Open Thread: Willard, Meet Professor Krugman

(D.B. Echo at Another Monkey)

Heh, indeed:

… So what the story of Romney and the auto bailout actually shows is something we already knew from health care: he’s a smart guy who is also a moral coward. His original proposal for the auto industry, like his health reform, bore considerable resemblance to what Obama actually did. But when the deed took place, Romney — rather than having the courage to say that the president was actually doing something reasonable — joined the rest of his party in whining and denouncing the plan.

Furthermore, Mr. Romney, “America Isn’t A Corporation“:

… Now, to be fair, being a career politician isn’t necessarily a better preparation for managing economic policy than being a businessman. But Mr. Romney is the one claiming that his career makes him especially suited for the presidency. Did I mention that the last businessman to live in the White House was a guy named Herbert Hoover? (Unless you count former President George W. Bush.)
__
And there’s also the question of whether Mr. Romney understands the difference between running a business and managing an economy.
__
Like many observers, I was somewhat startled by his latest defense of his record at Bain — namely, that he did the same thing the Obama administration did when it bailed out the auto industry, laying off workers in the process. One might think that Mr. Romney would rather not talk about a highly successful policy that just about everyone in the Republican Party, including him, denounced at the time.
__
But what really struck me was how Mr. Romney characterized President Obama’s actions: “He did it to try to save the business.” No, he didn’t; he did it to save the industry, and thereby to save jobs that would otherwise have been lost, deepening America’s slump. Does Mr. Romney understand the distinction?

88 replies
  1. 1
    pragmatism says:

    i learnded at the atlantic that because mcmegs “called” the housing bust before kthug and kthug was arguably wrong once, that all of his ideas are unproven and that kthug is a big meanie.

  2. 2
    rlrr says:

    “Does Mr. Romney understand the distinction?”

    No.

  3. 3
    EconWatcher says:

    @pragmatism:

    Someone (I’m not saying you) is claiming that McMegan called the housing bust before Krugman? I’d love to see the proof on that one.

  4. 4
    pragmatism says:

    @EconWatcher: from the thermomistress herself:

    What is so strange about this belief–aside from the collective hyperlocal amnesia that prevents them from remembering that yes, even the great Paul Krugman has made some bloomers in his time–is that the examples of his Nostradamus-like powers are not, in fact, at all special. Chief among them–the sort of Ur prediction upon which he has apparently made his reputation–is “calling” the housing bubble in 2003.

    Contra the fuzzy recollections of his readers, this is not an example of unusual foresight unparalleled in the world of journalism. I called the housing bubble a full year earlier than he did, in 2002. The Economist was writing about the global housing bubble even earlier than that, thanks to Pam Woodall’s fearsome analytic talents.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/bus.....an/250847/

  5. 5
    ChrisNYC says:

    Oh come on! Mitt is not afraid of Paul Krugman. Geez. Mitt, meet President Obama. That’s the title you’re looking for.

  6. 6
    gogol's wife says:

    Great picture. I’m much happier with Prof. Krugman now that he’s putting his energy into attacking the enemy.

  7. 7
    Brachiator says:

    he’s a smart guy who is also a moral coward.

    Oh, hell, yes! So good to see that pundits like Krugman realize this. Even from his run back in 2008, Romney has always reminded me of the smarmy coward played by Billy Bob Thornton in Tombstone.

    Wyatt Earp: You skin that smoke wagon and we’ll see what happens!
    Johnny Tyler: Listen mister, I’m getting awful tired of your…
    [Wyatt slaps him]
    Wyatt Earp: Are you gonna do something? Or just stand there and bleed?

    People like Romney are always dangerous because they are likely to pull everyone around them into a disaster when they try to prove that they are not gutless weasels.

    I look forward to seeing Obama slap Mitt down in the debate and in the general election.

  8. 8
    Pangloss says:

    Since Reagan, the Republican party at the national level has not been interested at all in public policy. Their entire focus has been on gimmicks, messaging, attacks, and other strategy to win office. Since they don’t care about policy, they do a lousy job in office and spend most of their time rewarding cronies or constituencies that they can depend on in the next election. And when they win, they’re viewed as somehow having a better public policy position, even though they don’t care a damn about achieving anything besides rewarding friends and holding the other guy down.

