If Romney Wins

Update.--Well this post is kinda' obsolete now (11/9/12), but still it was worth the thought.

Reading David Brooks' column in the NY Times today I have to say if Romney should win Senator Harry Reid should do what Senator Mitch McConnell did when Obama was elected president, when he said in early 2009 his goal "was to make the president a one-term president."

The Democrats in the Senate should take a pledge not to go along with anything Romney says or wants, simply make Romney move to the center-left than stay in the right-extreme right stance his backers will accept and expect of him.

The Republicans know the Democrats always cave on issues to appease than fight, and if Romney wins they should do what the Republicans did in Obama's first term, stand on principle and refuse to negotiate, compromise and agree.

In short, stand and fight. Every time during Obama's first term the Republicans agreed to a compromise with the Democrats and the President, and then reniged to vote for it and move the goal posts for a new compromise, until the compromise was almost all conservative and little liberal in value.

The Democrats buckled and caved everytime and the Republicans knew they would. So if Romney wins, you can bet they'll do it again, but this time the Democrats should just stand there and say no. I would not want to hear Senator Reid announce a compromise which hurts Amercians and America.

And I know he will. He's not strong enough to stand up to the Republicans. He appeases them every time. It's time the Democrats in the Senate replace him as the majority leader to get someone tougher. Senator Reid is a great backroom negotiator but a bad leader.

This is where they will have their chance, their only chance, to make Romney be a one-term president and show he was all talk and no substance, the same thing the Republicans accuse the President Obama of being when they refused to negotiate and compromise.

If Romney wins the Democrats should simply decide not to make this president look good, and make the Republican learn the lesson, "What goes around, comes around.", right back to haunt them with their own deeds.

If Romney wins I'd prefer to see another do nothing Congress than a Romney one.

Can Someone Explain

Can someone explain why people reblog posts, such as articles, essays, journal entries, etc., and not add anything to their reblog? Why? If you don't have a comment, even "This is cool.", or, "This sucks.", why reblog it?

You have a Tumblr account for a reason, to express yourself, not someone else. So why not say what you want or mean so we know who you are and what you believe. Just reblogging doesn't say anything about you.

Anyway, it escapes me and I just scroll on by and often don't come back unless they have something of their own to say.

Being Outspoken

The problem with people who are outspoken and willing to say something for the lack of anything significant let alone important to say is that they often, and some usually, speak before thinking and so their words, their intent and the meaning is lost in the obvious stupidity of the statement.

We all know someone like this. The problem is that they rarely know they're doing this and they rarely apologize beyond explaining what they meant to say but didn't. The truth is that the spoke what they thought, only they weren't thinking at the time.

And we know Mitt Romney seems to have a habit of this in this election campaign, others aren't far behind. Roseanne Barr is a good example of a recent comment or tweet she had to step back with an explantion, but she didn't think to stop talking first, but simply said what was in her mind.

And just as often these people think their comments aren't hurtful or harmful because, "it's who they are.", meaning honest, straight-forward people, except of course discriminating against classes or groups of people who in their mind don't count anyway.

Anyway, I think it's funny we make a storm out of their comment when they were oblivious to the effect and impact of it and then simply make an excuse and forget. They are the human and verbal version of the fire and forget missile.

Except we don't. And they never understand.

Romney & Lies

If Mitt Romney will say anything, tell a complete, unsubstantiated lie, to anyone for their vote; if he'll say anything to pander to his audience; if he's willing to scare people with his lies, what would you expect him to say to you if he is the President?

Romney didn't make the truth a victim of the campaign, he long buried it alongside the road in his campaign long ago. Romney wouldn't know the truth because he even denies his past lies and denies he's ever told a lie. He is blatantly blind to his own words.

If he'll lie to you now, would you trust if as president?

Abortion

Do the republicans really believe if they ban, even outlaw, abortion, there will be no more abortions? Do they really think women won't stop considering abortion as an option about her health and her life, especially if she was a victim of rape or incest?

Do they really think a woman will happily bring a pregnancy to birth if she survived a rape or incest? Do they really think a woman will continue her pregnancy if her doctors tell her life is at risk or she will not survive to birth?

Do they really think a woman will change her mind to have an abortion for whatever reasons because a man says she should continue her pregancy? Are they really that naive and stupid? Really?

Do they really think woman can't decide for themselves about their reproductive health, their body and their life? Because that's what it's about, them and no one else, and especially republicans. They have no place in a woman's decision about her pregnancy.

It's not about the definition of life. It's not about a fetus. It's not about God and the Bible. It's about women. And it's the old question, if men were the ones who got pregnant, would be accept the same fate if women controlled them?

The answers are clear and obvious, but not to republicans, who can't see past their own arrogance.

Why Romney?

Why do I get the impression that Mitt Romney wants so much to be the President, but that he has no idea what being the President means and what the President does?

Why does he make me Romney thinks being the President is like being the CEO of Bain Capital?

Why does he remind me of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, just empty political people who are filled  with whatever those around him feed him to know and say?

Why does he remind me of a talking windup doll you record your message and it repeats what you recorded?

Why does he make me wonder if he ever had a thought of his own?

If Romney never read any of he briefing reports on foreign affairs and policy and never listened to any of his campaign advisors on foreign affairs and policy, why do we think he'll be a good President with other nations?

Does Romney really think if he were elected President and he sat down with the Democrats they would actually listen to what he wanted them to do? Does he actually think he's their boss?

If George Bush only read one page summaries for briefing papers and Mitt Romney doesn't read any of them, do we really think he'd be a better President than Bush?

If we have so many unanswerable questions about Romney, why do we think he's worth being our President? We bet the nation with Bush and looked what happend.

