Willard Romney Flunks Another Turing Test

The Washington Post blandly explains how Willard “worked to reassure liberals“:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.
Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.
He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.
“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.
Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.
The encounters with liberal advocates offer some revealing insights into the ever-evolving ideology of Romney, who as a presidential candidate now espouses the hard-line opposition to abortion that he seemed to disparage less than a decade ago….

As the MBAs tell each other: whatever it takes! Why can’t the rest of us peons understand that anything before the last quarterly reporting period can be declared ‘inoperative’ whenever necessary to pump earnings for the next quarterly report?

Major props to Dan Amira at NYMag‘s Daily Intel for highlighting an excellent Willard website in his brilliant post explaining how “Mitt Romney Claims He Is ‘As Consistent As Human Beings Can Be’”:

Keep in mind, this does not mean that Mitt Romney has never changed positions. He has — many, many times. It merely means that Romney has analyzed the human race and determined that, as a species, they are not capable of much consistency. And in an effort to mimic the human condition as closely as possible, it is that mediocre level of consistency that has been programmed into his software.

Click on the link, and explore: Which Mitt Are We Getting This Year?

50 replies
  1. 1
    dmsilev says:

    My understanding is that there was some sort of glitch that took Apple’s Siri off-line today. Perhaps the same back-end servers are powering the Romneytronic 3000?

    We can check this. Someone ask Romney for a list of nearby pizza restaurants.

  2. 2
    Belafon (formerly anonevent) says:

    (Reposting from the previous thread because it seems that everyone abandoned it)

    OT: A coworker of mine brought this quote to my attention. It was made by Karen Finney about Cain:

    One of the things about Herman Cain is, I think that he makes that white Republican base of the party feel okay, feel like they are not racist because they can like this guy. I think he giving that base a free pass. And I think they like him because they think he’s a black man who knows his place. I know that’s harsh, but that’s how it sure seems to me.

    I wanted to know what everyone thought about it. This is the statement being waved around Republican circles, like Fox, to show that Liberals are being racist.

  3. 3
    BudP says:

    Every kid’s favorite party game … Pin the core belief on the Romney

  4. 4
    Cacti says:

    “I am pro-choice, my opponent is multiple choice.”

    -Ted Kennedy on Mitt Romney, 1994

  5. 5
    handy says:

    Assuming he gets the nomination, how much a liability is Mitt Flop’s proclivity to change course, if you will, in the general? How much did this stuff hurt Kerry in 2004? I’m only asking because my impression was in the case of Kerry it was a minor factor among several more important ones, some of which may be true for Romney as well (a tepid opponent to the incumbent being one of the biggest). I mean, the Village will probably just peg his waffling as pragmatism, Reasonable Centrism, etc.

  6. 6
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    She’s noting a common conservative tactic of finding a black guy to say the odious stuff that white conservatives feel like they probably can’t say. As a bonus: “Hey, I’m not racist–I like this black guy!”

    See also: Jesse Lee Peterson

  7. 7
    Steve says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): If they want to imagine that’s racist, I guess they can. I think it’s a pretty accurate statement as to some of the Republican base, at least. I’ve spoken to Republicans who agree.

  8. 8
    Cacti says:


    It wasn’t the deciding factor, but Kerry certainly got beaten over the head with “I actually did vote for the 87 billion before I voted against it.”

  9. 9
    Reality Check says:

    Well, better inconsistent than a murderer like Teddy Kennedy.

  10. 10
    handy says:


    I think it was a part of the overall “image” constructed of him: he was a French windsurfing elitist who–surprise–had problems sticking to principles. But this was during the “Stay the Course” era of Iraq and that probably did more to tip the balance.

  11. 11
    hhex65 says:

    @Reality Check: that is a great bumpersticker for Romney

  12. 12
    Cacti says:


    that is a great bumpersticker for Romney

    Romney 2012: He’s better than a murderer

    That might make a good tag line for Romney threads.

  13. 13
    eemom says:

    Tweety said this evening that Morning Joke said this morning that some republicans are getting to the point where they’d rather Obama win than have Mitty be their standard-bearer. Ain’t that a hoot?

