Bitter: Party of one. Mr. Romney, your table’s ready.

Apparently they forgot to tell Mitt Romney that the job of “whiney failed GOP presidential candidate” is already taken.

Though in all fairness to Mitt Romney, it’s difficult for a man who’s worth at least a quarter of a billion dollars to see the world in any terms other than financial.

So perhaps that’s why Romney thinks that President Obama helping advance the civil rights and overall health of all Americans is some kind of political payoff.  That’s because Republicans don’t really approach the job of President the same way as Democrats.

Republicans seek the job either because they believe in the divine right of kings – America owes them the job – or because they want to give stuff, as Bill O’Reilly puts it, to their rich corporate benefactors.  Democrats, on the other hand, take the job because they actually want to address the country’s problems and make life here better for everyone.

Romney didn’t offer people a better life.  He actually offered them money, in the form of a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich.

And it still didn’t work.

What’s odd, or funny, or both is that Romney doesn’t even realize that he’s criticizing the President for what he actually did.  He offered Americans a $5 trillion tax cut.  Though, again, in all fairness, it was actually a tax increase on the middle class, so he wasn’t giving stuff, he was taking stuff from people who didn’t have stuff to begin with, in order to give it to those who already did.

How’d that work out for him?


“In each case they were very generous in what they gave to those groups,” Mr. Romney said.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.”

So let’s walk through that list one more time of things that Mitt Romney sees as, essentially, bribes:

  1. Student loans.
  2. Health care for women.
  3. And health care for young adults, and really everyone.

Ooh, the crazy!

And even weirder, these are the kind of things that Mitt Romney used to actually believe in, and may still to this day.  So why is he still wearing that weird “I’m a severe conservative” drag?  Why he’s back to the old 47% stuff again?  He thinking of running again?  (Or maybe this is the “real” Romney, if there is such a thing.)

But why stop there?  You know what else President Obama “gave” Americans in order to con them into voting for him?

  1. A growing economy that was saved from the jaws of death.
  2. Bin Laden’s dead body.
  3. Their civil rights.
  4. A fair paycheck.
  5. Peace (or something less than us dying every day) in Iraq.
  6. An auto industry.
  7. Moammar Gaddafi’s dead body.
  8. Cleaner air.
  9. Stem cell research.
  10. A President who doesn’t jot off to California when a massive hurricane is hitting our shores.
  11. And a window into a really bad opponent who’s a liar and possibly the most insincere man to run for the presidency in recent memory.

There’s more, but those are the top ones that come to mind at the moment.

The thing is, that’s what leaders are supposed to do.  Do good stuff for their people to help make life better for all of us.  The fact that Mitt Romney doesn’t get that, the fact that he thinks this is somehow evil and greedy – but his rich buddies who get stuff by tearing apart companies and putting people out of work aren’t evil – speaks volumes to why the American people rejected him resoundingly one week ago.

Follow me on Twitter: @aravosis | @americablog | @americabloggay | Facebook | Instagram | Google+ | LinkedIn. John Aravosis is the Executive Editor of AMERICAblog, which he founded in 2004. He has a joint law degree (JD) and masters in Foreign Service from Georgetown; and has worked in the US Senate, World Bank, Children's Defense Fund, the United Nations Development Programme, and as a stringer for the Economist. He is a frequent TV pundit, having appeared on the O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, World News Tonight, Nightline, AM Joy & Reliable Sources, among others. John lives in Washington, DC. .

Share This Post

56 Responses to “Bitter: Party of one. Mr. Romney, your table’s ready.”

  1. Ali Goria says:

    HAHA #10. No, your president jetted off to his fund raiser in Las Vegas. Actually your whole list is lame. Are you seriously denying that the free crap isn’t why people voted for him? Or are you claiming it was his crooning voice, or basketball abilities. Everything Romney said was true and his donors deserve to hear his statement. Santa Claus won. Period. Everything else is Liberal imagination. The country is divided in HALF on big central planning fascism versus liberty and responsibility. Why can’t you just own it?

