Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

The scorpion that stung Mitt Romney

If Fox is calling it for Obama, that's that. 

Interestingly, the NYT electoral map shows Ohio in pink and VA in solid blue. I've been saying for a while that the key state in this race would be Virginia. Of course, those colors may shift by the time you read these words.

Romney may attribute his loss to one key factor: Republicans brought The Crazy. And they kept on bringing it, even though The Crazy worked against them.

You've probably heard the story about the scorpion who stings the frog carrying him across the water, thereby dooming both. "Why did you do such a thing?" asks the dying frog. "Because it is in my nature," says the scorpion.

This year, the scorpion's name was legion. The scorpion was Roger Ailes. And Todd Akin. And Richard Mourdock. And Michele Bachmann. And...

...and let's keep this brief. The name of the scorpion that stung Mitt Romney was Tea Party.

Given Obama's manifest vulnerabilities, Romney would have won this election handily but for one factor: His party has been commandeered by lunatics. Mitt had to feign madness in order to go among the mad. As a result, the sane shunned him.

There's an old story that Churchill, in the early 1930s, met one of Hitler's comrades at a social function. Churchill said: "Tell your boss that anti-Semitism is a good starter but a bad finisher." The 2012 election necessitates an updating of that maxim: Extremism is a good opener but a bad closer. If you bring The Crazy, you can drive 30-40 percent of the electorate into a foamy-lipped frenzy, but you will also repulse more people than you attract.

Tomorrow I can go back to pissing on Barack Obama. What a relief!
Tomorrow I can go back to pissing on Barack Obama. What a relief!

Please, make it stop, (my laughing).
I voted for Jill Stein and was told by a presumed feminist that I was helping to hold women back by not voting for Obama!
One thing that I would love explained. Obama used the GM comeback to his huge advantage in the swing states.

Obama stated how Mitt would have preferred that GM not be bailed out.

Obama also portrayed Mitt as being a pension destroyer.

But when GM declared bankruptcy, all of their shares became worthless and the existing pension plan were basically shelved, no?

So how did Obama get away with taking "credit" for basically doing to GM workers what Romney was accused of doing while he was at Bain Capital?

Didn't Obama ultimately treat the existing GM workers the same way that Romney was accused of treating existing workers who were taken over by Bain Capital?
As I wrote to my friend Bart...I can't believe how fast the Networks called it for Obama. Makes my cynical ass suspicious.
Don't get me wrong, I wanted Obama to win, but I thought the obvious voter suppression by the criminal elements of the GOP would result in an Obama loss. And if Obama were to somehow win, then the Corporate Media's suck-e-ness would result in a weeks long tizzy which would further the years long effort of delegitimizing our President.
I am bewildered and befucked by this strange turn of events.
Still, I am pleased!

I'll start pissing on Obama right now. Let's impeach him for war crimes, and crimes against the constitution. President Biden sounds pretty good to me.
Thank God. I dont think I could hold my nose any longer.

Mr. Machi,

Obama treated non-union members very badly. But members of the two biggest unions in GM were treated very well. Better than bond holders - which is unusual, and was considered borderline illegal at the time.

Harry's comment jibes with what I heard from a union honcho on the radio yesterday. He said that the union pensions were preserved because of a separate contract between GM and the unions (anyone remember how the huge payouts in the financial services industry were defended on exactly the same grounds?) and that the union position was that the nonunion workers' pensions also deserved protection.
Joe said:

"Tomorrow I can go back to pissing on Barack Obama. What a relief!"

LOL! I'm counting on it. And yes, I suspect for a lot of true liberals/progressives it is a relief. Obama's policies are very difficult to defend. That's why I went 3rd party but I can't say I'm surprised at the result nor upset [the Romney/Ryan ticket was a horror as is the Republican party]. Thankfully, some of the true crazies were cut. But not all.

Now the roller coaster ride begins. The Grand Bargain debacle is already in motion.

@Anonymous posting anonymously at 11:49 PM

How about, NO. Additionally, FUCK OFF. Further, FUCK YOU.

As always, sincerely,
To DaninAlabama,

Your thoughts echo mine, thanks for posting.

I had foreseen a Romney "win" as well based on voter suppression, evote rigging and am shocked to see a turnaround with Romney conceding well before the counting of the votes was even completed.

It makes no sense except that perhaps some sort of a backroom deal was made between Obama (and his supporters) and the existing corporate backers because perhaps Romney 1) wasn't their guy from the getgo and 2) all of a sudden realized that Romney might actually seize power and go after them knowing what happens when controlling interests who back deathsquads in 3rd world countries focus on their home backyards instead.

Something happened to stop the massive election theft that had happened in 2004, 2008 (Obama was denied a landslide win).

What happened? We can only guess.
@Jay Laudermilk

Could I get an order of reasons to go with that heap of opinion? Or am I to suppose that you don't do reasons? Daniel Ellsberg says that Obama deserves to be impeached. You think he's wrong? Why?
@Anonymous asshole,

Nah, you can get another FUCK YOU though. And that's for trying to put Willard Romney in office. Get the fuck off this blog and quit hiding behind your anonymous posts, ever so careful not to reveal yourself for the scumbag you are. Or maybe it's because you don't think scum deserves to be named. And who does Daniel propose to put in office after impeaching Obama, eh? Willard Romney? So George Bush II (Iraq War, Afghanistan War), George Bush I (Iran-Contra), and Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra), were not impeached for their war crimes and got off scott-fucking-free yet you and Daniel assert Obama should be punished. SOUNDS FAIR TO ME.
Josh, Anon -- no more arguing.

Let's be civil.

Of course, who am I to talk? I can be pretty asshole-ish myself. But as George Patton once reportedly said, there's room for only one prima donna in this army....
But the original GM shareholders got screwed, no? Or am I mistaken and GM was privately held?

I don't get the voter suppression accusation by requiring an ID. That is actually incredibly helpful for lower income people because they presumably need an ID of some sort if at any time they might want to qualify for a government, no?

If voting forced someone to get an ID, then they just saved themselves a hassle later on if they might need to apply for any type of government program or assistance.
Would it be considered arguing to point out that when a president is impeached, the vice president takes over his office?
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic