A Brief Moment of Republican Sanity

From Multiple Choice Mitt, of all people:

In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”

Romney’s comments come as he mulls another run at the White House and the Republican Party grapples with how to come up with producing solutions to the housing and financial crises that were triggered by a variety of factors, including a lack of government regulation and enforcement.

“Someone shouldn’t be able to just call themselves a doctor without going to medical school,” Romney said.

“You have to have regulation, and we value regulation. What we don’t like is when you have regulation that was written in the 1920s or the early 1900s that hasn’t been updated for modern events.”

Romney added that regulations on some parts of the financial sector are “overly burdensome” while others are “nonexistent.”

Of course the problem is twofold. First, the people in Mitt’s base oppose vaccines on cervical cancer because it might make the young hussies promiscuous, so I’m not too sure they really care whether or not people go to medical school before they call themselves a doctor. Ask Dr. Laura about that.

Second, while I agree that some areas of the financial sector probably are burdened by antiquated regulation and that some areas are completely unregulated, my problem is with the likely Republican solution should we put these guys back into office. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t think their solution will be to simply get rid of the antiquated regulations and ignore the unregulated areas and let the “invisible hand” bitch slap us again?






103 replies
  1. 1
    sparky says:

    April Fool(s)!

    Also. Does your ad placement mean that you recommend using a furminator on Ann Coulter?

  2. 2
    Comrade Dread says:

    It’s a little late. After spending the last 20 years telling your base that government is the problem, that the free-market always does it better, and that regulations are strangling businesses today, it’s a bit late to be bringing up nuanced arguments about how you’re not anti-regulation, you just want smart regulation that allows maximum freedom and innovation, but also keeps the worst of our human and corporate failings in check and punishes wrongdoing.

    Aside from the fact that this is not what the Republicans in power were actually working toward when they were in power, it is a message that will likely get Romney being called a Massachusetts Mormon liberal and cast out of polite Republican circles.

  3. 3
    NonyNony says:

    If Romney were staking out the Democratic position on regulation he’d be telling the truth – there’s a large difference of opinion among Democrats on how much regulation is good, how much of the current regulation needs to be refined, and where regulation needs to be beefed up or trimmed back.

    But he can’t seriously think he’s giving the actual Republican "party line" on regulation there. A big chunk of the problem with revising regulatory structure in the US is that you have three basic camps – a group of Democrats who are extremely leery of letting regulations go because of the historic reasons those regulations were put into place in the first place, another group of Democrats who want to loosen or refocus regulations a bit because they think the rules are old and antiquated, and a huge number of Republicans who take every opportunity presented to them to completely gut regulation wherever they can because they are ideologically opposed to any kind of regulation at all.

    If we were in a situation where everyone agreed "yes, we should have some regulation – now let’s argue about how much" we’d be better off. But we don’t. We still have a large number of politicians and activists on the Right who deny that premise. And so we’re stuck with crappy regulatory frameworks because whenever they come up for modification the choice ends up being "gut them completely" or "leave them as is" without having any real chance for anything between those extremes.

  4. 4

    I believe that the cancer vaccination would, technically, turn young women into promiscuous hussies. They’re virtuous immediately before getting the shot, and Paris Hilton immediately after.

  5. 5
    TonyDogs says:

    The problem is some of those antiquated regulations were put in there for a good reason. Simply because something is old does not mean it’s useless. Consider the Glass/Stegal act. It was passed (I believe) during the Great Depression and it was repealed in the 90’s because it was antiquated regulation. Well, look what happened after.

    John’s right. We cannot trust the GOP to be intellectually honest when reviewing regulations. These guys can come up with any reason to remove regulations they don’t like.

  6. 6
    Zifnab says:

    In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”

    For instance, when California tried to tighten emissions laws, it was important that EPA regulations tied the state up in court for years. And when the threat of gays loomed large, we needed an up-to-date definition of marriage to prevent unregulated legalized buttsex.