  9. 9
    cmorenc says:

    Three problems for Romney with the Bain/capitalism thing:
    1) The current economic climate in the country make this issue an impossible one for him to deflect or distract from staying constantly at center stage in the upcoming campaign;
    2) Likewise, the current climate makes it difficult for Romney to successfully jujitsu this issue into an advantageous framework (as might have been the case during an entrepreneur-worshiping boom period when a huge portion of Americans would like to imagine themselves as potential rich entrepreneurs);
    3) It’s an easy issue for his opponents to constantly beat him up with; the attack ad scripts practically write themselves.

    BONUS POINT: What delicious irony that the Rovian method of “attacking the opponent’s purported best strength” is being so potently turned against the likely GOP nominee. And the Democrats can let the other GOP candidates willingly and energetically do the work of getting this issue irremovably embedded in the public consciousness. Kind of like pushing the image of Mike Dukakis riding an army tank, only it’s Mitt Romney riding on Gordon Gekko’s shoulders.

  10. 10
    Legalize says:

    @rlrr:
    Yes he does. He’s just a lying sack of shit.

  11. 11
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    @Pangloss:

    The most elegant description of the modern Republican party ever.

  12. 12
    slag says:

    That image makes me laugh every time. I never knew where it came from until just now.

  13. 13
    Hill Dweller says:

    K-Thug dropped the hammer on Willard again this morning with an additional blog post. He said Romney’s lying so much, it’s making Bush’s 2000 campaign look the “model of truth telling”.

  14. 14
    EconWatcher says:

    @cmorenc:

    I’m very nervous and not at all confident about the election. But another thing I think we have going for us:

    A lot of the money flowing from the right is going to be wasted on their strange obessions, trying to depict Obama as sinister or stupid. They just can’t help themselves.

    That stuff could hurt in an open year with an unknown candidate. But with an incumbent president who is now very familiar and generally liked, those shots will just misfire (and might even backfire). For goodness sake, a bunch of them are still talking about Bill Ayers. Good luck with that.

  15. 15
    Mike Goetz says:

    Woof, that’s a real country-style ass-whoopin’. Every sentence a heat-seeking missile.

    Between this and Cutter’s memo from earlier, it will be a season in hell for Romney in the coming campaign.

  16. 16
    gaz says:

    yay. I’ll let my wife know her fav pic of krugman (doctored or otherwise) graced the BJ front page. It’s too good not to use. =)

  17. 17
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Like I said in the previous thread, in the 17th century, they knew how to handle pirates.

  18. 18
    jl says:

    @pragmatism: McArdle gives not links to her 2002 diagnosis of a housing bubble I can’t find a record of McArdle saying that in 2002, or 2003.

    But I am not good at searching for things like that. Anyone find anything?

    McArdle’s accusation that Krugman recommended a housing bubble as a good thing is absurd, and falls into the category of willfully dense in a small minded too clever by half tactical way.

    Krugman has a link to the column in question at his NYT column.

  19. 19
    pragmatism says:

    @jl: edit–she linked to her jane galt archive http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/001104.html

  20. 20
    gaz says:

    @slag: hey! ditto! thanks!

  21. 21
    R Johnston says:

    Krugman’s latest blog post takes it a step further.

    Now, however, Mitt Romney seems determined to rehabilitate Bush’s reputation, by running a campaign so dishonest that it makes Bush look like a model of truth-telling.

    I mean, is there anything at all in Romney’s stump speech that’s true? It’s all based on attacking Obama for apologizing for America, which he didn’t, on making deep cuts in defense, which he also didn’t, and on being a radical redistributionist who wants equality of outcomes, which he isn’t. When the issue turns to jobs, Romney makes false assertions both about Obama’s record and about his own. I can’t find a single true assertion anywhere.

    . . . .

    Krugman’s going to have some very interesting and depressing columns this campaign season.

  22. 22

    I’m not particularly comfortable that any occupational background makes a person better qualified to be President or other elected official. I’m a lot more concerned with what the person stands for and what they want to do with power.

