A Dose of Stupid v.80

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Mitt Romney thnks Obama won because of “gifts”

I will allow Willard to explain this himself:

“The president’s campaign focused on giving targeted groups a big gift — so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars,” Romney said on a conference call with donors, the Los Angeles Times first reported.

—-

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free healthcare, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free healthcare worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity. I mean, this is huge,” Romney said, the New York Times reported.

“Likewise with Hispanic voters, free healthcare was a big plus,” Romney added. “But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

Mitt Romney putting the ass in jackass.

What is most surprising is that this comment comes not only after the rather gracious concession speech Romney gave last week, but also after Obama offering an olive branch and stating that he would like to sit down with the former governor.

Romney repaid that by essentially claiming that Obama bought the election.

Romney, Republicans, and conservatives remain baffled by last week’s loss. They cannot figure out why they lost. Here is a hint: everything Romney stated above.

The far right has a bad habit of thinking no one is recording them when they speak behind closed doors. They say what they really think and then wonder why more than half the public dislikes them. Romney just wrote off 50% of voters, claiming that those who voted for the President did so to get stuff. When one treats people as moochers and takers, it is easy for them not to vote for you.

Indeed, the more one pushes that narrative, and the more one alienates marginalized groups like blacks, Hispanics, gays, and the poor, along with special interest groups like feminists and other activists, the more likely they will vote.

One simply cannot treat people that way and expect it not to come back and bite you.

Fortunately, there are some on the right who took issue with Romney’s comments. Bobby Jindal stated:

“No, I think that’s absolutely wrong,” he said at a press conference that opened the RGA’s post-election meeting here. “Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote.

“And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

Several other Republicans chimed in as well. However, the larger problem is that many more Republicans and conservatives actually believe this nonsense. It is all over right-wing talk radio and all over Fox News. This stupidity does not help anyone. It may make the right feel better, but it does not build up their movement or their party, and it will continue to cost them.

About these ads

11 thoughts on “A Dose of Stupid v.80

  1. If it hadn’t been for the presence of male candidates those outside the US could easily get the impression no men lived in the US at all.

    There is absolutely no question that this election WAS bought. I’ve never seen a campaign anywhere in the world involving that level of patronage to a single demographic.

  2. I agree.
    The election was brought. It was brought by promising goodies of various policies and subsidies for various demographic groups.
    This is the way elections always work in democracies. Whoever promises the most to the most voters wins.
    Romney wasn’t saying anything particularly outrageous and certainly nothing that was untrue.
    And if you don’t believe that Democrats write off a considerable amount of people (mostly whites and men, particularly white men) TS, then you must not hang out at Talk Left, Daily Kos, Democratic Underground, or any other large democratic or left blog much of all, and you must have missed all those explicit advertisements for women (as an example) on the Obama campaign website.

  3. Gwallan, both sides played to their base, and that is the nature of politics. People vote for those who talk about their issues. I agree that there was far too much focus on women during the last part of the election, but that happened because several Republicans could not keep their mouths shut or at least learn how to speak tactfully.

  4. Clarence, I think calling issues that are important to different groups “gifts” is insulting. I do not doubt that Romney, who has never wanted for anything in his life, believes that these things are “gifts”. However, I doubt that the millions of children born in the U.S. whose parents are here illegally think it is a “gift” for them to be considered U.S. citizens. That is actually the law, but the Republicans wanted to repeal the 14th Amendment so that those people could no longer be considered citizens. Millions of people, through no fault of their own, cannot afford health insurance, and therefore cannot get the medical assistance they need. I doubt they think it is a “gift” for them to have access to the same health care Romney has. Millions of gay people are in monogamous relationships. I doubt they think it is a “gift” to have their state and federal governments recognize their relationship as they do similar heterosexual relationships. Those are the people Romney is attacking, yet those are also the people he needed to vote for him in order to win.

    As for Democrats writing off people, of course they do. However, they were not the ones who played so far to one side that literally only one group of people would vote for them.