    Companies need regulations to shield them from the burden of petty lawsuits aimed at curtailing their rights to cheat their employees of wages, toxify public land and air and water, or hide their assets overseas away from prying taxes.

    And let’s not forget the need to regulate free speech, habeaus corpus, privacy, and voting rights – perhaps the four biggest threats our nation has faced in the last decade.

    Regulations are incredibly important weapons in the GOP arsenal.

  7. 7
    Robin G. says:

    Romney would be giving a opening for valuable policy debate… in a world where the opposition wasn’t entirely composed of lying sacks of shit.

    God, Iwish the GOP wasn’t so fucked up. This is a time where we desperately need statesmen and women seriously discussing real solutions to profound problems. We’re *all* getting cheated by the GOP only being capable of cheap theatrics and the Dems mostly only looking good by comparison.

  8. 8
    Joe Max says:

    Sounds like "Compassionate Conservatism" and "a uniter, not a divider" all over again.

    But let’s assume that Mittens is being sincere (Romney? Sincere? I know, but bear with me…) OK, then lets’ see some proposed legislation that increases regulation on an un-regulated financial business. Let’s see the rabid "base" of the GOP line up in support of it. Because we all know, no Republican up for re-election is not going to pander to the base, because the base will primary-challenge them into submission (I’m looking at you Arlan Spector.)

    We’ve actually seen, live on C-Span, one of the Democrats’ (supposedly) most progressive members, Barney Frank, tell Code Pink to sit down and shut up. So let’s see a prominent GOP conservative tell the tea-baggers to sit down and shut up. Anyone? Bueller…?

    [*crickets*]

    That’s what I thought – it ain’t gonna happen.

    Sorry, Mittens, you are "but a walking shadow, a poor player who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  9. 9
    Billy K says:

    Republicans love to regulate women’s bodies, and in fact, prefer the regulations to be horribly outdated.

  10. 10
    Cat Lady says:

    Mitt is assuming that the Republican base can do nuance. What he said can’t be put on a bumper sticker, or in Joe the not-Plumbers own words, so he’s DOA. Mitt is the only Republican that can stack up against Obama intellectually, or can appear to do so, which scares me, but those words he just said will be used against him by the wingnut candidate and he’ll have to walk them back or apologize to Rush, and then he’ll be Flipper version 2.0.

  11. 11
    Billy K says:

    They also love to regulate public schools and Unions.

    Funny, that.

  12. 12
    bobbo says:

    Cat Lady just barely beat me to it. Anyway, what Cat Lady said.

  13. 13
  14. 14
    Napoleon says:

    If anyone for a second thinks that the Republicans will go along with any regulation that is anything but a sham they should read the book I finished last night "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank, the WSJ columnist. I really think it is good.

    For what its worth Mitt impressed me as the only sane Republican candidate last time, but regardless of what he would personally do if he lived in a perfect world, he does not, and the wingers would never let him do something sane like propose a real regulation of anything other then the stuff that gets the wingers excited, like heathens personal conducts and female’s lady parts.

  15. 15
    gnomedad says:

    The Republicans have never wanted fewer regulations; they want their regulations of marriage, marijuana, abortion, immigration, union organizing, voter registration …

  16. 16
    Comrade Darkness says:

    Oh yeah, those old, outdated banking laws like the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Can’t have those old laws saving our butts, or anything.

    Eh, this hot air from Mittens is all form and zero substance. Same as always.

  17. 17
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.

    Anyone else here ever read Sinclair Lewis’ Babbitt? Romney’s statement could have come right out of the mouth of George Babbitt. "Streamlined" is a euphemism for "Offering the fewest possible inhibitions to the captains of industry and commerce."
    Romney’s party streamlined the shit out of Glass-Steagall and then they wrote the Commodity Futures Modernization Act that streamlined the regulation right out of large segments of the financial market.
    Mittens is one of those who pretend to be a moderate Republican – which means that he wants to fuck you just as hard an immoderate Republican, he’ll just pretend to have doubts about it.

