What Would Mitt Romney Do?

A 10-year-old girl with two dads wrote to Obama, thanked him for supporting same-sex marriage. He replied: lettersofnote.com/2012/11/our-di…
— Shaun Usher (@LettersOfNote) November 6, 2012

Let's speculate ...

[Ripple dissolve to Mitt Romney sitting in the Oval Office, he writes ... ]

From the Desk of Mitt Romney 

Dear Sophia,  

Your family is an abomination. Everything they say about you at school is correct.
Rest assured, I am doing everything in my power to ensure no homosexuals can ever marry or raise children.  

Enclosed please find a helpful pamphlet produced by the Church of Latter Day Saints that I'm sure will answer all your questions!

Contemptuously yours,
Mitt Romney

This election matters.

It may not be much comfort to all the future Pakistani drone victims out there but, come to think of it, imagine what Romney would use them for given the chance ...

I'd like to trademark "Mittens Von Clausewitz" before the pundit class seizes upon it ...

First and only result. Documenting my nicknaming of Romney based on his
tactical/geographical genius for trademark purposes.

I missed the debate, but I gather from all these g+ posts that Mittens Von Clausewitz has a brilliant plan to increase our Navy's number of amphibious assault ships so we can unload bayonet-wielding cavalrymen on dressage horses in Syria and cut off Iran's only access to the sea?

Giddy up!

Lots of this going around. I assume Mitt meant to the Mediterranean Sea? But, all the horse and map stuff is pretty funny anways.

Via Dirk Talamasca

Any North Carolina Libertarians planning to hold their nose and vote Romney interested in a vote pairing arrangement?

As a registered Democrat prepared to vote Obama, but who'd rather vote for Jill Stein, I'm wondering if there's any registered Republican with Libertarian leanings who's declared their intention to vote for Romney, but would rather vote Gary Johnson?

If so, we should talk.

Vote pairing isn't so unusual. However, it looks like the sites that used to facilitate this process have gone offline so we'd have to come to a gentleman's agreement. I've been open and direct about my intent to vote Obama in 2012, and did vote for him in 2008. But, if I could be satisfied that someone on the right with the equivalent dilemma, who's already on record either on a blog, on twitter, or somewhere reasonably verifiable as planning to vote for Romney, I'd be willing to vote for Jill Stein if that person would vote someone other than Romney.

NC is, I think, going to end up going Romney anyways. There are some recent polls that have Obama taking the lead back here; but, Nate Silver currently has NC 68.9% likely to go for Romney. If we were dark red, I wouldn't offer the pairing, I'd just vote Stein. Same if the state were dark blue. I dread the prospect of this state going Romney in a close count though, so I'll need to trust the integrity of any prospective partner in this operation. It'd probably take a few conversations, or a really good one over a beer, before I'd commit to the scheme.

Let me know here in the comments or on Schemer.

Has anyone else on the left considered this, or heard of anyone else in a swing/close-to-being-a-swing state trying to make a similar arrangement?

Cartoon Challenge 1

Once again, I'm reading TMW (courtesy of Sparky's List) before it's published and dying to post something about it, but not wanting to break the rules of the list and share any details before it goes live. This time, I'm pre-programming a post to pop up Monday morning at about the time it should be available, but with twist.

I've taken a panel and made a template you, dear reader, can use to compose a single panel of a toon you would write about R-Money's damning 47 percenter comments from back in May. Artwork's all set, just needs some words. After you've got your panel, you can jump over to Daily Kos and see what the pro wrote. 

Go ahead, give it a go! Can you imagine how hard it would be to do this every week? To be topical, funny, and able to produce the artwork all on a deadline, with your ability to pay the mortgage riding on your success? It takes some brass.

Fill in the blanks for a fabulous no-prize!

I won't ask you to do anything I'm not willing to do myself, so here's my crack at it ...

Good ol' Seamus. Nothing he loved more than the taste
of laid-off worker flesh before a long car ride.

As you can see, I'm clearly not cut out for this line of work. Brass. And that's why you should sign up for Sparky's List and help Tom Tomorrow remain in the middle class! 

-----

I selected this post to be featured on Liberal Blogs. Please visit the site and vote for my blog!

-----

@MittRomney Should Probably Stop Using Facts To Support His Arguments (Since Both Tries Backfired)

Mitt Romney Should Probably Stop Using Facts To Support His Arguments

"[Robotic laugh] Well, if you lived in Massachusetts, em ... er ... *koff* [robotic laugh] I mean, put up or shut up! OK, because, corporations are people my friends. By the way, these cookies taste like crap and there's no way you guys will ever host an Olympics as good as mine! Romney out."