  5. As someone who rather closely follows leftwing and rightwing blogs, I feel you are incorrect, TS.
    The Democrats are happy to conflate all men with white men and all white men with the top 1 percent or with the most racist and most sexist if it pleases them. The Democrats have via affirmative action and refusal to close the borders (at the same time they don’t pushback against Republicans and their “free trade” policies enough to stymie or stop them; indeed they often push for “free trade” themselves) they have waged war on the working class and even more so on the white working class. After all, upper class white men don’t suffer from Affirmative Action, it’s lower class white men who bare the brunt of those missed opportunities just as lower class blacks felt the impact of policies like Jim Crow. You also know the double standards when it comes to what is allowable rhetoric between white men and pretty much everyone else when it comes to left wing blogs.

    As far as it goes, the rest of your complaint doesn’t impress me too much either. Yes, I agree that the country needs some form of Universal health care (and if we want to avoid making a huge mistake we’ll let people supplement this with private insurance) but Obama care isn’t that, as any perusal of the legislation or the history of the legislation will tell you. There are still working people who will not be guaranteed shit from this stuff because their employers don’t offer healthcare, there’s no “public option” on the exchanges (which aren’t even set up in over half the states yet anyway) , and they can’t afford the private insurers because there is no meaningful cost control. Nonetheless even though OCARE is not what many people seem to think it is, it’s still a government expenditure and thus a type of giveaway. If you are a standard economist or a libertarian or most types of conservative (I’m none of these things) you oppose this on principle.

    Gay marriage? HIp hip horray, I support it, but Romney hardly spent any campaign time against it, and it is not that important in terms of national priorities at this moment in time.

    Seriously, here’s Ron Paul’s final speech:
    More than coercive, to Paul the government is also corrupt: “All branches of our government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state-and frequently their own wealth and power,” he said.

    Throughout his speech, Paul questioned not only the fundamental health of America’s social compact, but specifics like fiat money, the power of the Federal Reserve, the PATRIOT Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modifications, undeclared war, the illegalization of medical marijuana, mandatory sentencing requirements for drug crimes, the illegalization of hemp, TSA searches, federal debt and borrowing, the White House’s authority to assassinate those it declares terrorists, the legalization of detaining U.S. citizens for national-security purposes, the political power of AIPAC, and the regulation of light bulbs and toilets in people’s homes.

    For Paul, the list of grievances is long, and he might not have accomplished much in Congress: “In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little,” he said. “No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without congressional declaration.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/11/ron-paul-departs-with-our-constitution-has-failed/

    Yeah, all that , and we are supposed to make it a mainstream priority and a “deal killer” because one party thinks young women should be responsible for their own damn birth control (while as you freaking know men basically have NO reproductive rights whatsoever) or listens to some bigots (as if the other party is free of bigots) who believe that Adam and Paul can get married – and fully half that opposition seems to drop away if you make it clear that churches won’t be required to recognize these marriages (as Maryland did) or don’t call it “marriage” but instead “Civil Union” . Then there’s the fact that lots of these social issues are decided by STATE and not Federal action, and it becomes even more ludacris.

    My point isn’t that voting Romney is good. Indeed, I hate both parties and wish them both a horrid death. I didn’t vote for a mainstream candidate although I must say that IF I did it would be Romney – and it wouldn’t be for “lesser of two evils” reasons but SELF PROTECTION – what with the goal to extend Title IX to STEM subjects, the changes in policy that the Obama Justice Department decreed for college campuses, the fact that Obama pushed most of the stimulus money that went outside the banking system into fields mostly dominated by females such as education and etc, it’s never been more obvious to me that Obama was perfectly willing to wage war both rhetorically and fiscally on men, esp white ones. Mr. Progressive has also stepped up the drug war you know, and that disproportionately affects men of color – add that and his shitty fathers day diatribes and you have a guy perfectly willing to throw even his own race of men under the bus in some things.

    Me and my brothers voted for the libertarian candidate. We listened to the “Third Party” debates. We knew OUR interests wouldn’t win – heck we only voted for the libertarian to throw a wrench in the system , not because we agreed with all his proposed policies.