  18. 18
    Lev says:

    I agree with John. It will take a couple more rounds of heartbreak before Repubs finally get that they need to change their tune. Either that or they’ll run a faux-moderate like W again and the press corps will swoon, and we’ll be back to where we were. That Chris Matthews endorsed Bush in 2000 ought to preclude him from being ever listened to again.

  19. 19
    dr. bloor says:

    Romney is a serial asshole who will say anything, anywhere, anytime if he thinks it will help him amass more power and money. You think he believes a word he’s saying there? Suckers.

    Fuck him.

  20. 20
    bvac says:

    Tell me John, what are some of these antiquated, burdensome regulations that you speak of?

  21. 21
    gnomedad says:

    oppose vaccine’s on cervical cancer

    Gratuitous apostrophe alert!

  22. 22
    Bootlegger says:

    @NonyNony: Precisely. This is also the reason why some regulations date back to the ’30s, it was the last time there was little resistance to the premise of regulation. Ever since then the no-regulation paradigm prevents any meaningful discussion so we’re still stuck back in the 30’s. Maybe now is a new opportunity.

  23. 23
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    Is he still going to double Gitmo?

  24. 24
    kay says:

    I think they’re so, so sad they didn’t nominate Romney. He would have been perfecto, post-crash.

    Did they ever figure out how they’re going to get around Republican voters, though? Many of whom appear to be religious bigots who won’t vote for a Mormon?

    No one will talk about it, but I was appalled at Romney’s "Kennedy speech". Why is it neccesary for GOP candidates to give speeches begging for tolerance on religion in 2008? How big an issue is it? WHY is it such a big issue?

    It seems to me, looking at the numbers, that blue states elect religious minorities like Mormons. I don’t know how they get him past their voters.

  25. 25
    Carnacki says:

    I predict in 2011, Romney denies saying anything remotely sane.

  26. 26
    John Cole says:

    Tell me John, what are some of these antiquated, burdensome regulations that you speak of?

    Reading comprehension for the loss. What I said was “I agree that some areas of the financial sector probably are burdened by antiquated regulation.”

    That doesn’t mean I have definitive proof of what is and what is not over-regulated and what is and what is not out of date, it is just an educated guess that since things have changed dramatically since the 30’s, there probably are old regulations that need to be tweaked.

    Your talking to the guy who just learned about the TED spread and LIBOR a few months ago. If you want me to list specifics, you are SOL.

  27. 27

    I love the smell of Mitt Romney ideas in the morning.

  28. 28
    Zifnab says:

    @Bootlegger: That’s not true. We had substantial regulation straight into the 60s and 70s. Nixon wasn’t afraid of doing a little regulation – he created the EPA and mandated all sorts of price ceilings and floors on US products. It wasn’t until Regan that we saw the tide pull back out on regulation again.

  29. 29
    TenguPhule says:

    . First, the people in Mitt’s base want oppose vaccine’s on cervical cancer because it might make the young hussies promiscuous

    Second, while I agree that some areas of the financial sector probably are burdened by antiquated regulation and that some areas are completely unregulated*

    Is there anyone out there who doesn’t think* their solution will be to simply get rid of the antiquated regulations and ignore the unregulated areas and let the “invisible hand” bitch slap us again?

    You’re welcome.

  30. 30
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    @Carnacki:
    The Republican contest for 2012 will be dominated by a crazy-off. Whoever is the most batshit-insane will win the nom. The Republicans have a rich nougaty field in that regard so poor Mittens will quickly be reduced to bullshitting from the sidelines.

  31. 31
    gnomedad says:

    @Dennis-SGMM:

    "Streamlined" is a euphemism for "Offering the fewest possible inhibitions to the captains of industry and commerce."

    I agree with your cynicism here, but that doesn’t mean all regulatory reform is wrong. If we abandon every concept the Republicans attempt to spin we’ll have nothing left. I doubt they’re self-aware enough to do this calculatedly, but they can still do it. Campaigning against reform is a losing strategy; better to show that the Republicans are not serious.