    I’ve known people from a wide variety of occupations that I’d trust farther than Mitt Romney and that does include business people… as well as lawyers. I’ve known trademen I’d trust farther. I wonder if we’re seeing Harvard Law as especially useful in the Presidency? That’s not a slam at the President, but as far as the office is it demonstrably of real import or is it the quality of his ideas and drives that mean something?

  23. 23
    Amir Khalid says:

    From a distance, George Clooney really does look a bit like Pauk Krugman, doesn’t he? (The photo is a still from Syriana.) Kthug once highlighted this picture in his NYT blog.

    Kthug’s columns have developed a habit of going directly head-to-head with Bobo’s. I wonder how things are between them personally. It’s probably just as well that Kthug’s day job is elsewhere.

  24. 24
    geg6 says:

    @pragmatism:

    Sounds like a perfect libertarian. Facts and evidence be damned!

  25. 25
    EconWatcher says:

    By the way, TPM reports that Romney’s lead has been cut to 5 in SC, so you can bet Newt will keep it up with the Bain attacks. They seem to be working. And if they work in the Republican primaries….

  26. 26
    Rita R. says:

    I’m not surprised by the entire Republican establishment rushing to defend Romney and the “vulture” capitalism of Bain. It’s very dangerous for Gingrich to let the veil slip and allow Republican voters hear from an important figure in their own party (historically, at least) the truth of how Wall Street/the 1 percent have been screwing them for decades and hollowing out the American middle class all for greed. Got to keep them distracted with gay marriage, abortion, “Obama is a Kenyan Muslim soshulist,” guns, arugula, etc.

    But what’s pissing me is the Democrats who are helping them do it. Ed Rendell, DEMOCRATIC former governor of Pennsylvania, was earnestly agreeing with Joe Scarborgouh on Morning Joe today about how great venture capitalism is and how awful these Romney/Bain attacks are. That follows DEMOCRAT Steve Rattner, who was Obama’s point man on the auto industry rescue, doing the same thing on Scarborough’s awful show earlier this week.

    Could someone let them in on the fact that everyone else seems to know that Obama’s campaign will be making these same attacks in the fall and it would be nice if Democratic figures weren’t undermining that effort ahead of time on freaking Morning Joe.

  27. 27
    jl says:

    No worries from this faithful Mitt supporter, who took a liking to him as sixteenth choice after Stassen decided not to run this time. A good campaign song solves all problems.

    I think the old duffers know the tune of this old nag of a song. Not my cup of tea popwise and before my time, but not a bad for its genre. Now, with Willard, it can serve useful purpose and rise like a phoenix, to help Mitt change America back to what it was suppose to be used to be again.

    Dough keeps on drippin drippin drippin
    Into my fingers
    Dough keeps on drippin drippin drippin
    Into my fingers

    I want to soar like a vulture
    All for me
    Sour like a vulture
    Let my wallet carry me
    I want to sore like a vulture
    Till I’m free
    Oh, Lord, through the capitalization

    Eat the business
    Going in the tank
    Fire the workers
    With no money in their bank
    Hose the people
    Working without thank
    Oh, oh, there’s a solution

    I want to soar like a vulture
    All for me
    Sour like a vulture
    Let my wallet carry me
    I want to sore like a vulture
    Till I’m free
    Oh, Lord, through the capitalization

  28. 28
    ThatLeftTurnInABQ says:

    @Pangloss:

    Since Reagan, the Republican party at the national level has not been interested at all in public policy.

    I couldn’t disagree more. The GOP has been grotesquely opportunistic (almost to the point of self-parody) in their tactics, and all over the map in terms of the ideological justifications they offer up for their preferred policy goals (small govt! No wait Big Govt!, no wait small govt!, no wait..) but they have been remarkably diligent and single minded with regard to their public policy goals, which are to dismantle the social welfare state constructed by FDR/Truman/LBJ/Nixon and to replace it with a hybrid model constructed using the domestic political economy and social agenda of McKinley’s Gilded Age USA combined with a late 20th Cen Military-Industial Complex imperialist hyperpower state that combines the worst aspects of the Edwardian era British Empire and Wilhelmine Germany, only this time with LASERS! pew! pew! pew!