Of gay-hating chicken sandwich slingers and free speech ...

Rahm Emanuel’s dangerous free speech attack - Salon.com: 

"You can shove your over-rated chicken sandwich up
your ass and stay the fuck out of my city."
 - Rahm Emanuel [paraphrased, by me]

Greenwald writes:

Obviously, it’s perfectly legitimate for private citizens to decide not to patronize a business with executives who have such views (I’d likely refrain from doing so in this case). Beyond that, if a business is engaging in discriminatory hiring or service practices in violation of the law — refusing to hire gay employees or serve gay patrons in cities which have made sexual orientation discrimination illegal — then it is perfectly legitimate to take action against them. 

But that is not the case here; the actions are purely in retribution against the views of the business’ top executive on the desirability of same-sex marriage ...

Well, I blogged in general support of Menino telling Chick-fil-A to get bent, so I should own up if I've gone off the deep end and stepped on the top of the slippery slide into Liberal Fascism. Let's see if I need to walk it back.

I still eat at Chick-fil-A; I just make sure to fuck my sandwich lovingly in its asshole before I eat it.
— rob delaney (@robdelaney) July 27, 2012

First, I should explain my assumption was Menino's letter was basically political grandstanding, not a ban on Chick-fil-A with the force of law. Just like I am fond of shaming Chick-fil-A's founder and current CEO, I see no problem with a politician doing so. The article read at Boston.com didn't report that he had actually forbidden Chick-fil-A from opening, or that he was saying he would. Menino's most forceful statement was: "I urge you to back out of your plans to locate in Boston." An urging is not a ban, or even a threat to ban. A threat to ban would look like this: "I will ban you."

Let's take a side step and answer the hypothetical, what if Menino had banned Chick-fil-A, assuming he has the authority to do so.

If a community doesn't a want a non-essential, commercial enterprise, do they have the right say, "Not here"?
— cdogzilla (@cdogzilla) July 27, 2012

Greenwald, sagely, points out:

If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who support same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents.

Yes. No dispute here. If this were Governor Romney of Massachusetts saying, "I urge Hippie Vegan Fake Burgers-R-US to stay out of my commonwealth because their support of Planned Parenthood which the good Christians I represent find offensive," I'd say, "Whatever, asshole." But I wouldn't say he has no right to say that. However, if he said, "I forbid Hippie Vegan Fake Burgers-R-Us from opening a store here," then I'd have a problem.

Back to what politicians are really saying and doing about Chick-fil-A. The difference between Menino and Emanuel is that Emanuel, from what I've read, is supporting an alderman who does in fact want to ban Chick-fil-A from his neighborhood. There seems to be real intent to say, because of your support for hate groups, your business can't open here. (And, make no mistake, the Family Research Council, despite its protestations, is a hate group.)  So, while I encourage and support them in calling out Chick-fil-A for supporting the Family Research Council and other groups I think are either openly hateful or just silly and irrelevant, I don't think they can ban those businesses on those grounds.

To answer my own question, communities do have the right to say "not here" to businesses, but they need a valid reason, some identifiable violation of zoning rules, or support of illegal groups ("terrorist" organizations, organized crime families), being hateful idiots is not reason enough.

Even hateful idiots have the right to make a living. We have the right to call them hateful idiots and not spend money at their businesses. Let's do that.

[Update 7/27/12]

"If a man can't manage his own life, he can't manage a business," says Cathy, who says he would probably fire an employee or terminate an operator who "has been sinful or done something harmful to their family members." 

The parent company asks people who apply for an operator license to disclose marital status, number of dependents and involvement in "community, civic, social, church and/or professional organizations." ["The Cult of Chick-fil-A," by Emily Schmall in Forbes, 7/23/2007]

We already know they consider being gay "sinful," so it raises the question, do they discriminate in hiring and firing? Did "probably fire" ever become "fired"?

"Chick-Fil-A Faced 12 Employment Discrimination Suits Since 1988" | Liberaland

Aziz Latif, a former Chick-fil-A restaurant manager in Houston [who] sued the company in 2002 after Latif, a Muslim, says he was fired a day after he didn’t participate in a group prayer to Jesus Christ at a company training program in 2000. The suit was settled on undisclosed terms.

OK, you guys, now how do we feel about Rahm Emanuel's position?

