquainted w/him thru some retard rw facebook pages I visit. He’s Beck all buttoned-up and icy-calm. But the content is not a bit different. I think he makes them feel like they’ve reached a more sophisticated level than with Beck’s carpet-chewing, but like I said the content is every bit as puerile, just packaged differently.

  8. jon says:

    In MA, Romney never voiced any strenuous objections to legislation the Democratic legislature sent up to him, or really never tried to articulate or advance his agenda. I’m told his budgets did decimate school funding. I can’t see him exerting much sway over Republicans in Congress.

  9. joejoejoe says:

    Chunky Reese Witherspoon dodged a bullet. A dim, porcine bullet.

  10. The Dark Avenger says:

    Here’s Tbogg’s take on M. Douthat from earlier this year.

    (Added) By the way, Ross Douthat has been married for three and a half years. In that time : one child. I know Catholics are adherents of the rhythm method but Ross looks like one of those white guys who can’t keep a beat. Is it irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible not to.

  11. daveNYC says:

    Why are you implying that Douthat is at all informed?

    • DocAmazing says:

      Douthat is a symptom of the Yglesias disease: he went to a stellar undergraduate institution, therefore he must have something important to say. It doesn’t matter how often he gargles up stupidities, his CV says we should be listening.

      • Vance Maverick says:

        At least Yglesias didn’t make his mark with a book about what a terrible student he was at that institution.

      • witless chum says:

        He’s a symptom of the national media’s desire to have bland, inoffensive spokesmen for both liberal and conservative points of view (Next, on NPR we hear from analysts across the political spectrum. All the way from E.J. Dionne to David Brooks!) that they’ll round someone like Douthat up to a thinker because he’s willing to put a polite gloss on the crazy while making allegedly centrist noises. While, and this is most important part, fluffing the media elite and not pointing out the general political agenda (left on social issues, right on economics) that they push. They really don’t like pundits to talk about that.

        The New York Times don’t want to publish the real conservative stuff because it’s so crazy and pernicious and they fancy themselves as being above the Cal Thomases or George Wills of the world. But they do actually believe in the idea of balance so they promote nonentities willing to play act.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site