  29. 29
    pragmatism says:

    @geg6: in reading her 2002 post she does her typical “it may be that the housing bubble will burst” song and dance. i’m not convinced this amounts to “calling” the bubble. she really just refers to Morgan Stanley’s chief economist. glenn kessler would give her 2 pinocchios and politifact would say that I had the lie of the year for saying she didn’t call the bubble because she said it may happen.

  30. 30
    flamingRedDingo says:

    @Amir Khalid: I seriously thought it was doctored to put his face on it.

    But then Syriana was such an unmemorable movie for me, I didn’t recall the back drop.

    I actually guessed it might have been that russian character in Lock Stock & two smoking barrels + some photoshop – except that I didn’t recall a car explosion. been awhile since I’ve watched that flick.

  31. 31
    Anne Laurie says:

    @slag: Thanks, added the due credit!

  32. 32
    jl says:

    @pragmatism: thanks, I missed it.

  33. 33

    @EconWatcher: #14

    For goodness sake, a bunch of them are still talking about Bill Ayers. Good luck with that.

    Or Saul Alinsky.

    I’ve been rather involved in lefty politics for [mumble-mumble] years and I had to google Mr. Alinsky to find out who he is/was. Most people will have no idea what they are talking about.

  34. 34
    gbear says:

    @jl: I always thought it was

    Fry like an egg’ll
    In the heat.

    Damn.

  35. 35
    Rafer Janders says:

    That’s so…shrill.

    And unserious, also, too.

  36. 36
    slag says:

    @gaz: Anytime.

    In my ideal world that pic would have come from The American since that movie was pretty much Kthug’s economic worldview turned into a spy thriller and I love it when all the threads tie up so nicely. But I hear Syriana was good too.

  37. 37
    pragmatism says:

    sorta OT but perry, gingrich and huntsman lost their VA ballot challenge. only dog on car and that dog is not the repsonsibility of the federal gov’t have a shot in VA now. Also, too i refuse to link to politico who is reporting this.

  38. 38
    jl says:

    @pragmatism: Oh Lord, what a mess. She is quoting financial experts as saying their might be housing bubble, and saying that it might be correct, in a flippant sort of way, with no analysis at all on the implications for the national or world economy.

    That is not her using her research and judgment and doing a serious analysis of a housing bubble.

    I also note that her explanation of consumer spending in that 2002 post, and her comments on why house prices are rising are completely inconsistent with her 20/20 hindsight analysis that it was all the governments fault.

    Sad sad show by McArdle.

  39. 39
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    If corporations are people, what are utilities? ‘Cause avarice is certainly a human trait.

    http://www.emptywheel.net/

    Congresswoman Jackie Speier, who represents San Bruno, enunciates what’s going on perfectly.

    “It is truly unconscionable that PG&E was allowed by the CPUC to steal ratepayer monies that should have been spent on safety and, instead, was put in the pockets of PG&E shareholders,” said Rep. Jackie Speier,

    Though, if PG&E were Muslim and brown-skinned, they’d call this terrorism, not just theft.

  40. 40
    jl says:

    @gbear: Huh, that was one my guesses too, until I heard the song sober one fine spring day long ago.

  41. 41

    I’ve looked at the opening GOP Primaries and the states and methods. Here:
    IA-Caucus, NH-Primary, SC-P, FL-P, NV-C, ME-C.
    It isn’t just the state but also the process and even that depends on a Primary being closed, open, or semi-open. Caucuses require a higher degree of commitment thana simple vote and in a Primary the make up of the voters makes a big difference.

    A NH Primary isn’t just a different state, its make up of electorate is different. A good sized chunk of the media is coronating Mittens right now – I’d say the first six provide some real opportunities for serious bumps in that route. I’m not predicting anything, this is the GOP – after all.

  42. 42
    catclub says:

    @EconWatcher: “so you can bet Newt will keep it up with the Bain attacks.”

    Well, this is the strange thing. Newt is definitely NOT keeping up with those attacks, but is letting his superpac run that devastating 28 minute movie, plus ads cut from it.

    The conjunction of this with comment #26, that all the GOP establishment has come out to fight Newt if he says that Bain vulture capitalism is a bad thing, piques my interest.