Tim Pawlenty is not a serious person, can't be taken seriously. Period.

From Rival To Running Mate? Possible For Pawlenty : NPR: 

"I don't know if he's not listening or he doesn't care or he doesn't understand, but we've had enough of his teleprompter speeches," Pawlenty said of Obama, speaking to a crowd of Romney supporters at a stop in Pittsburgh.

Before I go off on a rant here, let me remind you of this, from just a few days ago:

http://cdogzilla.blogspot.com/2012/07/to-be-replayed-for-every-idiot.html

Here's my point. Tim Pawlenty knows, and Mitt Romney knows, that "teleprompter" is not an issue. Mitt Romney uses a teleprompter, and uses it poorly, kind of like a moron. If it were an issue in Tim Pawlenty's mind (which we know it really isn't), then he would have to have a bigger problem with Romney, as has been amply demonstrated. If he's simply unaware Romney also uses teleprompters, and uses them like a semi-literate chimp to boot, then Pawlenty is too stupid to be considered for any public office.

Too mendacious and/or too stupid, that's all we've got with these guys.

This teleprompter line of criticism can only ever be used by cynical, pandering, dissembling goons. That's it. There is no other type of person who does this. If you are that sort of person, you should not be taken seriously. We shouldn't see reporting about what you are saying except to report on what a cynical, pandering, dissembling idiot you are. And then you should be ignored. Tim Pawlenty should be ignored because he is not a serious person. He proves it every time he opens his mouth and something like "teleprompter" comes out.

That Tim Pawlenty is taken seriously by anyone (especially the press) should, I think, be insulting to all of us. Nobody should give a crap what guys like this have to say. Public service is serious business for serious people, or it ought to be.

Is it a problem for his base if, as CEO and President of Bain, Romney was responsible for aborted fetus disposal investment?

US Politics | AMERICAblog News: As CEO and President of Bain, Romney was responsible for aborted-fetus-disposal investment: 

What's an entitled, elitist, capitalist wanker got
to do to catch a break around here?

Interestingly, Romney claims to have "left" Bain in February of 1999, and the aborted-fetus deal happened in November of 1999, so Romney et. al. are claiming that he had nothing to do with the deal, even though Romney remained President, CEO and stole shareholder. Interesting timing on Romney's claim to have left. 

We're to believe that no one told Romney that they were going into the aborted fetus business. Uh huh.

I'd say, again, "he's your guy Republicans, own it," but, honestly, I don't see this being a problem for him outside of the most lunatic fringe of the broader lunatic fringe that is the Republican Party.

Seriously, these guys are so pro-business, I don't think they'd care if Romney raped the fetuses and disposed of them by eating them, as long as he proved his capitalist bona fides by paying out a healthy dividend on Bain stock from his raping-and-eating fetuses business. The corporate wing of the Republican is concerned about two things: reduced regulation so they can do whatever they want, and lower taxes so they can snort cocaine off their rent boys' asses with $100 bills like it's their God-given right as rich people.

Via:

I thought I had a bad week, but then I remembered I wasn’t profiting from fetal disposal while taking money from the pro-life lobby.
— Mike Monteiro (@Mike_FTW) July 15, 2012

To be replayed for every idiot Republican that makes a teleprompter dig about Obama.

Romney is such a tool. He's your man, Republicans, own it:

Nice. Romney read aloud the teleprompter note "[end of quote]," invalidating one of his side's favorite digs at Obama. bit.ly/OxNwah
— James Urbaniak (@JamesUrbaniak) July 11, 2012

You've got to click the link to see the video. It's priceless.

Will you hypocrites stop now? Forever?

Not that the Snowbilly Grifter's notes on her hand hadn't made this an untenable criticism long ago ...

Also, the fact that THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH USING A TELEPROMPTER TO BEGIN WITH, JUST LIKE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING WRONG WITH USING PREPARED NOTES FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING SINCE THE INVENTION OF PUBLIC SPEAKING.

Romney croons, "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again ..."

The Myth of the Businessman-President - NYTimes.com: 

Romney croons, "We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again ..."

Romney has made business experience the main reason to elect him. Without his business past or his projections of business future, there is no there there. But history shows that time in the money trade is more often than not a prelude to a disastrous presidency. The less experience in business, the better the president.

Romney would disqualify Clinton, TR, Ike, and FDR for not having sufficient business experience to run for the presidency. Thinks his qualifications, like those of Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush before him, are a better predictor of successful administration.

