Tanned, Rested, Ready, and Obscenely Wealthy: A Guest Post By Mitt “Mitt” Romney

Lawyers, Guns and Money is proud to interrupt your usual string of lazy link with one-liner posts insightful longform essays with an impassioned missive from someone back in the news, an alleged former governor of Massachusetts and professional fundraiser and robotic talking-points spouter. Enjoy!

Gosh, my friends, it sure seems like only yesterday when we were on our way to a crushing victory over the, ah, dark forces of Barack Obama, under whose leadership America’s once-bright future has, um, dimmed, leaving us staring into a bla–

Uh, well, you understand where I’m coming from. “Ann” and I to this day often sit down with our five boys — Tagg, Fritz, Spork, Clog, and (annoyed grunt) — and ask ourselves what happened. They’re growing boys, as you know, and they’ll often scarf down one of “Ann’s” special treats, like unflavored pudding or mayonnaise on white bread. Clog likes his bread toasted, but “Ann” says the shards of toast “feel like machetes” when she tries to swallow it, so it’s plain white bread for us.

I can assure you that our internal campaign figures and computer numbers and whatnot guaranteed a “Mitt” Romney victory — my top advisers assured me of such every time their direct deposit payments hit their checking accounts, and I’m sure they were right on the money. But I suppose some things will have to remain a mystery, like, for example, the exact percentage of our income that “Ann” and I have paid in taxes over the past several years. Only God and Saul, our Israelite accountant, will ever know for sure.

At any rate, while “Ann” and I have made no final decisions about what would be my first real attempt at winning election to the presidency (my first race was merely dabbling, and you’ll recall that my last attempt at the office was undertaken largely against my will, so these should not be counted), I can assure you that we will not be swayed by the opinions of Jennifer Robins at the Washington Post. I plan spend the next few months asking ordinary Americans what I can do to help make their lives better. I’ll go from corporate boardroom to corporate boardroom, from country club to $50,000 a plate gala dinner, to hear from regular folks.

“Regular folks.” Ha! They’re adorable! Many of them, I would imagine, don’t even have elevators for their cars! I guess you’re taking the stairs, Mr. Aston Martin! Oh, gosh, I’m almost giddy today!

These are people who realize that, under a “Mitt” Romney presidency, there would be no ISIS, and Vladimir Putin would know his place. People would be more physically appealing, cancer would surrender to our doctors, and everyone would win the Powerball. That’s the kind of leadership you’ll see from President “Mitt” Romney, and it would be unfair to the American people to deprive them of my own gifts simply because Robert Jefferson at the Washington Post has some problem with me attempting what, again, would really be my first run for the presidency, or political office of any kind, really.

Rest assured that once I have interacted with other human beings in regards to my future plans, I will inform you of same in a timely fashion. Thank you my friends, and God Bless the United States of America!

Mitt “Mitt” Romney

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

“Sure, Lucy Didn’t Even Bring Her Football Onto the Field. But, Trust Me, It Will Be There.”

Matt Lewis insults your intelligence:

If Obama were really concerned about bridging the gap, he wouldn’t reflexively promise to veto the first piece of legislation presented to him by this new Congress. Doing so doesn’t exactly demonstrate that he heard the message voters sent him in November when, yes, his policies were on the ballot, and yes, they were rejected. But perhaps more importantly, passing Keystone would be a gesture of goodwill to a new Congress. It might actually restore some small modicum of hope in the American people that their government can get something done — that we aren’t predestined to suffer gridlock and obstructionism.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Right, Obama refusing to veto Keystone would surely produce an era of bipartisan comity. And If Obama were to veto 3 whole bills in 6 years, this could clearly be identified as the primary source of gridlock on Washington. And Ryan Lindley will be the NFL MVP next year. Scout’s honor!

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Republicans v. Science

This is the kind of trolling I can strongly approve of.

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Arbitrary Detention Cannot Fail, It Can Only Be Failed

Shorter John McCain, Richard Burr, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte: “We can’t possibly release prisoners from Gitmo now. How else could the terrorist attacks in France have not been prevented?”

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Empowerment Fail

If you’re not me and you don’t live in a cave– unaware that World War II has ended– you’ve probably heard the Meghan Trainor song “All about that Bass.” If you have, perhaps you thought yourself, “Well, that’s refreshing and empowering song about ‘people of size’.” Because at first listen, it is. But listen more closely. The appeals to the male gaze are not empowering:

“Boys like a little more booty to hold at night”

“‘Cause I got that boom boom that all the boys chase”

And I don’t like referring to thin women as “skinny bitches.”

“I’m bringing booty back
Go ahead and tell them skinny bitches that”

Nope. I don’t like it. Women who are thinner than I am are not my enemy; they’re just women who are thinner than I am. That’s it. Women of all sizes should band together to fight body-shaming.

So, sorry, Meghan. Your song is super-catchy, but it’s not the empowering anthem you think it is. You squandered the opportunity to do something incredibly positive and joyful. Try to do better next time; I know you can.

That being said, the video is a sweet, funny, candy-colored treat.

In other news, I’ve just discovered the Sia video for “Chandelier.” (I’m barely kidding about that cave thing; I am *so* out of the pop culture loop these days.) Please watch it right away: the sets and cinematography are gorgeous and so is the choreography. This video haunts me.

What songs/videos are in heavy rotation for you these days?

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Jen Hearts Mittens Jeb

You heard about how the guy with the Romney face tattoo is no longer backing Romney? That’s nothing!