  32. 32
  33. 33
    Napoleon says:

    @Dennis-SGMM:

    Remember most or all of the Republican contest are winner take all. If 3 or more strong crazies stay in through a bunch of the early rounds Mitt could win simply by being the only non-crazy in the field. You need look no farther then McCain for something similar.

  34. 34
    Bootlegger says:

    @Zifnab: Sure. My point was referencing why antiquated banking rules are on the books from that earlier time period.

  35. 35
    bvac says:

    @John Cole: I’m not being an ass, I really have no idea what antiquated regulations they’re talking about. Some stock trader types I speak to don’t like Sarbanes-Oxley, but that’s the opposite of antiquated and burdensome for a reason. If you’re going to say something like that, you should probably have some idea of what you’re talking about.

  36. 36
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    “You have to have regulation, and we value regulation. What we don’t like is when you have regulation that was written in the 1920s or the early 1900s that hasn’t been updated for modern events.”

    So any rules for behavior written 2000 or more years ago are right out.

  37. 37
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    @gnomedad:
    No argument here. Regulatory reform can be a good thing if it makes regulation more effective and weeds out regulation for regulation’s sake. For all I know, there are still regulations on the books regarding the length and weight of buggy whips, they could go too. Like so many other phrases, the phrase "regulatory reform" usually means one thing to Democrats and the opposite to Republicans.

  38. 38
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:
    My money’s on Bachmann-Palin Overdrive.

  39. 39
    The Moar You Know says:

    Regulation is against the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Matthew 19:24: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God with the kind of regulations the Democrats would impose on the markets."

  40. 40
    Tonal Crow says:

    John, did Tunch put something in your coffee today? The 1970s Cubs would have a difficult time topping this post’s error rate:

    First, the people in Mitt’s base want oppose vaccine’s on cervical cancer…

    …and that some areas are completely unregulate…

    Is there anyone out there who doesn’t tihnk their solution…

  41. 41
    Leelee for Obama says:

    Mittens is one of those who pretend to be a moderate Republican – which means that he wants to fuck you just as hard an immoderate Republican, he’ll just pretend to have doubts about it.

    And not even remove his special underwear to do it????

  42. 42
    TenguPhule says:

    @Tonal Crow

    See me at @27

  43. 43
    Cris says:

    What we don’t like is when you have regulation that was written in the 1920s or the early 1900s that hasn’t been updated for modern events.”

    Bullshit anyway. Up here in the great Northwest, the big bugbear for Republicans is environmental regulation. And Teddy Roosevelt notwithstanding, you can’t tell me that the bulk of environmental laws — especially the endangered species law — are disliked simply because they’re viewed as obsolete.

  44. 44
    Ned R. says:

    @Tonal Crow: John, did Tunch put something in your coffee today?

    Haven’t you heard? Tunch does the typing while John dictates so he can relax. Why else do you think Tunch has that look?

  45. 45
    BP in MN says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    C’mon, that’s way overstating John’s level of grammatical screw-ups. Matt Yglesias throws up posts with more errors just as a warm-up before breakfast.

  46. 46
    Carnacki says:

    Romney’s Hair for Veep on a Palin/Romney’s Hair ticket!

  47. 47
    Cris says:

    @Dennis-SGMM: My money’s on Bachmann-Palin Overdrive.

    You know what would rule about that ticket? The relentless, disingenuous accusations of sexism we would get to endure. Atanarjuat’s keyboard would catch fire.

  48. 48
    Rick Taylor says:

    For what its worth Mitt impressed me as the only sane Republican candidate last time,

    He did strike me as the closest thing they had to a sane candidate, which is truly frightening. Remember he’s the one who when asked whether he would have invaded Iraq given what we know today, said

    Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that — or a null set — that is that if you’re saying let’s turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction, had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions, we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in.

    But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.