  14. 14
    Steve says:

    @Cacti: It was more the painful nature of the quote than the mere fact that he was a flip-flopper, I think. They always say the Democratic candidate is a flip-flopper, finger in the wind, no principles, blah blah blah. It’s a shame, too, that Kerry never even tried to fight back by explaining that the entire principle on the 87 billion vote is that he thought we ought to pay for the war instead of making our kids pay.

  15. 15
    rikyrah says:

    I think Rev. Al gave the DNC/Obama Campaign a terrific idea for the next set of Mitt Romney ads.

    Hire TWINS, and have them say,


    do it for every issue.

  16. 16
    handy says:


    “Kerry never en tried to fight back.”

    Doesn’t that summarize the Kerry campaign in 2004.

  17. 17
    Hunter Gathers says:

    Romney 2012 – He won’t murder anyone until his pollsters tell him to.

  18. 18
    Cacti says:


    Doesn’t that summarize the Kerry campaign in 2004.

    While the Rove slime machine repeatedly punched for the groin, Kerry campaigned like he was trying to win a good sportsmanship award.

  19. 19
    Chyron HR says:

    @Reality Check:

    When Mitt gets tired of running ads calling for the extermination of the “parasites” that make up half the country’s population, he can pretend that he’s running against a guy who’s been dead for years.

    Man, you guys totally have this thing locked up.

  20. 20
    Chris says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    I think it’s true. I think another aspect of it is that they feel Cain, being black, can go all out on the raging bigotry against Muslims, immigrants and gay people and get away with it (which ties into their belief that “black people are the real racists” and that society gives them impunity to do it because it’s biased towards them, and all that shit).

    But yeah, you’re right about all the other things… as for “they love a black man who knows his place,” if anyone doubts that, recall the “Niggerhead” controversy, the backlash that happened the minute Cain objected to it, and the fact that he had to equivocate, backtrack and come back hat in hand apologizing that he took offense to that word.

    Cain’s a lot of fun for them (if only because he pisses off liberals or they think he does), but they’ve made it very clear that he’s to stay in line OR ELSE.

  21. 21
    Steve says:

    @handy: Yes it does. Oh that was so painful.

  22. 22
    handy says:


    Then you have John Edwards getting his ass handed to him by Darth Cheney. His performance in that debate was abysmal.

  23. 23
    scav says:

    Romney 2012 — Anything Anyone Wants, Anytime.

  24. 24
    Judas Escargot says:


    Romney 2012: He’s better than a murderer

    …and he still lost.

  25. 25
    Villago Delenda Est says:



    Cain’s abject retreat at the command of Massa Rush was something to behold.

    No wonder Ann Coulter has no problem calling him one of “their” Negroes.

  26. 26
    Quincy says:

    I don’t think the flip-flopper tag will hurt Romney too much if he makes it to the general, other than by contributing to a broader perception of him as an unlikeable empty suit. The potential dynamite in that story is Romney suggesting he’s not a flip-flopper, but a secret liberal mole with plans to infiltrate the Republican party and moderate them. I know most of the wingers already view him that way, but if that story gets enough play on the right blogs it could truly galvanize the crazies against him. Which would be super.

  27. 27
    boss bitch says:


    Mitt Romney’s flip flops can and will hurt him. It wasn’t just that he held one position in 2004 and then flipped a few years later. There is video of this man flipping positions only hours apart. Its really bad.

  28. 28
    amk says:

    @Reality Check: What an oxymoron for a handle.

  29. 29
    boss bitch says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent):

    He repeats what they believe about black people. He’s anti-everything and best of all, dumb (or he pretends to be). He doesn’t make them feel inferior. He’s safe.

  30. 30

    When he says “human beings” he means, of course, zygotes, which typically transform into a blastocyst within five days.

  31. 31
    Cacti says:

    @boss bitch:

    Mitt Romney’s flip flops can and will hurt him. It wasn’t just that he held one position in 2004 and then flipped a few years later. There is video of this man flipping positions only hours apart. Its really bad.

    And add to that the fact that he belongs to a religion that’s considered quasi-Christian at best, and heretical at worst by the God-botherers…

    You have the reasons why he can’t crack 25 percent support, despite running for POTUS for the last 6 years.