It’s to a post by WaPo’s Republican blogger Jennifer Rubin, that thoroughly mocks and trashes the idea of Mitt ‘16.

I’m not sure which analogy most aptly describes how shocking this is. Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ? The time Colonel Sanders went off on the quality of KFC’s food? Eldridge Cleaver’s conversion to born-again Christianity? Rubin’s commentary on the 2012 campaign—both the primary and general election phases—was such an endless paen to Mitt Romney that it became a significant sub-topic of campaign journalism (check out this massive Conor Friedersdorf description of her Mitt-o-rific writing). Now her dismissal of Romney ‘16 is as cold and nasty as a Bain firing notice. And it’s not really mitigated by her pretence that Mitt’s interest in running is a fabrication of his former campaign consultants.

In addition to the shift in hack allegiances, I enjoyed this from another Rubin anti-Romney post:

And finally, Romney, it is reported, is talking about adhering to the same anti-immigration-reform, self-deportation stance that led him to win only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote. This is back to the future for the GOP, reverting to a message directed at an electorate (old, white, male) that is shrinking. If he also is going to run against gay marriage, he can forget the millennial vote as well. Romney represents precisely the model that has led the GOP to defeat.

So, what makes Romney unelectable in 2016 are…some of the positions that will be necessary for any candidate to be minimally acceptable to the Republican primary electorate? I can’t wait for the series of blog posts in which Rubin argues in which the Republican candidates opposition to same-sex marriage is a brilliant ploy to stand up against the urban hipster elite.

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Sending Abortion Back to the States

Nobody could have etc.:

The House plans to vote on legislation banning abortions after 20 weeks on the same day as the annual March for Life next Thursday.

Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators descend on Washington every year on Jan. 22, which is the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Legislation introduced by Reps. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), titled the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” would ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Supporters of the bill maintain that fetuses can feel pain by the approximate halfway stage of a pregnancy.

I’m sure all of the principled Republican federalists who believe that abortion is a matter reserved to the states will vote this legislation down!

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Another Problem With Halbig Trooferism

Ian Milhiser explains why Scott Walker’s acknowledgement that there’s no substantive difference between a state and federal exchange established by the ACA should be considered to be far more important than those of President, Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, Secretary of State, Chief Justice of the United States, and longtime don of the Gambino crime family Jonathan Gruber:

Normally, courts would treat both Walker and Gruber’s statements even more dismissively because neither man was in the legislature during Obamacare’s enactment. Walker’s statement, however, falls into an exception to this rule that makes it highly relevant to the outcome of King. To understand why, it’s important to understand fully how the King plaintiffs characterize the Affordable Care Act.

The essence of the King plaintiffs’ reading of the law is that Congress viewed the question of whether state or federal bureaucrats operate each exchange as a matter of such overarching importance that they were willing to deny health care to millions of people — in order to ensure that the people running the exchanges all drew a state paycheck. The plaintiffs argue that the tax credits are part of “a variety of ‘carrots’ and ‘sticks’ to induce states to establish Exchanges voluntarily.” In essence, they claim, Congress used the threat that a state’s citizens could lose access to billions of dollars worth of subsidies in order to coerce the states into setting up their own exchange.

The Constitution places limits on states’ power to do this sort of thing, however. When the federal government conditions payment of federal money upon states taking a particular action, those conditions are unconstitutional “if a State is unaware of the conditions or is unable to ascertain what is expected of it.” Moreover, the question or whether a state is able to ascertain what strings come attached to the funds is evaluated “from the perspective of a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether the State should accept . . . the obligations that go with those funds.”

This is why Walker’s views hold special significance. Walker, in his own words, “spent nearly two years” studying the differences between state and federal exchanges, and he learned that “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange [and] a state exchange.” Indeed, as Cannon points out, Walker set up an entire state program premised on the idea that federally-run exchanges are permitted to provide tax credits just like state-run exchanges. Walker’s views, in other words, demonstrate that “a state official who is engaged in the process of deciding whether” Wisconsin should set up its own exchange was unable to ascertain the alleged consequences of this decision. Thus, even if the King plaintiffs are correct that Obamacare conditions tax credits on a state setting up its own exchange, that condition is unconstitutional.

Walker, it should be noted, is hardly alone among Republican governors in his belief that “there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange [and] a state exchange.” Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman (R) said that “[o]n the key issues, there is no real operational difference between a federal exchange and a state exchange.” Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) explained that his state would opt for a federally-run exchange because there was no evidence of any “clear benefits of a state run exchange to our citizens.” A Supreme Court brief filed by the governors or attorneys general of 24 states explained that the Obamacare “can only operate in the manner that Congress intended” if the tax credits are “intact.”

The law’s staunchest opponents in the states, in other words, including two dozen officials who were actively trying to destroy the Affordable Care Act, were “unable to ascertain” that they could thwart one of the law’s central provisions if they refused to set up a state-run exchange. The King plaintiffs’ reading of the law is unconstitutional.

If only this case were being heard by a legal tribunal, or if any American conservative actually cared about federalism…

Share with Sociable

• 

• 

Tuesday Links

Since some of my colleagues may not be in any condition to blog today, some reading:

• Dick Morris’s anti-Hillary PAC has attracted a robust zero dollars.
• Jackie Gehring on the politics of Charlie Hebdo.
• One battle I hope Scalia wins.
• Sadly, Chris Christie’s Cowboys fandom is one of his better qualities.
• The importance of California’s high-speed rail project.  
• I’m with Freddie on the “music just wants to be freeeeeeeeeeeee” crowd.

Share with Sociable

• 

•