    These people really do live in an alternate reality of their own creation.

  49. 49
    eemom says:

    what Romney giveth, Cantor taketh away:
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.c.....017565.php
    /end "republican moment of sanity"

    I hate that fuck Cantor. Hate, hate, HATE him. He’s a vacuous, pathetic excuse for an up and comer even for THEM.

  50. 50
    John Cole says:

    @Tonal Crow: In my defense:

    1.) I think Tunch roofied me. If I find myself rolled up in a blanket I will know what happened.

    2.) I was on the phone when I wrote this post.

    3.) I have spent the last three days grading. My command of the English language is slipping.

  51. 51

    the people in Mitt’s base oppose vaccines on cervical cancer because it might make the young hussies promiscuous

    The people in Mitt’s base think the earth is 6000 goddam years old.

    I await his treatise on how regulation is viewed by people who think that the Rapture is coming before Global Warming gets here.

  52. 52
    The Other Steve says:

    My old CIO once told a story at a department meeting.

    Why do cars have brakes? Most people will tell you it’s so the car can stop, but that’s not accurate. The reason why cars have brakes is so the car can go faster. You could stop a car by putting your feet on the ground just like in the old Flintstones cartoons, but you wouldn’t want to do this if your car was traveling more than say 1 mph. We have efficient brakes to stop the car, and one thing you’ll notice if you look closely is that the faster the car the bigger the brakes. Race cars have huge discs cross drilled for ventilation so they don’t over heat and stop working.

    Hence this is why policies and procedures are good, because it allows us as an organization to move faster. We don’t have to think about the little things, so we can focus on the big things.

    Odd thing, he was a Republican.

    I agree with Mitt, but as John said they can’t be trusted any longer.

  53. 53
    Iowa Housewife says:

    Better to save their virginity than their lives. We are not like those crazy Arabs that think women are dirt but the honor of the family rests on their chastity, so better to kill them if they get raped.

  54. 54
    The Other Steve says:

    If and when Mitt runs again, do not worry about him being sane.

    He’ll be out there screaming "Double Down on gitmo!"

  55. 55
    Tonal Crow says:

    @John Cole:

    3.) In my defense…I have spent the last three days grading. My command of the English language is slipping.

    Well then, your doin rite wel ther, end ain’t loosing ti at al.

  56. 56

    HA HA HAH! I just saw what replaced the Pajama Media ads: the Furminator!

    Awesome. So awesome. I love this blog.

  57. 57
    GSD says:

    I can’t believe you people are wasting valuable time on such a trivial matter.

    Do you know what has happened?

    A Negro has touched The Queen!

    Please get my swooning couch and some smelling salts, I’m feeling faint.

    -GSD

  58. 58

    With Red State calling for revolution, Karl Rove this scribbling away for the WSJ, the never-ending birth certificate "controversy", and Dick Cheney convinced that he was right about Saddam and the GWOT, why wouldn’t Mittens sound like the reasonable guy in the room? Jacob Javitts and Everett Dirksen wouldn’t recognize this GOP.
    Romney is in the untenable position of being the member of a political party that has been wrong on almost every issue, or mismanaged every leadership opportunity for at least 15 years.

  59. 59
    Dennis-SGMM says:

    @The Other Steve:
    Mittens will try to keep up with the Republican Krazy Klub but he’ll look like Donny Osmond trying to rap.

  60. 60
    Tonal Crow says:

    @The Other Steve:

    If and when Mitt runs again, do not worry about him being sane….

    And will he tell us again about how he "Saw [his] father march with Martin Luther King"?

    [FSM does this blog software bite.]

  61. 61
    Cris says:

    @Dennis-SGMM: Donny Osmond trying to rap

    YouTube link plz

  62. 62
  63. 63
    Fencedude says:

    @Tonal Crow:

    John, did Tunch put something in your coffee today? The 1970s Cubs would have a difficult time topping this post’s error rate:

    Obviously Yglesias is guest-blogging.

