dagblog - Comments for "Romney is not even not dumb."

I keep going back to

stillidealistic — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 19:49:11 +0000

I keep going back to Norquist's comment about only needing a candidate with enough digits to sign the legislation the house sends him.

He certainly fits that bill.

The Koch's and others of

Aunt Sam — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:15:41 +0000

In reply to There are two reasons to be

The Koch's and others of their ilk know exactly who and what they are 'buying' - a potential POTUS who is their toady and puppet (or beyotch if you prefer).

The only two things that Mitt appears to pay homage to, IMO, is his church and those who have more money and perceived power than he does. (Ann is out of the equation since he sees her as an extension of himself.)

Within the grasp of this group, if Romney is elected, is not only access to the ultimate 'boardroom', but the surety that they will not need to surrender billions to the IRS and their corporate interests will not suffer from any legislative impediments.

They are not going to stop doubling down as long as there is any chance they can win their wager.

Far be it from me to give too

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:21:57 +0000

In reply to There are two reasons to be

Far be it from me to give too much credit to the Koch brothers. But if they (in recent weeks as Romney continues to slip slide away on the road to political oblivion, if not ignominy) conclude Romney will lose but that how much he loses by affects the chances of the House flipping, they might conclude that money spent on Romney, as well as more directly on House races, is well worth it to try to keep that from happening. All they have to do is keep the House and they can successfully play defense against any legislation they don't want.

There are two reasons to be

Verified Atheist — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:12:25 +0000

In reply to Stilli, I've been thinking

There are two reasons to be concerned about the amount of money the Kochs et al. are spending on this election:

The effect it might actually have on the election
What it says about the confidence of those willing to spend their own money on the election

With regards to that second point, who would be willing to spend that amount of money on a campaign unless they thought there was at least a 30% chance of winning? (Nate Silver currently has the chances of Romney winning pegged at 16%.) In fact, it's hard to know what effect money does have on elections because it's hard to separate cause and effect. Are people willing to spend more money on a winning candidate, or did the candidate win because people spent more money on him? And, of course, there are the companies that donate to both parties. (Suggesting to me that they're more interested in buying influence than in influencing elections.)

So, given the 16% figure, why do Koch et al. still think their money is being spent wisely? Maybe they've got an ace up their sleeve. E.g., control of some voting stations, etc.

*shiver*

The brilliant dumbness of the

MrSmith1 — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:06:16 +0000

In reply to Monday: When you have a

The brilliant dumbness of the line about rolling down the airplane's windows is that it contains a second, even dumber thought hidden in it; the assumption that letting in more oxygen is the way to put out a fire. Dumb like a fox indeed.

So it's a titanic unspoken

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:52:52 +0000

In reply to Stilli, I've been thinking

So it's a titanic unspoken battle of wills (can't really say battle of wits) playing out between the Koch brothers' efforts to buy him the White House ("Get in there, Mitt!!! You can do it! We need you in there, brother! You owe this to your father and all of us in the wealth-producing class!"), versus Willard's efforts to self-destruct so he doesn't have to take this stinkin' job ("Hell no, I won't go!" and "Who do those Koch brothers think they are, trying to force me to take a job I don't want? Although, come to think of it, my expertise is in forcing people who do want jobs to not have them. So maybe I'm toast on this.")

Stilli, I've been thinking

Aunt Sam — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 04:53:55 +0000

In reply to I'm beginning to think that

Stilli,

I've been thinking for quite awhile that he really doesn't want to be POTUS. I'm convinced his candidacy is a result of a combination of factors. As has been said by many, with the exception of Huntsman, he was the 'best' the GOP had to offer. But only because any of a higher caliber, like J. Bush and others, were not going to run against President Obama for a variety of reasons.

That said, considering the Koch's and their cohorts, I am worried about what lengths they will go to in order to salvage their investment and save all the billions in taxes they will 'lose' in O's second term.

Actually, I bet the McCain/Palin ticket is looking pretty good to those boys about now.

However the question remains, is Romney really this stupid or 'dumb like a fox'?

I'm beginning to think that

stillidealistic — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 03:44:38 +0000

In reply to Romney is not even not dumb.

I'm beginning to think that Willard has decided he doesn't want to be President after all, but can't figure out how to get out of it other than to tank the campaign.

I suppose you could be right that he's doin' a "rope-a-dope," but I don't know. Can you fake the kind of lunacy that makes you get up in front of a crowd and re-do the chant because you aren't the center of attention?

I'm not going to get cocky because I know 40 days is a lifetime in politics, but I just don't see how this clown wins.

Yes, the Democrat

AmericanDreamer — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:51:40 +0000

In reply to Monday: When you have a

Yes, the Democrat over-confidence worry is a good one. Gotta find something.

Although in my experience the phrase "Democratic over-confidence" is pretty much an oxymoron. (Which seems an especially apt word to use in this thread, given its author, no?) But then again, if Democrats are over-confident about not being over-confident, isn't that reason enough to worry?

The Democrats I know are pretty much chronic worriers. Hard to see why that might be, given the all but complete rout and takeover of power and the terms of public debate by the marauding, troglodyte right, coinciding with the re-creation of oligarchy and plutocracy in this country over the past 30 years or so. But I digress.

For a GOP presidential candidate/ticket just to be able to generate the kind of snark and fun we've seen around here lately--well, that's some pretty heavy duty clown territory the Mittster has ventured into. Because Democrats sometimes have trouble doing fun, it being considered poor form and all while the country and the planet are in hell or en route.

...Justin Time, one might

erica20 — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:09:32 +0000

In reply to the clip was brought to me by

...Justin Time, one might add.