  32. 32
    RSA says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    Romney 2012 – He won’t murder anyone until his pollsters tell him to.

    Seriously, though: I think that’s the way hardcore Republicans see him. He was for abortion murder in 2002, and now he’s against it. Catholic bishops have raised a huge stink in the past about Democratic politicians who supported abortion rights, despite their personal views. Of course, it’s okay for Republicans, but I think it will still work against Romney among the base voters.

    Edit: I don’t mean to give the impression that I think Romney is Catholic, but Mormons aren’t known for being more liberal than Catholics.

  33. 33
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    OT, but related in a way…

    Charles Pierce talks about today’s Warren heckler incident.

    The irony here is the tea baggers DID start out being concerned about the deserting coward’s bank bailout package, but morphed overnight (and took off) on 4 November 2008, pretty much right around 8PM PST when suddenly the Federal budget deficit became the most important thing in the universe. Oh, and some black guy running as a Democrat beat John McCain. Incidentally. Also. Too.

  34. 34
    Sly says:

    @Reality Check:

    Well, better inconsistent than a murderer like Teddy Kennedy a woman who didn’t want to raise the child of her rapist.


  35. 35
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Reality Check:

    Nothing like the classics from the 70’s.

    I recall an Art Buchwald column that featured “what about Chappaquiddick?” over and over again when discussing the criminal behavior of the Nixon administration.

  36. 36
    Mike says:

    @Belafon (formerly anonevent): It’s more than that about Cain. Remember back in 2006, there was this guy running for congress, and briefly for Senate, named Paul Hackett. He was the exact opposite of the typical Dem stereotype. He was a military man who fought in Iraq–a tough guy who swore like a sailor, but he was liberal. We thought he was great ‘cos he was so blue collar so no one could pigeonhole him as some sort of hippie leftie, yet he was able to speak so strongly about progressive values to an audience that normally wouldn’t listen.

    Cain is their Paul Hackett. The guy you’d never expect to be conservative and, as a result, a real prize for the movement–a black guy who’s just as racist as they are. No wonder they love him. I think he has some staying power. He may even win the nomination without really having a campaign.

  37. 37
    mclaren says:

    Special kudos for using the Nixonian “inoperative” trope, Anne.

  38. 38
    Sly says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:
    All the anti-banker stuff is a complete smokescreen. The real irony is that the Tea Party movement started approximately one hour after former derivatives trader and all around douchebag Rick Santelli threatened to go Galt on CNBC because the Communist in the White House thought that people who were duped into taking predatory mortgages might deserve some help and protection from the social parasites whose Gucci loafers Rick Santelli licks on a daily basis.

  39. 39
    jl says:

    IMHO, it is not how often you change your mind, it is how you change your mind and why (that is, for what purpose).

    There is a thermostat, and a climate control system, where I work. (I live in the banana belt of the SF Bay Area so I do not bother with that nonsense at home except for two weeks or so a year.)

    Let us stipulate, for sake of argument, that a randomly selected GOP presidential candidate is at least as smart as a thermostat.

    Just for the sake of argument. Work with me here, please.

    OK, the thermostat at work changes its mind on a more than daily basis. Yet, odd to say, I have more trust in the wisdom and consistency, and the integrity, and just the plain old giterdone common sense of that thermostat than I do in any all the GOP candidates put together (let alone a randomly selected candidate).

    So, now, is that just common sense thinking things through, or a deep philosophico/logical problem, or a sad commentary on the hellhole one of our major political parties has become.

    I guess I’ll go wrap up in a blankee, careen through a bottle of gin have a few sips of hot toddy, and think it over, until I am s faced.

  40. 40
    Lex says:

    “You need someone like me in Washington.”

    “You need me on that wall!”

    Delusional sociopaths.

  41. 41
    handy says:


    Mitt Romney For President. When Your Thermostat Just Won’t Do.

  42. 42

    It ought to be easy to work up enthusiasm for Multiple-choice Mitt … er … shouldn’t it?

  43. 43
    RalfW says:

    As they always say, ignore the sales patter, the verbal promises, the incentives alluded to but not in the fine print. If it’s not in the contract you sign, it’s not enforceable.