  64. 64
    SLKRR says:

    @Lev:

    That Chris Matthews endorsed Bush in 2000 ought to preclude him from being ever listened to again.

    Um, you do realize what blog you’re commenting on, don’t you?

  65. 65
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Dennis-SGMM:

    The Republican contest for 2012 will be dominated by a crazy-off. Whoever is the most batshit-insane will win the nom. The Republicans have a rich nougaty field in that regard so poor Mittens will quickly be reduced to bullshitting from the sidelines.

    Huh? It should be Alan Keyes, right? Since they know Obama is the candidate in 2012.

  66. 66
    Bootlegger says:

    @GSD:

    A Negro has touched The Queen!

    Worse! The Negress put her arm around the Queen’s shoulders! The Queen even had to put her arm around the Negress’ waist to fend her off!!

  67. 67
    ChrisB says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist:

    Is he still going to double Gitmo?

    Thank you.

  68. 68
    Carnacki says:

    Laws against bank robbery are really just "regulations" when you get down to the heart of the matter. We should eliminate those regulations too. I need to withdraw my money from sitting in those cash register drawers and why should I be held back by pesky "regulations?"

  69. 69
    Fulcanelli says:

    With Wall Street and it’s lackeys on both sides of the aisle in Congress in addition to the corporate courtesans in the US Treasury department seemingly bound and determined to turn the US into a third world oligarchy, every time I read the expression " The Invisible Hand" it conjures up NSFW images of the movie "Caligula" accompanied by the sound of the ‘snap’ of a rubber glove.

    I am so sick of the double standard with these ‘effin financial and political "elites" I could take a hostage. Maybe we could learn a few things from the British and the French with how they handle this shit.

    Mittens is bound to sound like a Nobel Laureate rock star when everyone else in his party is wearing a helmet and drooling on themselves for Christ’s sake.

  70. 70
    ChrisB says:

    @Dennis-SGMM: Mittens will try to keep up with the Republican Krazy Klub but he’ll look like Donny Osmond trying to rap.

    OMG, do you remember Romney trying to "relate" by saying "Who let the dogs out?" How embarrassing was that?

    Hope the link works:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

  71. 71
    DFH no.6 says:

    "Invisible hand bitch slap us". Man, I am so gonna use that as often as possible. Thanks, John.

    Oh, and you’re a good sport with the spelling and grammar scolds here.

    Doodz — this is a blog, fer chrissake!

  72. 72
    Leelee for Obama says:

    Jacob Javitts and Everett Dirksen wouldn’t recognize this GOP.

    I beg to differ. Those guys would recognize the modern GOP, they just wouldn’t associate with them. They would see racist, anti-Civil Rights Southerners (they’d think they were unreconstructed Democrats), and their own forbears who led us into the Gilded Age.

    You made me nostalgic for my youth-when having a Republican Senator (Javits) and a Republican President(Eisenhower) wouldn’t keep a body up at night hearing Mike and the Mechanics singing "can you hear me?"

  73. 73
    ChrisB says:

    @Cris: You may have to settle for Weird Al’s "White and Nerdy," which is what came up when I searched "Donny Osmond and rap."

    I kid you not.

  74. 74
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead: The Republican contest for 2012 will be dominated by a crazy-off. Whoever is the most batshit-insane will win the nom.

    So, just like 2008 except maybe with less crazy from the Democratic side. Maybe.

    Seriously, the Republican nomination race in ’08 was a metaphorical lineup of oiled posers at Venice Beach flexing for the lunatics passing by.

  75. 75
    Leelee for Obama says:

    @Fulcanelli:

    We have a winner!

  76. 76
    Tsulagi says:

    …the likely Republican solution should we put these guys back into office. Is there anyone out there who doesn’t think their solution will be to simply get rid of the antiquated regulations

    Whether antiquated or “up-to-date dynamic” regulation, it wouldn’t matter with the “serious” party having all the buttons again. They wouldn’t bother getting rid of regulations, they simply wouldn’t enforce them.