    Either the GOP is very organized or the GOP est. is in a real panic over a line that shows signs of _really_ working against the 1%ers.

  43. 43
    Kola Noscopy says:

    I’m feeling concerned that the use of “you people” on that poster is racist.

  44. 44
    Hill Dweller says:

    OT: House Republicans are going to vote to disapprove of raising the debt limit next week, which is largely ceremonial.

    Those cowards have already voted to give the President the ability to raise it, but now they want to pretend it didn’t happen.

  45. 45
    SenyorDave says:

    I’m starting to think that the Democrats shoukd be running a scorched earth campaign against Mittens. The Republicans lie all the time, and got elected in 2004 solely on the basis of swift boating Kerry. The media will not challenge them on overt lies.

    The Democrats should have ads contrasting Bain’s actions with companies and Obama’s actions with the auto industry. I want class warfare, and I want it to the extreme. Becasue it should work, and if it doesn’t than the Republicans win forever.

  46. 46
    Special Patrol Group says:

    His original proposal for the auto industry, like his health reform, bore considerable resemblance to what Obama actually did. But when the deed took place, Romney — rather than having the courage to say that the president was actually doing something reasonable — joined the rest of his party in whining and denouncing the plan.

    I believe our friend cleek summed up this phenomenon some time ago. Once again:

    Today’s conservatism is the opposite of what liberals want today, updated daily.

    Take a victory lap at your convenience, cleek.

  47. 47

    @Linda Featheringill:

    Or Saul Alinsky.

    Doesn’t matter, look how it sounds…

  48. 48
    pragmatism says:

    @jl: sad show indeed.
    i hereby “call” that anything is possible and may happen. When things do happen, remember i toldyaso.

  49. 49
    EconWatcher says:

    @Rita R.:

    One thing we need to get straight, particularly with those supposedly on our side: We’re not talking about venture capital. Venture capital invests in promising start-ups to get them to the next phase. Venture capital is pretty unambiguously good.

    Buying an interest in an existing business, restructuring it, loading it with debt, selling off pieces–that’s not venture capital. It’s something different. And while it’s not always bad, it’s a whole lot more ambiguous, because there are ways to make money that way without really creating value (and certainly without creating any net new jobs).

    Rendell is just illiterate on this point.

  50. 50
    Cat Lady says:

    @Special Patrol Group:

    cleek doesn’t come around here anymore. Did Cole run him off too?

  51. 51

    @jl:

    Great song! I do like the original song, but then I’m left over from the original hippies. However, I LOVE this version of it.

    [still chuckling]

  52. 52
    smintheus says:

    Society benefited when Obama took over the auto companies and eliminated some of their jobs. Romney profited when he took over companies and fired their workers.

    Obama’s takeover was intended to salvage as many jobs as possible at those companies. Romney’s takeovers were designed to extract as much wealth as possible from those companies.

    Obama shouldered the burden under duress and only as a last resort. Romney seized companies as a predator.

  53. 53
    jl says:

    @smintheus: Sure, maybe in ‘reality’, but not if bigshots lie about it all the time.

  54. 54
    flamingRedDingo says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Venture capital is pretty unambiguously good.

    Small nit-pick here. Venture capital comes with some pretty tough strings. stocking the corporate board with VC folks for example. And at least in the late 90’s – 2000’s there were a lot of predatory VC firms out there – looking to pump a company just enough to get it sold, and claim ROI – fuck the workers, or the original principal. Sounds a bit like Bain in a way doesn’t it.

    They’re not all bad, but you say “unambiguously” when to me, quite clearly even the better VC outfits are questionably good – as you so often have to give control of the company up to some outfit you don’t know anything about. And in the worst cases – they end up acting more like private equity firms like bain. Disclaimer: personal experience informs my views – I’m no economist.

    Angel Investors/Angel capital, if you are lucky enough to access it, is pretty unambiguously good. VC is more of a gray area in my book.

  55. 55
    Rita R. says:

    @EconWatcher:

    Which is why the Republican talking heads/politicians/organizatons/grifters have been doing their best to conflate the two. “If you condemn Romney and Bain you’re condemning venture capitalism and free enterprise!” Well, no. We’re not. We’re condemning the Gordon Gekko-ish “vulture capitalism” (thanks for that phrase Rick Perry) of Romney and, let’s be generous here, “some” of what Bain did.

