I saw my first political TV ad of the 2008 season last night while watching Countdown. It was a Mitt Romney ad, and it really changed the way I see him. Before I saw it, my impression was that Mitt's a guy who is willing to jettison any belief, change any position in order to win the Presidency - in other words, a younger, better-looking John McCain. After watching the ad, my impression shifted a bit - from "typical politician" to "what a frigging tool."
If you haven't seen it, the spot in question is available on Romney's website. Personally, I wouldn't recommend it, but you should go for it if you're in the mood for painfully bad. The theme of the spot is "I like to veto." In it, Romney promises to cap all non-defense discretionary spending at the rate of inflation minus one percent, says that he'll veto any budget that hits his desk that exceeds that, says that he likes to veto, brags about the vetoing he's done as governor, and finishes by saying that he can't wait to get to DC and start vetoing things.
I suppose I should be grateful to Mitt for the commercial. I was 99% sure that he's an entirely unsuitable candidate for the presidency to begin with, but he managed to remove all of my remaining doubt within a single thirty-second spot.
Let's start with the spending thing.
Before January, we had a Republican congress for well over a decade. For six of those years, the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the White House. At this point, the spending that hasn't been cut already is the stuff that President Bush couldn't convince a Republican Congress to cut. Some of that is probably pork, but a lot of it is spending for things that are necessary - like schools, highways, food for the hungry, things like that. That's one of the problems that I've got with Romney, but it's not the big one.
More importantly, setting a flat inflation minus 1% cutoff is arbitrary, and demonstrates a lack of interest in what money is actually being spent on. It's budget cutting for the sake of budget cutting, not budget cutting to trim unnecessary spending. If a Presidential candidate wants to talk about cutting spending, that's fine. But for crying out loud, at least show us that you're involved enough, reasonable enough, and competent enough to put together spending cuts that are based on an actual assessment of actual spending, not on a declaration that we must be spending too much.
Then there's the "I like vetoing" thing.
After the last six years, I would really hope that Americans have had enough of the whole not-taking-this-seriously-Presidency. Call me crazy, but I would have thought that anyone running right now would want to strike something that bears at least a faint resemblance to a serious pose. That's not the impression I'm getting from Romney. The image I'm getting from the "I like to veto" ad is like something out of "Madagascar" - a lemur swinging around the Oval Office by his tail, singing, "I like to veto, veto. I like to veto, veto. I like to . . . VETO!"
What a flaming schmuck.
- Log in to post comments
I agree, the guy is worthless
Mitt = Law and Business grad. from Harvard, corporate success creating thousands of jobs, cutting and balancing a budget in Mass.. What is have your claim to fame Mr. Dunford. ZOOLOGY, give me a break.
A little advice for Mike Dunford:
Stick to zoology, and if you ever gaing full-time employment and become a productive part of society after "graduating" or finishing your education, President Romney will have already set up for you a no capital gain tax and lower income taxes for you (and if you ever have children you will be able to leave something behind to them instead of the government.)
Speaking of tools/schmucks... Anyone who thinks that Washington spends a lot on "schools, highways, food for the hungry" is not in touch with reality. Setting goals/standards is inherently arbitrary. However, with spending out of control in Washington, such goals are necessary. Maybe you should have studied something like economics or law before you start blogging about politics. Oh, and nice beard, Dunford. Note to fat bald guys everywhere: Growing a hideous goatee does not make you look tough or acceptable in polite society. You're still a fat bald dude who is studying zoology.
And Einstein was a paper pusher in a Swedish patent office. I guess that proves relativity wrong?
Careful, Baratos, these morons will probably answer in the affirmative. After all, relativity is Atheist science. (I assume that last reference will go right over their pitiful, vacant heads.)
How sad, another bleeding heart liberal who says he won't vote for Mitt Romney. Who the hell cares? Just call it a hunch, but I doubt that Romney's commercial is trying to reach people like you.
How can anybody even seriously consider voting for someone who believes in the Mormon religion? It is even more obviously a made-up fairy tale than all the others, except Scientology (and Christian Science, and the Raelians, and the Moonies, and a bunch more). I know that no one can control what religion they are born into, but Sweet Jesus, how long does it take to get a clue? Kinda makes you wonder about his judgment in important areas, doesn't it?
Read Jon Krakauer's 'Under the Banner of Heaven', a history of Mormonism interweaved with some of its modern day impact, if you think I am being unduly harsh on this particular flavor of faith.
Wow Mike. You seem to have touched a nerve. A sockpuppet nerve, but still... Mind you, its probably all some guy in a basement.
Swedish?
To the Romney supporters:
1) what do you mean a 'balanced budget'? Romney left the budget situation a disaster.
2) Enough with the no capital gains shit. Someone has to pay taxes, and it should be those in the position to have capital gains in the first place (and don't bring the double taxation bull--you pay double and triple taxes on all sorts of income).
3) "Setting goals" isn't inherent arbitrary--if you have a brain. There are areas where we need to increase spending to accomplish certain things (universal healthcare) and certain areas where we should decrease spending (our current ag subsidy scheme). Figure out what needs to be done and raise the revenue to do it.
4) David Warner: spending is out of control. Military spending, that is. The bduget deficit is due to revenue cuts by El Jefe Maximo. Before you comment on how other people are stupid, learn arithmetic.
"Mitt = Law and Business grad. from Harvard, corporate success creating thousands of jobs, cutting and balancing a budget in Mass."