    That’s the MBA way.

  44. 44
    Calouste says:

    Since we’re talking about Mitt of the Many Romneys, would a Rorschach Test not be more appropriate? A litmus test would definitely not be applicable though.

  45. 45
    John Weiss says:

    Fuck Mittens and the horse he rode in on.

    Do you need it any plainer?

  46. 46
    Ian says:

    Does that mean we can finally get a public option?

  47. 47

    This issue is running up against a personal line of mine – well, several political issues are these days, and they all involve the intersection of politics and religion. The line is on Facebook. I will say anything I please on blog comments or Twitter, but Facebook is like the world of everyone I’ve ever met, plus some other folks I’ve added randomly for stupid Facebook games. As a result, I try to stay away from politics on Facebook, “try” being the operative word.

    But just lately the amount of political crap I’ve been seeing on Facebook has ramped up. No conspiracy thinking here – it’s just the bloodsport of the GOP primaries hyping everything up. But I’m also finding that it’s reaching my level of tolerance.

    For instance, when I was working on cruise ships, I met a lady who later got married to the most lapping-convervative-news-up guy ever. She’s of his frame of mind, and so I just pass over his level of commentary, which of late is prefacing every latest revelation about the Occupy movement with the laundry list of conservative bugaboos that have “endorsed” Occupy. But that I can ignore.

    However, I was also a preacher student for the Churches of Christ in an earlier incarnation (no worries, I was one of those idiots that grew up thinking you couldn’t be a Republican and a follower of Christ, silly me). I’ve found several of those acquaintances on Facebook, and when they pump out the BS, I get irate.

    One guy I just blocked after getting into it on his page. He posted something about Obama “passing out guns” in his backyard and getting agents killed. He’s actually rather liberal for the CoC, doctrine-wise, so I think it was the shock of seeing that from him that got my goat. Right about the time he finally admitted to making a political statement about the subject, another of his friends started openly mocking me and the guy egged him on. That’s when I just blocked him.

    Another (in Mississippi) has started publishing BS about this very topic – personhood amendments – under the guise of “correcting a lot of misinformation out there,” and urging people to vote for it. As you might have guessed, the falsehoods are more correctly found in the links he’s providing. I’ve not said anything yet, because standing up for a woman’s right to have a legal medical procedure will really not go over well on this guy’s page. Of course, there may be a Facebook note in my future…

    It does me good to know that the best way for President Obama to run against Governor Romney is simply to play Romney’s words back to the American people. “Which Mitt You Gonna Get?” will be very effective at depressing the Republican base.

  48. 48

    @Reality Check:
    Well, better inconsistent than a murderer like Laura Bush.

  49. 49
    Deb T says:

    Is that Huckabee interviewing Mitt??? Man, has he gained weight. He looks fatter than Al Gore.

  50. 50
    Kim says:

    [Hi Anne. Check out this surprising web goodie! Kim]


    by Jared Young

    Both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars are aware of a hard-core pornographic drawing in the “Book of Abraham” which is Mormon-approved scripture.
    The same Book is part of the “Pearl of Great Price” which, along with the “Book of Mormon” and the “Doctrine and Covenants,” make up the LDS church’s “triple combination” in one volume.
    The porn is found in Fig. 7 of Facsimile 2 in the “Book of Abraham” which shows two beings facing each other, which were described by Joseph Smith as representing the Holy Ghost and God the Father, the latter clearly showing an aroused male sex organ.
    After Smith published this sketch in his newspaper in 1842, which offended Mormon sensibilities, the phallic portion was whited out for more than a century until the “restored” LDS church decided in 1981 to restore what had long been censored!
    Equally shocking was the discovery that the “Book of Abraham” had nothing to do with Abraham or his God but was actually based on ancient Egyptian funeral documents depicting occultic obscene practices – and the original sketches showed an erotic phallus on both beings including the one Smith blasphemously claimed was the Holy Ghost!
    For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds. Highlights of the classic Tanner work can be seen by typing “Facts From Mormons” and “What LDS Leaders Say” on Yahoo.

Comments are closed.