  56. 56
    Benjamin Franklin says:

    Rope-a-dope, and I guess we’re the dopes.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/a.....false_flag

    The memos, as described by the sources, one of whom has read them and another who is intimately familiar with the case, investigated and debunked reports from 2007 and 2008 accusing the CIA, at the direction of the White House, of covertly supporting Jundallah — a Pakistan-based Sunni extremist organization. Jundallah, according to the U.S. government and published reports, is responsible for assassinating Iranian government officials and killing Iranian women and children.

  57. 57
    Rita R. says:

    @smintheus:

    Yes, the distinction is pretty obvious. Which is why I was puzzled when Romney tried to defend Bain by saying it’s the same as what Obama did with the auto industry. I mean, is Romney’s campaign just winging the response to this on the fly??

  58. 58
    EconWatcher says:

    @flamingRedDingo:

    No doubt there are some bad boys in VC, and you apparently encountered some of them.

    But as Rita R. points out, there’s a reason why Mitt’s defenders want to mischaracterize the deals in question as VC: At least in concept, VC is focused on the “creative” part of creative destruction. A lot of Mitt’s work was focused on destruction for profit, which sometimes does not create value, jobs, or anything else.

  59. 59

    Oh fer cripes sakes, if keeping a steel co open means a return of 7% and dismantling it means 20% guess which is going to happen with Mitt’s sort of people. (made up numbers)

  60. 60
    AA+ Bonds says:

    One thing has become clear to me over the last couple weeks: the dicksucking press absolutely motherfuckin hates Mitt Romney

    All the criticisms are legit but they are not usually the sort of thing that gets the Beltway up in arms, and they are just picking and picking at the guy.

    Ultimately, Obama remains the cool kid, the hip choice, and endorsing Romney is ultimately going to be the same bit as endorsing McCain: something savvy pseudo-intellectual Republicans either don’t do so they can look like they were on the right side of history, or do with enough damning caveats that they can quote themselves through their breathing tubes decades from now to argue for the same assessment

  61. 61
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Also, I am nearly shitting myself with glee at all the legwork Perry and Gingrich are doing for the left on this one,

    NEVER DID I THINK I’D SEE THE DAY!

    when we would get Gingrich’s services gratis as one of the top trolls in the game today . . . from the left

  62. 62
    Brachiator says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    One thing has become clear to me over the last couple weeks: the dicksucking press absolutely motherfuckin hates Mitt Romney

    It’s cool to pick on Romney now. And easy.

    Come the general election, things could easily flip.

  63. 63
    EconWatcher says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    It is pretty amazing, isn’t it? It would be hard to overstate how much harder this line of attack hits, with Gingrich and Perry on record supporting it. My wingnut brother is apoplectic.

  64. 64
    srv says:

    @jl: Kthug has always said he got his bubble reading from Paul McCulley at Pimco.

    Great video of him at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HCY1Tl71Es

  65. 65
    AA+ Bonds says:

    It’s also worth making the argument that

    1) Bain Capital only made money doing what it does because the rules are so fucked up that bandito activity makes people rich when they loan shareholders’ money to themselves,
    2) Romney’s real goal is to waste Frank-Dodd so that he and other people can continue to do the same, when what we need is to fix the system so people like Romney can’t get rich like that

    Or, to keep it simple: Romney is running for President to change the rules in his favor, so that when he leaves office he can make more money

  66. 66
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Brachiator:

    It’s cool to pick on Romney now. And easy.
    __
    Come the general election, things could easily flip.

    I bet they will . . . for mere hours at a time, every time, just as happened with McCain.

    The guy’s “up” moments could be counted by commercial breaks, and Romney will be the same story

  67. 67
    Rita R. says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    @EconWatcher:

    Yes, absolutely! It’s been making me so very happy for days. And the fact that Sarah Palin is defending Gingrich and Perry doing it? Icing on the cake. I wonder if the Koch brothers and their big-money cronies are having second thoughts about their Tea Party now.