Guess you dont know anything about Mass. We didnt have thousands of jobs created and a wonderfull budget. The economy did jack when Mitt was in office. He balanced the budget with tax hikes, but he called them "fees", sounds better to the crazy repubs. All he did from day one was run for president and say how terrible Mass was. Fine, hate us if you want, but dont run for gov just to say how much you hate us.
Swiss.
If Kerry couldn't get elected for making nuanced changes in his positions, what chance has Multiple-Choice Mitt?
Guns bad; guns good.
Gay rights good; gay rights bad.
Four legs good/two legs bad; four legs good, two legs better.
Ok, so yeah, I'm a Democrat on the Democrat floor of the Democrat-controlled State Senate in an increasingly Democratic State. But we liked the characterization. Y'all probably haven't even seen Madagascar.
Besides, the lemur imagery - that's zoology, right?
Oh, and Mike, aren't you flattered that Mitt Romney's soldiers of the blogosphere are reading your blog?
Didn't you get the memo? Repugs who waffle (like DeLay demanding a timetable for Kosova and then demanding no timetable for Iraq) hold nuanced positions respecting the context and situation. Dems who change their opinion when the facts change are flip-floppers.
- JS
Politicalnese = 'cap all non-defense discretionary spending at the rate of inflation minus one percent,'
English "As president, I promise that I'll be so lazy as to not evaluate individual government programs, but instead make a blanket cut across the board regardless of need or importance. Hell I won't even open my eyes to sign the damn budget. A bridge in Alaska to nowhere? One percent cut. A badly under-funded program to inspect incoming food to insure safety? One percent cut."
The 1% cut is just a plan stupid idea. It might surprise some Republicans but the federal government does a lot more than buy and shoot guns.
Mitt may have law and business degrees from Harvard, but that still doesn't mean that he actually payed attention. Bush, who is doing such a wonderful job, went to Yale.
Before any of the Mittheads out there complain about a zoologist critiquing a horrible idea, please justify why a one percent across the board cut is superior to funding programs based on need, efficiency and importance.
bob
Actually, a "flaming schmuck" is 2 parts light rum, 1 part Cherry NyQuil, and a dash of angostura bitters, set aflame and then served in a pint glass over ice. Garnish with a wedge of kiwi.
Mitt Romney is just a terrible, terrible candidate for president. Also, he shares his name with a type of baseball glove. Seriously - Mitt? What the hell kind of name is that?
And...he might have law and business degrees, but you know what? All the schooling in the world can't make anybody a good leader.
Careful Ted. You too will be a Mormon some day ... after you die, they will baptize you into their religion. Just like they did for Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Personally, I don't see any reason, except familiarity, for anyone to view many other Christian religions, such as Catholicism, as less obviously made-up fairy tales. But the fact remains that many Christian Americans - particularly among evangelicals and fundamentalists - view Mormons as really weird. When the primaries actually start happening, the evangelicals and fundamentalists will get cold feet and decide they can't vote Mitt after all.
The one obvious reason that I can think of is that the Mormons believe most of the stuff from the other sects of Christianity as well, so they're sort of a superset of interesting beliefs.
We agree that Romney isn't presidential timber. Unfortunately, he may be the best available -- a sad commentary on the American political system.
Before January, we had a Republican congress for well over a decade. For six of those years, the Republicans controlled both the Congress and the White House. At this point, the spending that hasn't been cut already is the stuff that President Bush couldn't convince a Republican Congress to cut.
Just out of curiosity, Mike, were you aware that spending has actually increased more and faster under this president than under any previous one? And that most of the increase has been in social programs, not defense? Check the numbers, they're available in lots of places. Conservative commentators are of the opinion that the Republican majority's refusal to control spending is one of the major reasons it's now an ex-majority. They think a lot of conservative voters stayed home last November for exactly that reason: their Republican representatives were acting like Dems on the spending issue.
Holy crap I thought you were kidding about the title. The title of the spot is actually "I like vetoes."
It's funny, I always thought that a veto was something to be used with discretion, not as way to say "Yeah, suck it, Dems. I have a bigger pen..."
In absolute numbers or relative to GDP? Gross numbers or inflation-corrected? How much of the additional spending results from a federal take-over of tasks that were previously handled (or not) by the states? With these ambiguities, I'm afraid that your comment is not terribly meaningful.
- JS
The really ridiculous thing about the ad is that Romney's veto promises essentially to NOT deal with the single two biggest spending problems: entitlements (ie social security), and of course the military.
Oh, that and the idea of voting for a guy to be president who believes American Indians are really a lost tribe of Israel. Really.
I find the Romney supporters posting on this thread to be, how shall we say, amusing. Romney was a cipher as governor of Massachusetts -- when he wasn't throwing his weight around Beacon Hill just because he could, evidently with no clear outcome in mind, he was out building his base around the country and slagging his alleged home state in the process.
I don't care that he's a Mormon, and I don't care that he's rich (though I used to live in his home town and it seemed rather odd his street was one of the few that received any maintenance, in a town notorious for having some of the worst streets in the Boston area). I do care that despite his political ambitions, he doesn't seem to have a political bone in his body; he's thoroughly ham-handed when it comes to cost management, and really should have never left the boardroom, which is where he seems to do his best work.
So the out-of-staters can support Mitt all they want. Back home, the three or four people at Mass Citizens for Mitt are probably meeting at the Friendly's in Hyannis for coffee and wondering how to get the poll numbers up.