Saturday, May 16, 2009

Play Cheney for me

Mitt Romney is so desperate to be President that he's willing to whore himself out as the handsome second coming of Darth Cheney.

The truth is that the Bushists pissily and irresponsibly dismissed the concern the Clinton administration had about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. (Note to wingnut trolls: Sure, Clinton could have succeeded against these enemies, and he didn't, but he at least identified the priority problem, where Mayberry Nero told his briefers that they had covered their asses.) The Bushists were focused instead on redeeming Bush I's PNAC-deplored failure to depose Saddam Hussein.

Romney's varmint-huntin' (see, really a country boy despite the $5000 suit!!!!!) is so lame he's going to need to shoot a friend to prove he's really the NRA's boy Cheney successor.

As a bonus, he's happy to defend the so-called free market's allocation of life-saving to those who can pay the most for it. Hey, works for him (and screw you).

Mitt Romney is the perfect expression of Republicanism - willing to say any bullshit, filled with rhetoric that misrepresents reality, a whore for the ruling class. He is the most obviously insincere politician since... Man, I'm having a hard time coming up with a politician who's more insincere than Mitt. Mostly, it's talk show hosts. Except John Boehner! Strom Thurmond, maybe - staunch racist shtupping the colored help but still making his black daughter come in through the back door.

I was slow to see the essential dishonesty of Romney, but I'm making up for lost time.


globeisatrocious said...

Can't resist the troll invite. Clinton's big successes were (1) getting ABC to cut from the 9-11 documentary the scene of his failure to kill Osama, (2) (2) getting ABC to never release that special on DVD, and (3) getting Sandy 'Socks' Berger to evade prison.

If you are ever looking for an insincere politician and you can't find John Edwards on the tip of your tongue, you just might be a liberal redneck.

lovable liberal said...

Even Republicans in 2008 could tell that Mitt Romney, whatever his secret core convictions, was smarmily willing to say anything to win an election. I had that suspicion in 2002, but he stuck to his candidate merchandising message too well to show proof.

Oh, and there's not a Republican alive who could beat Bill Clinton in an election. Even Saint Ronnie the Forgetful would have a hard time. And I'm not even a big Clinton fan.

Anonymous said...

Alive? Try John Paul Hammerschmidt. Frank White is dead 6 years. clinton never won a majority, though we know Ross Perot's votes would have only split - the NYT told me so.

And wow, you spotted Reagan a win. Insane, but not nuts.


lovable liberal said...

gia, you seem to speak the language, but then you come up with something like this. 'Could', not 'could have ever'. Clinton has had the benefit of Duhbya's succeeding him, which added to Clinton's already increased popularity.

(Note to readers with a clue: I had to google John Paul Hammerschmidt, too. I guess it's not surprising that a Republican would be living in the past.)