    They’d put enforcement manpower and resources into patriotic and important stuff like going after the Madame Palfreys, bong sellers, and protecting your God-given right to buy any damn detergent you want. Anything that offends their baby Jesus or Rush, they’d hear the call. Regulation is the equivalent of sharia law, every pure free-trader knows that.

  77. 77
    gex says:

    @Napoleon: To a point. First McCain had to tack toward crazy though.

  78. 78
    Napoleon says:

    @Leelee for Obama:

    . . .having a Republican Senator (Javits)

    Heck you had Goodell for a while also, well until Nixon had him defeated.

  79. 79
    aimai says:

    Leave Mitt Romney alooooooone! he was my governor and I can assure you that if he ever said anything remotly sensible or even humane back then he was sure to take it back 24 hours later. So just hang around, folks, and he’ll contradict himself eventually. Like Woody Allen’s imaginary super suspicious mafioso who was "so paranoid and determined to let no one get behind him he walked down the street piroutteing" Mitt will, ultimately, not let himself be outflanked to the right or outdone in nuttiness.

    aimai

  80. 80
    gex says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist: Winnity, win, win, win.

  81. 81
    Fulcanelli says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist:

    Seriously, the Republican nomination race in ‘08 was a metaphorical lineup of oiled posers at Venice Beach flexing for the lunatics passing by.

    That line was a thing of metaphorical beauty, dude.

  82. 82
    Napoleon says:

    @gex:

    No doubt, but I wonder if in retrospect he really needed to, and if by doing so he killed himself in the general. If Mitt goes into the SC primary with a strong campaign, against a strong campaign put on by, say, Palin, Sanford and Huckabee, it is plauable that he could squeak out a win without ever turning on the crazy.

  83. 83
    John Cole says:

    @Xecky Gilchrist: Comment of the year entrant.

  84. 84
    aimai says:

    That should be "oiled PosEURS," surely?

    aimai

  85. 85
    Xecky Gilchrist says:

    @aimai: That should be "oiled PosEURS," surely?

    I wasn’t certain. I would certainly accept the correction, but I didn’t know if "poseur" entailed actually standing there and posing in the literal sense.

    ETA: @John Cole – comment of the year entrant? Gosh!

    I simply say what I saw. Living in So. Cal for most of the eighties did odd things to my brain.

  86. 86
    wasabi gasp says:

    When the bar for Republican sanity has been set to somewhere around successfully suppressing the urge to shoot people over dish soap, it’s real easy for a man like Mitt to grab the varmints, if you will, by the balls.

  87. 87
    Laura W says:

    @Bootlegger:

    Worse! The Negress put her arm around the Queen’s shoulders! The Queen even had to put her arm around the Negress’ waist to fend her off!!

    I heard the Prince availed himself of hand sanitizer immediately after shaking President Obama’s hand.

  88. 88
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    It would be a shame to see a comment of the year derailed for leaving out a lousy u.

  89. 89
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    I for one welcome Mitt spending another hundred million of his own money to run for the nomination of the Crazy party. And if by some miracle of Moroni Romney was elected President, it wouldn’t be the end of the world because even though Mitt wears magical underwear he isn’t actually insane. And when he tries to sound insane to whip up the base like with "Double Gitmo", it falls flat. He’s in the same mushy middle space occupied by Obama and HRC and others.

  90. 90
    SLKRR says:

    I think the "u" is superfluous. The comment of the year nomination stands!

    pos·er (pō’zər)
    n.
    1. One who poses.
    2. A poseur.

  91. 91
    John Cole says:

    It would be a shame to see a comment of the year derailed for leaving out a lousy u.

    The nomination stands regardless the spelling. I will allow for artistic license.

  92. 92

    We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective ^at protecting America from married gay abortionists forming labor unions.”

    Fxt.