    It’s sad that it’s come to this. Two corrupt parties that constantly mess with voting rules, mess with districting at the state level, conduct their own exclusive debates ignoring good questions and other parties like the libertarians or greens, and fight to get their own corrupt asshat of a politician into office. Both serve big money which is why the democrats never really do much for the unions , and never made a serious attempt -even though they controlled the Presidency and both houses of congress- to bring a real single payer system into being or even serious freaking market reforms and price controls on the healthcare front. And why they are going to compromise on Social Security and Medicare with the Republicans who only control the house. Meanwhile the Republicans never met a tax cut or free trade treaty they didn’t like. The Republicans are the party for wealthy and married white men and women, mostly middle income or above. The Democrats are for everyone else except poor white men whom they like to trash along with all the other white people.

    Disgusting.

  6. @TS…

    My evaluation is not based on anything to do with the Republicans. Election losers have hardly bought anything.

    I’ve been an avid watcher of elections across the English speaking world since I started reading Malcolm MacKerras in the sixties. I’ve worked for the Australian Labor Party in every state and federal election campaign over here through that entire time.

    When I say I’ve never seen such patronage to a single demographic maybe I wasn’t strong enough. I’ve never seen anything even close. The patriarchy is back and this time it’s for good because it’s the government now.

    The same pattern will be followed in the next Australian federal election. Our prime minister has already laid the foundation stones for Labor’s campaign when she engaged in her misogyny rant a few weeks ago. Labor’s origins are with working class family men, a demographic they have deserted and utterly betrayed. I recognise the Democrat patronage because it’s a LESSER variant of that practiced by the Australian Labor Party.

    You should understand that from our Australian Labor perspective the Democrats are so removed to the right as to be indistinguishable from the Republicans. Most of us care little which side wins in the US. That country remains our greatest threat regardless of who is in power.

    In the US that thing called democracy, a fragile commodity at best, has just taken another little hit.

  7. I don’t believe it was mainly because of those comments that Mitt Romney lost – it was because he is a turncoat in two key areas (and perhaps more). So let’s see:
    – Health-care “socialism”: Romney once defended public health care and, in fact, he put into practice in Massachusetts. When he becomes presidential candidate, he starts opposing so-called “Obamacare” (which mirrored his policy as Governor) and any other form of public health care;
    – Global warming (GW): Romney once said GW indeed existed; however, once he ran his candidacy, he started denying GW.

    (Notice that this is highly likely because he ran for the Republicans, who are also a turncoat party. They were the ones that created EPA and conservation, remember? And, from a party that opposed slavery and segregation they became some kind of radical anti-immigrant racist group. And, a party that once supported the ERA now boasts a guy that talks about “legitimate rape” – what does this mean? That such rape might actually be done?)

    So, you see, it’s not so much what Romney said PRIVATELY, it was what he said PUBLICLY.

    And, you’re right Clarence, basically all elections around the world are bought with “gifts” that the politicians hand out to their respective support bases (if you want an even better example, look at my country, Portugal: here the traditional “gift” is highways no one uses :)), although TS is right when he says that some things that are very important to certain demographics shouldn’t be called “gifts”, like immigration-related issues.

    P.S.: Clarence, are you right-wing or left-wing? With this “gift” comment, I’m sensing a vibe that you’re right-wing.

  8. When you’ve always seemed left-wing.

    (I forgot about this, Toysoldier, could you add it to my previous comment, please? :) Thanks.)

  9. It was a politically incorrect statement for Romney to make. It demonstrated a lack of political acuity to make such a comment. It was a comment that begged to be ridiculed. And it was also a TRUE STATEMENT and a CORRECT EVALUATION regarding the state of the U.S. electorate, the campaign as it was waged, and illustrative of the fact that “He who robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.”

  10. @Clarence

    Damn, now that was a rant. Pretty informative one I might add. I think I might have to go read up some more on your Libertarians. :)

  11. Man, I was gonna say something when I saw the topic, but I think it’s already been said by now. The only thing I would’ve added was that Obama’s pandering goes into actual discrimination territories, but the moment’s kinda passed.

    In any case, I think it’s clear that, regardless of whether you agree with Romney or not on this matter, there ARE enough people – intelligent people – who do agree with him to make this really not A Dose Of Stupid.

    (Man, I love living in Ireland. Our political system is the best!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s