The real Romney has finally stood up. Thank God the American people have voted him down!
On November 14th, Romney held a conference call with rich donors, during which he mentioned the main reasons he thought their big bucks failed to buy the election. He blamed Obama for a campaign that "made a big effort on small things." He brazenly implied that he, Romney, dealt with the major issues, a strategy that lost out to Obama who "focused on giving target groups big gift(s)... which, by the way add up to trillions of dollars."
"The big gifts" he mentioned were free contraceptives for women; "forgiveness of college loan interest" for young people; the gift of Obamacare, which, he mentioned, allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26; and reaching out to Hispanics with the Dream Act. He stated that "the Obama health care plan's promise of coverage 'in perpetuity' was highly motivational to those voters making $25-35,000 who might not have been covered, as well as to African American and Hispanic voters."
What a horribly bitter exit! Do the math: minus the groups Obama supposedly favored with free stuff--women, Hispanics, African Americans and the young, and what do you have left? Older white men. Older white men who don't need Obamacare, that is, rich older white men. And, of course, Romney never advocated policies that favored them.
The condescension! He implies that Obama offered candy to children and all the kids said, "Whee! Yummy! Obama's for me!" Women and minorities can't be expected, of course, to vote for what they believe is best for their county. Only old white men are able to do that. If a young women objects to the current tax mess, all you have to do is throw her a pack of contraceptives and she will start demanding--Heaven forbid!--some redistribution of wealth.
A brief description of Obama candy: The Dream Act allows for undocumented aliens who have lived in this country for years to become legal residents if they pursue a college degree and/or serve in the military--obviously good for the country. Obamacare is also obviously good for the country--otherwise why would every other industrialized nation have mandated comprehensive health care for their citizens? Reducing the interest rate for college loans--obviously good for the county by helping out a terribly burdened group, freeing up income which will stimulate the economy. Free contraceptives--obviously good for the county, since many poorer women can't afford co-pays. This policy is good for the country because the management of unwanted pregnancies is so much more expensive.
And what about Romney's enormous gifts which he proposed for the rich? Yachts for his yes-men--is that good for a country where 93% of the benefits from the ongoing financial recovery has gone to the top 1%?
He wanted to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when revenue is sorely needed. He proposed keeping them while closing loopholes that would be revenue-neutral. The rich get richer the poor get poorer--let's call his policies for what they are: balancing an elephant-idol on the backs of the poor I pledge allegiance to the oligarchy of the United States of America--Ain't freedom grand.
During one of my essays written during the campaign, "Romney and the Triumph of the Egg," I argued that Romney didn't have the personality to become president. Too stiff; too undiplomatic, too prone to gaffes. I thought I might have been too harsh, after the first debate, during which the mock sun shined. Now tht the sun has set, I am convinced that he not only lacks the personality but the moral fiber as well.
The two states that knew him best, Massachusetts and Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Now the United States is knows his number, too.
.
During his career, Romney, as is well known, has "been all over the map" on many important issues such as health care and abortion. (Once he claimed that his position on abortion was to the left of Kennedy's!) I realize all politicians--Obama included--have to say things on occasion that they don't really mean if they want to get elected. But most politicians keep a central core of beliefs to which they remain true. Not Mr. Romney. I have never known a politician willing to say just about anything to get elected. To be fair, he has always remained faithful to laissez-faire capitalism and to the "military-industrial complex" as the much more nuanced and better Republican, Eisenhower, called it. But that's about it. True, he had to adapt to a radicalized party--but what about those core beliefs that he should have had? Is ambition that will adapt to anything in the best interest of our county?
We didn't--at least I didn't--know who Romney really was. Now that the election is over, he has made his true colors known, white and clear.
We realize that he has been running for president for over a decade; the defeat was a big blow. His ungrateful exit, however, reveals what a flawed candidate he really was.
It's not surprising that potential Republican candidates for 2016--Rubio, Jindal, Christie, Haley--have all distanced themselves from Romney's repudiation of every group except white men. I am sure this will be the last Republican presidential election by and for Aging White Knights. We need policy changes, however, and not mere outreach. If the Republican Party turns into Aging White Knights with several divisions of rainbow-hued peons, it will surely lose again.