  93. 93
    Phoebe says:

    Hasn’t anyone ever made the argument that promiscuous hussies deserve to be cancer-free? Or, at least, since HPV [the precursor to cervical cancer] is contagious, we don’t want non-hussies to get it from their husbands who cheat on them with the hussies? Or are they just denying it to teenagers?

  94. 94
    Calouste says:

    @HitlerWorshippingPuppyKicker:

    The people in Mitt’s base think the earth is 6000 goddam years old.

    That would be Huckabee’s base. And they are relatively sane compared to what Mitt’s base believes in (gold plates watched in a hat via mirrors that than disappear, aliens, a tribe of Israel ending up in Missouri, etc, etc)

  95. 95
    bleahy says:

    He’s all about what he says this week . . . until next week. His governance of my state was a joke.

  96. 96
    aimai says:

    Oh, I didn’t mean to detract from the perfection of the nominated blog post! It was more of a pun. Or a palindrome. Or something. I just like both spellings and both meanings. I second the nomination, anyway.

    aimai

  97. 97
    Mike G says:

    Romney added that regulations on some parts of the financial sector (that restrain my corporate cronies from looting) are “overly burdensome” while others (that facilitate management ripping off the public and small shareholders) are “nonexistent.”

    Clarified that for you, Magic Underwear Mitt.
    Pay lay ale.

  98. 98
    guest omen says:

    republican idea of reasonable regulations is to outlaw labor unions.

  99. 99
    Mike in NC says:

    Does your ad placement mean that you recommend using a furminator on Ann Coulter?

    Trying to block armpit image here…

  100. 100
    Brachiator says:

    “You have to have regulation, and we value regulation. What we don’t like is when you have regulation that was written in the 1920s or the early 1900s that hasn’t been updated for modern events.”

    As others have noted, this is an utterly phony argument. When Senator Phil Gramm authored legislation de-regulating the financial industry, part of the strategy was to prohibit states from using their "anti-bucket shop" laws, originating from the 1920s, which would have been perfectly adequate to prevent some of the sub-prime lending abuses.

    And as we have seen with Bernie Madoff, some schemes — whether legal or illegal — have been around for decades. The details may be new and improved, but the fundamentals are often the same old crap that has been seen before.

    Romney added that regulations on some parts of the financial sector are “overly burdensome…”

    This is typical conservative boilerplate. They have some weird psychological quirk here. Almost anything that prevents a business from doing whatever they want is "burdensome."

    … while others are “nonexistent.”

    Mittens is on a roll here. What the heck is a non-existent regulation? Is this something that goes along with the invisible hand?

    Anytime a GOP goon pops up in front of a camera, they should be asked, "GOP-sponsored legislation de-regulating the financial industry contributed to the present economic crisis. What specific proposals do you have to prevent this from happening again?"

    The question should be asked until it is answered. No distractions about alternative budgets, deficits, tax cuts, conservative principles or other attempts at mis-direction.

  101. 101
    bcinaz says:

    How would one go about deregulating the labor market to allow a group of people to form a union when they all agree that is what they want to do?

    It really is completely whacked when AIG can essentially scam everybody with fraudulant default swap schemes which require CITI Group to beg for bailouts, then the lot of them turn around and collude to prevent EFCA from coming up for a vote in the Senate.

    Why was there no conference call of CITI account holders to organize a massive effort to change banks?

  102. 102
    kth says:

    Obviously his plan was to sound like this, the competent technocrat, the savior of the Olympics, etc, once he had the nomination safely in hand. But lots of the snake-handlers he was pandering to, probably figuring the November election was a lost cause anyway, opted to take a flyer on Mike Huckabee. Had the political climate not seemed so dire, those voters might have found Romney a safer choice to bear their standard. So in the end, Romney can probably thank Bush for wrecking his best shot at the Presidency.

  103. 103

    […] Romney The Sane Moderate Rears His Head Seriously, where was this version last year when it mattered. In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t […]

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] Romney The Sane Moderate Rears His Head Seriously, where was this version last year when it mattered. In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t […]

Comments are closed.