  68. 68
    AA+ Bonds says:

    I cannot stress enough how effective a Paranoid Style of Politics argument will be against Romney among the sort of “independents” who backed Obama in 2008 and Ron Paul in 2012 (these are real people, I know some of them)

    As in, “Romney wants to change the rules so that when he leaves office he and his family can become even richer by robbing more people. That’s his secret agenda.

    Stress the “secret” part, that’s the important part; it makes the paranoid listener feel in the know and important

    The fence-sitters I describe are looking for for the hidden quid pro quo in any exchange – many of them are 9/11 Truthers, etc. – and come on, BJers, I’ve been totin that sack (COUGH) for long enough by myself here

    Democrats don’t need these people to vote for Democrats; they just need to keep them from voting at all – that all by itself will inoculate against Rove, who depends on those people for his national strategy (witness this sad Ailes/Romney flogging of Solyndra)

  69. 69
    JCT says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    One thing has become clear to me over the last couple weeks: the dicksucking press absolutely motherfuckin hates Mitt Romney

    Well, honest-to-g_d, what the hell is there to like? REALLY? I cannot come up with a single thing.

    And watching Newt and his SuperPAC friends hack at him from the knees is delicious. The Rommey campaign must be going nuts.

    Oh, and someone probably mentioned this, but Steve Benen’s new “Romney’s Weekly Lies” section is most awesome.

  70. 70

    @AA+ Bonds: #61

    all the legwork Perry and Gingrich are doing for the left on this one

    It is nice isn’t it. Whoodathunk?

    I’ve seem some video of establishment Republicans throwing hissy fits about Newt. All of them looked like 1% guys to me.

  71. 71

    @Rita R.: #67

    I wonder if the Koch brothers and their big-money cronies are having second thoughts about their Tea Party now.

    Or if the Tea Party folks are having second thoughts about the Republicans. They were used by the big-money guys.

  72. 72

    It does pay to remember some little things like Cheney’s helm of Haliburton – they were doing well and bought up a bunch of companies. A slight difficulty ensued, they had asbestos liabilities and to Cheney’s amazement those liabilities traveled with the cos. to Haliburton. No biggie, Congress fixed that with an asbestos fund and Bush/Cheney had a war with no bid…

  73. 73
    Jay in Oregon says:

    The unelected, unaccountable Masters of the Universe are flexing their muscles again. From the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi.....CMP=twt_fd

    Europe has been plunged into a fresh crisis after France admitted it had been stripped of its coveted AAA rating in a mass downgrade of nine eurozone countries by the credit ratings agency S&P.
    __
    The agency downgraded the ratings of Cyprus, Italy, Portugal and Spain by two notches. It also lowered Austria, France, Malta, Slovakia and Slovenia by one notch.
    __
    The agency said that its actions on eurozone ratings were “primarily driven by insufficient policy measures by EU leaders to fully address systemic stresses”.

    They just need to replace their heads of state with banksters; they get it all sorted out…

  74. 74
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @JCT:

    Well, honest-to-g_d, what the hell is there to like? REALLY? I cannot come up with a single thing.

    I know, right? He can’t even properly deliver his Rove lines, his my-weaknesses-are-awesome, my-opponent’s-strengths-suck lines, he keeps flubbing those and without those there is no Romney 2012 campaign at all

  75. 75
    AA+ Bonds says:

    Rove probably feels he has one big chance, and that’s to stick it out until the general when Rove Strategy can be applied to Romney’s record in Mass., i.e., “I reached across the aisle blah blah blah” which is really why he is dog-whistling “The President is an angry Negro divider” right now, to set up for a complete 180 on everything Romney sells in the primaries

    But honestly, I don’t believe any smart Republican thinks a Republican will win the top spot in 2012, including Rove: he’s building his brand for 2016 as surely as the pasty fat fucks who are sitting this one out

  76. 76
    trollhattan says:

    SEK reads VD(tm) Hanson so you don’t have to.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo.....immigrants

  77. 77
    chopper says:

    if i were one of mitten’s handlers i’d be wondering why the hell he keeps bringing up the auto bailout? that fucker saved an entire industry, and millions of jobs, from going down the drain. however much mitty wants to act like he would have totes done the same, he didn’t. obama did it. mitt sat on the sidelines and whined about it.

    how mitt ‘let detroit burn’ romney thinks arguing that he’s the job guy, while bringing up the fact that obama saved the entire fucking auto industry, is a smart attack is completely beyond me.