On November 14th, Romney held a conference call with rich donors, during which he mentioned the main reasons he thought their big bucks failed to buy the election. He blamed Obama for a campaign that "made a big effort on small things." He brazenly implied that he, Romney, dealt with the major issues, a strategy that lost out to Obama who "focused on giving target groups big gift(s)... which, by the way add up to trillions of dollars."
"The big gifts" he mentioned were free contraceptives for women; "forgiveness of college loan interest" for young people; the gift of Obamacare, which, he mentioned, allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26; and reaching out to Hispanics with the Dream Act. He stated that "the Obama health care plan's promise of coverage 'in perpetuity' was highly motivational to those voters making $25-35,000 who might not have been covered, as well as to African American and Hispanic voters."
What a horribly bitter exit! Do the math: minus the groups Obama supposedly favored with free stuff--women, Hispanics, African Americans and the young, and what do you have left? Older white men. Older white men who don't need Obamacare, that is, rich older white men. And, of course, Romney never advocated policies that favored them.
The condescension! He implies that Obama offered candy to children and all the kids said, "Whee! Yummy! Obama's for me!" Women and minorities can't be expected, of course, to vote for what they believe is best for their county. Only old white men are able to do that. If a young women objects to the current tax mess, all you have to do is throw her a pack of contraceptives and she will start demanding--Heaven forbid!--some redistribution of wealth.
A brief description of Obama candy: The Dream Act allows for undocumented aliens who have lived in this country for years to become legal residents if they pursue a college degree and/or serve in the military--obviously good for the country. Obamacare is also obviously good for the country--otherwise why would every other industrialized nation have mandated comprehensive health care for their citizens? Reducing the interest rate for college loans--obviously good for the county by helping out a terribly burdened group, freeing up income which will stimulate the economy. Free contraceptives--obviously good for the county, since many poorer women can't afford co-pays. This policy is good for the country because the management of unwanted pregnancies is so much more expensive.
And what about Romney's enormous gifts which he proposed for the rich? Yachts for his yes-men--is that good for a country where 93% of the benefits from the ongoing financial recovery has gone to the top 1%?
He wanted to keep the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at a time when revenue is sorely needed. He proposed keeping them while closing loopholes that would be revenue-neutral. The rich get richer the poor get poorer--let's call his policies for what they are: balancing an elephant-idol on the backs of the poor I pledge allegiance to the oligarchy of the United States of America--Ain't freedom grand.
During one of my essays written during the campaign, "Romney and the Triumph of the Egg," I argued that Romney didn't have the personality to become president. Too stiff; too undiplomatic, too prone to gaffes. I thought I might have been too harsh, after the first debate, during which the mock sun shined. Now tht the sun has set, I am convinced that he not only lacks the personality but the moral fiber as well.
The two states that knew him best, Massachusetts and Michigan, voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Now the United States is knows his number, too.
.
During his career, Romney, as is well known, has "been all over the map" on many important issues such as health care and abortion. (Once he claimed that his position on abortion was to the left of Kennedy's!) I realize all politicians--Obama included--have to say things on occasion that they don't really mean if they want to get elected. But most politicians keep a central core of beliefs to which they remain true. Not Mr. Romney. I have never known a politician willing to say just about anything to get elected. To be fair, he has always remained faithful to laissez-faire capitalism and to the "military-industrial complex" as the much more nuanced and better Republican, Eisenhower, called it. But that's about it. True, he had to adapt to a radicalized party--but what about those core beliefs that he should have had? Is ambition that will adapt to anything in the best interest of our county?
We didn't--at least I didn't--know who Romney really was. Now that the election is over, he has made his true colors known, white and clear.
We realize that he has been running for president for over a decade; the defeat was a big blow. His ungrateful exit, however, reveals what a flawed candidate he really was.
It's not surprising that potential Republican candidates for 2016--Rubio, Jindal, Christie, Haley--have all distanced themselves from Romney's repudiation of every group except white men. I am sure this will be the last Republican presidential election by and for Aging White Knights. We need policy changes, however, and not mere outreach. If the Republican Party turns into Aging White Knights with several divisions of rainbow-hued peons, it will surely lose again.
Hello! How do you feel about promotion campaigns of any kinds on personal blogs?
ReplyDelete