It seems business experience is a fairly reliable indicator of what sort of president we'll get: a disaster.

Romney Campaign Chomping At The Bit To Make (Un)Constitutional Marriage Ban An Issue

Romney Adviser Campaign Constitutional Marriage Ban | ThinkProgress: 

Ed Gillespie, senior adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, told Chuck Todd on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown that the campaign would make President Obama’s support for marriage equality an issue this November and that Romney will actively push for a constitutional amendment to take away the right of states to voluntarily extend marriage equality to same-sex couples.

I think it's coming to the point we're going to have completely divorce, as it were, secular and religious marriage since the religionists are demanding the privileges of marriage, which include certain legal protections and rights which most (though not all) churches are unwilling to grant to every citizen fairly. Christians in particular, but I think people of faith in general, with the exception of liberal minority, want to define marriage as one man and one woman. The rest of us want marriage to be a legally recognized domestic union of one consenting adult to another that doesn't discriminate.

So let's let everybody have it there way. Christian marriage (or Jewish marriage, or whatever faith marriage) should be its own institution, completely free from any sort of state sanctioning, or recognition. Civil marriage would be the only state-sanctioned domestic union. Want a religious marriage? Fine, get one; however, if you want it recognized outside of your church or the community of faith, then you need the civil marriage as well. The government would recognize religious marriages that meet the same criteria as the civil marriage if they apply for it. Government wouldn't tell churches to recognize their marriages, churches couldn't tell government to recognize their marriages. I'm not sure what the benefits of church marriage would be except maybe it could be some requirement before getting your child baptized or whatever the church decides it's good for.

Some religious marriages, might not meet the criteria of what we probably agree civil marriage should look like. To enter into civil marriage, both parties should have attained the age of majority -- you should be old enough to vote and enter the military before you are old enough to decide if you are ready for marriage, in my opinion -- and have entered into the arrangement of their own free will. So those religions that approve of the marriage of girls that just got their first period to much older men, first cousins, and men being allowed to marry many women and girls (FLDS, we're looking at you) could not qualify for civil marriage.

It's really starting to piss me off that almost no reporter seems to be willing to point out that the proposed constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage are blatantly unconstitutional. In addition to the First Amendment, we have the Supreme Court's ruling on this already. Eric Shepherd did a great job pointing this out the other day when he wrote:

In Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), The Supreme Court's decision stated that the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose.


As voters in NC will be deciding the fate of Amendment One, let's take a look at the ten most compelling secular legislative reasons to vote in favor of the amendment:


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Those blanks are no accident. Not only were there no secular reasons to vote for Amendment One, no secular reasons for even proposing it were offered -- as far as I'm aware. If there were, I'd fascinated to hear them. If there's no secular reason, there are only religious reasons -- and basing law on religion in this country is impermissible. It's a violation of the Establishment Clause. We are not Iran. We should not be modelling our government on failed or failing Muslim states.

Race, religion collide in presidential campaign ... and then there's Romney.

Race, religion collide in presidential campaign :: WRAL.com: 

Which has the more "controversial" religion?

How unthinkable it was, not so long ago, that a presidential election would pit a candidate fathered by an African against another condemned as un-Christian.

It seems almost willfully obtuse write an article about this campaign wherein only one of the candidates is described as being  "condemned as un-Christian," when I suspect most of us have seen more attacks on President Obama's faith than on Governor Romney's. Still, OK, it is a little surprising we have and African-American running for a second term running against a member of what many consider to be a rather strange, cultish version of mainstream Christianity.

How unthinkable is it we might one day have a viable major party candidate who is openly atheist? Still far too unthinkable.

Rude calls 'em like he sees 'em and Romney looks like a sociopath.

The Rude Pundit: 

Romney ᔥ Salon

The thing that President Obama needs to keep in mind about Mitt Romney is that he is a ruthless, amoral son of a bitch. Like Bain Capital, he makes promises that are lies when they get in the way of his greater good or his bottom line. With his polished smile and primped hair, Romney is one of the most outright depraved and evil sociopaths ever to run for office, and that's including Richard Nixon and Pat Robertson. 

Beware the man who presents himself as honorable when his actions have demonstrated nothing but disgrace.

I pulled the final assessment, the examples of Romney behavior that formed the basis of that assessment are in Rude's post for the reading.

The #SCLM Strikes Again

Pew: Liberal Media Not So Hot On Obama in 2012 | Mother Jones:

via flickr

The Liberal Media has consistently given more positive coverage to likely Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney compared to President Barack Obama, according to a new survey of media coverage from the Pew Research Center's Excellence in Journalism Project.

