Washington Week: Where did the tide begin to turn?

[No Elephants]

Washinton Week held a town meeting in Missouri. A good part of the discussion was devoted to pinpointing when Romney began losing against Obama.

They concluded it was the conventions--the Democratic convention was better than the Republican convention.


IMO, that is a joke and they know it.


Romney began losing when he ran against Kennedy and Kennedy correctly labeled him "multiple choice."

Massachusetts got it in 1994, but forgot in 2002.


However, "Multiple Choice Mitt" came back to bite Willard when he ran for the nomination in 2008, as did his awful personality--supposedly, all the other Republicans, including McCain, disliked him, beyond the professional rivalry level.

And it came back to bite him again during this run, again, along with his awful personality.

From the $10,000 bet challenge to Romney, to shaming that poor woman about the cookies she offered him, to becoming the butt of jokes from London politicians and Putin, Romney has been a disaster all along.

However, people seem to conflate his personal bank account with insight and competence as to the national economy. Or maybe they simply hoped that someone, anyone, could turn things around faster than Obama. (Even though he did not turn Massachusetts around, people are desperate to believe.)

But then, the Republican convention comes up stunningly tone deaf and unprofessional, rather than sure-footed, competent and successful.

And every time Willard makes another glaring error, he (and/or Lovey) doubles down on it.

Then, there is the concern that the only ones Willard even wants to benefit are the wealthy. And his pick of Ryan, the guy most likely to kill Social Security, only deepens that concern.

Finally, Akins and others are making it abundantly clear how extreme the Republican Party has become.



So, no, it is not some single event that turned off Americans. He didn't start to lose the election after the conventions because he was never winning it. It is that Romney and his campaign keep confirming the fears and concerns that people have had about him all along. That, and people have seen that his performance Bain does not necessarily mean he has any insight into turning around a national and global economy that people much like him destroyed. And I fully believe that Gwen Ifill and her panel know all the above far, far better than I. After all, it's their day job to know it.

The sad thing about the discussion, IMO, was that I saw people in the Missouri audience, especially older ones, leaning forward in their seats, and listening very intently. They looked as though the panel of this Public Broadcast show had "THE" truth and were honestly imparting it to them, instead of giving them professional pundit bs superficial spin about one convention having been better than the other.



On a lighter note, perhaps DU2ers will recall that I have been referring to Ann Romney as "Lovey" in my posts for months? Well, much more recently, the media has begun referring to Willard as "Thurston Howell III. "

I want royalties, damn it!

That is all.

[Enthusiast]

1. Thurston Howell III was an endearing character, in a sense.

But I can't see Romney as a harmless old rich man no matter how hard I try.

The evil shit Bain pulled under Romney was the very cause of the acquisition-merger fever, downsizing and outsourcing that started in the 1980s. I was a victim of this sort of vulture capitalism--twice. I hate these fucks to my bones.

But I understand the Lovey thing. Ann is a near perfect Lovey. If you were casting a new Gilligan's Island she would be the first choice. So, I agree, you do deserve royalties.

The following is an excellent example of my concerns about Mittens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z-kKGELUc8A

[No Elephants]

2. True, as to Willard.

Indeed, some of those who use the Howell reference as to Willard do specify that Willard is Howell without the qualities that made people want to see Howell weekly.

Then again, I am not familiar enough with Gilligan's Island to know how Thurston made his fortune. Was it all inherited? Or was he supposedly a "self made man?"

I called Ann "Lovey" only in reference to vast wealth, superficiality, not fitting in with those around you, etc.

I never meant to imply that Ann is as sweet, harmless and clueless as my impression of Lovey because I do not see Ann Romney that way at all. Indeed, I see Anne as a helluva lot like Willard. If she weren't, I think she would be as hopelessly alcoholic as Mamie Eisenhower and Pat Nixon were supposed to be. '

Re: the video you linked: interesting about how the interest on debt related to the leveraged buy out of a business is tax deductible, for a couple of reasons.

1. That is the U.S. wage earner subsidizing the Gordon Gekkos and Willard Romneys of the country, isn't it? Isn't the ultimate of "You didn't build that (bridge or road or all the other things necessary for your success all by your lonesome, without any help whatever from people around you)?"

Also that the money for an LBO (and all the activities of Bain) came from banks and investors, not from Willard himself--and Mr. Bain trained Willard and spent a year or two helping Willard get investors for Bain Capital. (And after Bain got very profitable, Willard kicked out Mr. Bain and the rest of Willard's original partners.)

This makes Willard the poster child for "You didn't build that." Also the poster child for the ultimate cutthroat. Not only did he have no compunction about firing the employees of the companies that he took over, he had no compunction in cutting out his mentor and the people who got him started.

As best I can tell from reading the full Bain story in the wikis, Bain was almost a second father, businesswise, anyway, to Willard. But, he booted him, too. (Wonder what he had to hold over Bain and the other original partners that they never sued him for freezing them out?)

2. From all indications, when Republicans, including Willard, speak of "comprehensive tax reform" and "getting rid of loopholes, they mean getting rid of the tax deduction for residential mortgage interest, the one for charitable donations and the one for state taxes.

So, Bain should be able to deduct interest due on smoke and mirrors loans used to acquire companies via leveraged buy out, but a plumber should not be able to deduct interest he pays on a loan he took out on his own property, to put a roof over the head of his family?

Why are we not hearing about this from Democrats?