  78. 78
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @AA+ Bonds: I’m not saying I’m endorsing the guy, but there’s no question that if you don’t support what he’s doing, you’d probably defend a baby shooting a drone at another baby.

  79. 79
    AA+ Bonds says:

    We all support drones killing children by our failure to revolt, but that seems off topic………

  80. 80
    jl says:

    @trollhattan: Tanks. Certainly one has to admit that the Boyars suffered more under Vlad the Impaler! We are soft today and do not remember the inconveniences of being worked and starved to death while one’s clothes rot off one’s body. But the truly deserving thrived despite the roadblocks, rather than whining about their disadvantage.

  81. 81
    Brachiator says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    But honestly, I don’t believe any smart Republican thinks a Republican will win the top spot in 2012, including Rove: he’s building his brand for 2016 as surely as the pasty fat fucks who are sitting this one out

    The Republicans always play to win. The lost in 2008, but have done everything humanly possible to obstruct Obama and the Democrats since then. They’re like a basketball team, down 128 to 90, who still commits a foul at every possession, because it might give them a chance.

    I don’t see that anyone has ceded 2012 to Obama. Nor do I think that any Republican thinks that they have a better chance at victory in 2016, or will have better candidates.

    @trollhattan:

    SEK reads VD™ Hanson so you don’t have to.

    Hanson and David Brooks need to enter a bad fiction writing contest. They share a burning need to distort history into fables of white resentment.

  82. 82
    JoyfulA says:

    @JCT: There’s one thing to like about Mitt. Mrs. Mitt has had MS for years, and he hasn’t dumped her, like Newt dumped his second wife when she was diagnosed with MS.

    Other than that, I can’t see anything to like about Mitt.

  83. 83
    pragmatism says:

    @trollhattan: Ot but I really liked SEK’s post on fight club book v movie. http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblo.....ho-love-it

  84. 84
    chopper says:

    @AA+ Bonds:

    i only support drones killing babies that are severely allergic to bee stings.

  85. 85
    Anne Laurie says:

    @JoyfulA:

    Mrs. Mitt has had MS for years, and he hasn’t dumped her, like Newt dumped his second wife when she was diagnosed with MS.

    He did, however, think it was a “humanizing story” that his wife loved him so much she’d move back from Utah (where she thought the climate helped her MS symptoms) to Massachusetts, because “Nobody ever got elected president as the ex-governor of Utah”. Mitt never did seem to figure out why his handlers turned pale and wrestled the mike away when he shared that little hey-guys-off-the-record-amirite? tidbit with the reporters while running for governor of Massachusetts!

    I get the feeling Willard doesn’t love Ann as much as he loves his narcissistic “perfect attractive upscale blond Mitt-mate” image of the woman he decided would be the perfect complement when he was 19 and she was 16. She’s like an upscale Pat Nixon, allowed to do anything she wants as long as it doesn’t interfere with her husband’s real life, and as long as she shows up well-groomed & smiling for the publicity photos. Of course, there’s millions of people who’d trade places with her in a Belmont minute, but it’s still sad.

  86. 86
    JoyfulA says:

    @Anne Laurie: Hmm, now I have to look again for a good aspect of Mitt. Any suggestions?

    I always try to humanize people I don’t like by finding a positive. GW, for example: He seemed extremely unbigoted for a RWNJ, based on the women and people of color in his administration.

  87. 87
    AxelFoley says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    Like I said in the previous thread, in the 17th century, they knew how to handle pirates.

    In the 21st century, Barack Obama does, too. ;)

  88. 88
    Thomas jones says:

    To the ppl calling for scorched earth campaigns against mittens…. he has to win the primary first. If the democrat scorch the earth surrounding this incredibly weak candidate, there is a chance may not win and then we’ll be facing someone else (remember, the republican base hates Romney almost as much as everyone else).

Comments are closed.