ᔥ

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

IT'S PEOPLE! vs. Romney_ Corporations Are People, My Friend. by VJ cdogzilla

IT'S PEOPLE! vs. Romney_ Corporations Are People, My Friend. by VJ cdogzilla | YouTube Doubler | Mashup Helper

Couldn't find where anyone had spliced the two videos together to a seamless "Soylent Green is ... people, my friend." But, I liked the effect of running the two clips side-by-side.

Hey Mitt! Dogs Don't Go There!

Hey Mitt! Dogs Don't Go There!:

Mitt Romney once drove for twelve hours with his dog on the roof of his car. In this children's book Mitt's dog Seamus walks you through the many things you shouldn't do as a dog owner.

President Obama's 2012 Campaign Prepares Full-Fledged Attack on Mitt Romney

President Obama's 2012 Campaign Prepares Full-Fledged Attack on Mitt Romney:

Obamney, via Newser

If Politico has it right, team Obama not only expects Mitt Romney to be the GOP nominee, it is ready to unleash a 'ferocious personal assault' against him. The go-negative approach would have two fronts: portray Romney as a 'weird' guy out of touch with ordinary people and as a greedy CEO willing to sacrifice jobs. For guidance, it will model its strategy in part on the one George W. Bush used in depicting John Kerry as an aloof rich guy.

Is it really an attack if it's ... uh ... accurate? I'm not a fan of negative campaigns; I am a fan of speaking your mind and telling the truth. There's a substantive difference between Negative Campaign A calling Candidate B an anti-American, secret Muslim, non-citizen, terrorist's pal and Negative Campaign B calling Candidate A a greedy, job-killing CEO for being a greedy, job-killing CEO, and pointing out that, if his idea of a joke is telling a bunch of down-on-their-luck folks that he's "unemployed too," then he is an out of touch, weird, plutocrat. Just don't make fun of his magic underwear, that's out of bounds.

Ideally, Obama's 2012 campaign would be irrelevant because he ought to lose in a primary to a progressive Democrat. Or, Bernie Sanders.

You can be a GOP debate winner simply by not appearing as "crazy or out-of-control" as expected

GOP Debate Winners Were Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Pundits Say: 

Bachmann and Gingrich via Newser

Bachmann, who announced her candidacy during the debate, was 'at ease and forceful without looking at all crazy or out-of-control,' writes EJ Dionne Jr. at the Washington Post. Romney, meanwhile, 'did not lose anything,' he notes, 'which means that, since he leads in the polls in New Hampshire, he is a kind of winner.'

The bar is so low it's hard to imagine anyone being too fringe to be a credible GOP Presidential candidate.

Mitt Romney to Birthers: Chill, idiots. (He'll never get the nomination now.)

Mitt Romney: President Obama Was Born in the US: 

Romney is well placed to comment on issues relating to citizenship and the presidency, notes Daniel Freedman at Forbes. The Romney family lawyers probed the issue in the '60s when his father, George Romney, was seeking the Republican nomination. The Michigan governor was born to American parents in a Mormon colony in Chihuahua, Mexico. Romney's opponents labeled him 'Chihuahua George' but his eligibility for the presidency was never seriously challenged, Freedman notes.

He's right, there are real reasons to defeat Obama in 2012; however, I don't think Romney has any real clue what they are, because a President that's (even more) of a Screw-The-Poor-Welfare-For-The-Rich-Lots-Of-Wars-Including-A-War-On-Women-Civil-Rights-Denying-Republican is not what we need.

If Obama's speech later today doesn't flip Ryan's proposal on its ear and lay out a plan that addresses the inequality crisis that is destroying our economy, and our future, and talk about restoring tax rates on the wealthy to pre-George W. Bush levels, and address the unsustainable growth in defense spending, then he is going to be paving the way for whichever nutjob the GOP puts up in 2012 to win, because working people are going to walk away from him, and there's nobody on the left to rally around. 

Yemeni Rageaholics Anonymous

Tens of thousands fill Yemen streets for 'Day of Rage' - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News:

More than 20,000 Yemenis filled the streets of Sanaa on Thursday for a 'Day of Rage' rally, demanding a change in government and saying President Ali Abdullah Saleh's offer to step down in 2013 was not enough.

There are peace marches and there are rage marches. I bet there's better music at rage marches. Whenever I think rage, I think ... Costanza.