The Perfect Job

The perfect job for a bully? The CEO of Bain Capital.

If you watched the two presidential debates, and read about Romney's career, without a doubt by todays standards in school districts, he'd be a bully. Not a leader but a gang leader who doesn't just imitidate and threaten but acts on his aggression toward people.

He doesn't really care about or for people, but especially minorites, women, the elderly, the poor, and so on down the list of people who aren't in his small circle of people he calls friends. It's in the "47%" remark he made behind closed doors to big money donors.

It's in the first debate where he bullied Jim Lehrer and the President, and in the second debate where he tried to bully Candy Crowley and the President and was flustered and frustrated when Ms. Crowley controlled the debate as moderator and the President went on the offensive.

That's what bullies do, cower in the face of strong opposition, and it's what he did. While being a CEO of a private equity firm which buys and sells companiesd may be the perfect job for Romney, it's not the job for a president.

Why

One, why do I get the feeling from Mitt Romney's speeches, his demeanor, his attitude, etc., that he actually thinks if he were president, his sheer presence as president will make people respond to his commands, nations will do whatever he asks, and Congress will bow to him and pass any bill he wants?

Why, or is he just simply so arrogant he doesn't see he's arrogant and everyone else sees it and doesn't give a fuck about him?

Does he really think the President of China will cower at his presence? Will fold and do what he wants when he says he'll be "tough" on China?

Does he really think the President of Syria will leave simply because he demands it? And will cower in the fear of the US military attacking his country?

Why does he think that his presence is power? And he will is command? Is that why he's never been in a job where he wasn't the boss?

Two, why does he think we don't have a memory of what he has said, and when he says something which conflicts, even contradicts, and he is called out, he simply denies or ignores it?

Why, or is he so arrogant he believes people will believe anything he says at the moment with no memory of his past statements?

Anyway, just some obvious observations about an arrogant, perpetual liar, a candidate for President.

Hindsight

One advantage a presidential candidate has against an incumbent is hindsight. It's very easy for any candidate to explain a situation and criticize the President, and then say, "I would have done it differently." That's because no one can disprove or refute your statement.

All the while the President has a record. The truth is that whatever the candidate says in these situations is a lie, because they don't really know what they would have done given the situation, conditions, facts and views presented to them at the time a decision needed to be made.

They don't really know, but it's always easy to say something in hindsight. Something we should all remember when we hear a presidental candidate say, "I would have done it differently?" They don't know anymore than we do or would.

First Debate

Well, I listened to the first presidential debate, had the TV on in the living room and the sound in the office, so I didn't have to watch it and could judge by their words. Well, in the end it was pretty much a waste of time, too much said and totally jumbled and confusing.

I won't argue I was mad the President didn't attack Romney on his stance and his lies and changes during the debate, but now I think the President, while taking the high road and not attacking, did better than we thought, mostly because it's clear Romney was the bully.

But I think two things show it best. First this cartoon. There wasn't much Romney said that wasn't factually true or true to his campaign to date.













And second this graph (click to enlarge), see Daily Kos article.

In the end, Romney gained very little and Obama gained where it mattered, among independents. Romney clearly moved to the center just for the debate to get independents, and they clearly saw it for what it was, political pandering.

Now the President knows what Romney will do and can counter it during the next two debates, but more importantly, Romney doesn't know what the President will do or say. The President sacrificed a few pawns but won bigger pieces and is set to win more, and all Romney can do is continue to bully and whine.

For that are the two true and certain things we learned about Romney, he's a bully and a whiner.

Mr Romney

To Mitt Romney and all of your campaign staff and political surrogates:

After you performance and arrogance to the moderator, the audience and especially the President last night at the debate and today on the news shows, I put it in very simple terms so you will easily understand my feeling, to say what I think you.

Go Fuck Youself!
You're a Fucking Liar!

And don't expect my money for your campaign, I sent it to the Obama campaign.

A Simple Truth

The simple truth behind Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan isn't that they hate the 47% and 30% of Americans, respectively from their speeches, it's that they hate 99% of Americans. These two people have been in the top 1-2% for decades, so it's their perspective of other people like all the rest of us.

The simple truth behind these guys is that they hate Americans, the very folks which made their fortunes for them. The very people they're trying to con into believing them they care about us, they want to help us, and they want to make our country better.

Really? Or just for the 1% who you know or are your friends? Like we're expected to believe you? What's the words? Yeah right.

It Would Be Funny

Wouldn't it be funny if all, ok almost all, of the tea-party members of the House of Representatives lost their re-election campaigns? Just think about it. They would have had shorter life than a one-hit band from the 1960's. Do you remember them?

Maybe it's time we vote them out after they got caught raiding the political and financial cookie jar to enrich their own lives and career? Remember, it's why they're representatives, to represent you, not wealthy people, not corporations, not themselves. Only you.

Maybe it's time to give them a reality check. It's our Congress.

Think About It

Just because you don't think President Obama hasn't done enough, I'm one of them, and you want to vote for Romney to vote against the President, before you vote think about what a Romney presidency would be like.

Think about who Romney is and what he believes, not what he says, and then think about what kind of people he would put into positions in his administration. If you can't figure that out, think about who Reagan and GW Bush put into positions.

Think about Bush's "compassionate conservatism", how did that turn out? And you think Romney would be anything close? And you think he really believes in and support the poor, the working and middle class, the elderly, children, women, and so on down the list?

Remember the old adage, "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."? Well, consider that's a political campaign facade, a sham on the voters for their real agenda. If you don't like President Obama, don't vote for him, but don't vote for Romney unless you know he's better.

Sometimes a no vote is enough. Voting for the other person is worse.