  2. Aslan Balaur says:

    I think you are closer to the target that mf_roe, or even, I think, than you realize. Darwin did not claim that evolution was survival of the fittest, except in the most coarse, basic description of it. He wrote that “evolution is not about survival of the fittest, but survival of the most adaptable. True, when the Republican party began, they were the liberals, and Democrats were the conservatives. But, once the GOP met their immediate goal, freeing the slaves and keeping the union together, they stopped adapting, while the Democrats went from the secessionist, slave holding, racist bigots of 1860 to the party that was leading the fight for progressive change. Democrats look for the lack of liberty, lack of a level playing field, lack of basic rights and the meeting of basic necessities beyond themselves, to see what can be changed to fix it.
    You see, that is something the modern GOP cannot understand. Democrats don’t want to be handed life and luxury without earning it, and we don’t (much) envy the rich their wealth. We DO hate the rich paying the law makers to ensure that the rich can stay rich, while restricting the liberty of the middle class and poor. We don’t want a handout, just an equal chance to have our work pay off with a better future. Not the “chance” to work like slaves all our life to die tired, broken, poor, and hopelessly watching our kids follow suit. Is it wrong to want to make your children’s lives better than yours? To want to be able to have something to pass down besides our worn out lives that then they have to care for?

  3. Skroo says:

    Pretty sure I wouldn’t lump “civil rights” into Obama’s record. Sure, they’ve gotten better for some folks but the overall view on our right as a whole is pretty fucking grim. This president has claimed the right to assassinate US citizens without due process. Sleep tight.

  4. Mittens is just a symptom. The problem is the GOP has lost all touch with reality.

  5. benb says:

    Romney’s turned out to be Sarah Palin v2.0. What I really worry about, though, is whether his donors–our 1%–are that gullible.

  6. BeccaM says:

    Indeed. BTW, I just caught the audio on the Ed Show a little while ago, of Poor Widdle Mitt bitching about Democratic voters being bribed with free free FREEEEEE STUFF. It’s even more damning than the NYTimes rather dry recounting.

    The guy really has nothing but dripping disdain for anybody who didn’t vote for him.

  7. Papa Bear says:

    That’s “Poody Heads”, BeccaM, you know that…

  8. Papa Bear says:

    he sounds just like “Teabagger Bob”!

  9. BeccaM says:

    Wow… I just re-read Mitt “Sore Loser” Romney’s remarks again and they show a man who really is clueless, as well as an angry self-entitled elitist jackass.

    ‘Forgiveness of college loan interest’ as a ‘gift’ to young people. No, they were charged interest, just not the ridiculously high rates totally unwarranted given current loan rates in general in America. In other words, the loans are still there, the interest is still accumulating — they’re just not being gouged as much as Mitt Romney and his bankster friends feel is appropriate. I guess ole Mitt is nostalgic for the days of Indentured Servitude.

    ‘Free contraceptives for college-age women’ = Mittspeak meaning, “Slutty young unmarried hussies.” Except those meds are not free at all, you need to have a health insurance policy to have any kind of prescription coverage, and last I checked those require monthly premiums to be paid. Moreover, the new requirement that co-pays be waived applies to ALL women, not just college aged ones.

    Obamacare and ‘anyone 26 or younger is going to be part of their parents’ plan.’ Um, no, not even. This is only if those parents opt in and pay the extra premiums for the coverage, and this is only if those parents even HAVE health insurance which, last I checked, still wasn’t the case for some 50 million Americans, one of the huge failures of PPACA, actually.

    People earning up to $35k/year getting not just healthcare but FREE healthcare due to Obamacare. In what universe? PPACA insurance costs money… so maybe he’s talking about Medicaid? No, last I checked, you need to be way poorer than that to qualify. Like, hard-scrabble dirt poor with very little in the way of assets. So either he’s talking out of his ass again, or he’s now declared his opposition to the entire Medicaid program. Or both.

    But wait, there’s more! Mittens sez, “(I)n addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.” Ah, the loaded words conveying so much contempt. “Illegals.” “So-called.” “Dream Act kids.” Um, no — they’re undocumented immigrants, there was nothing so-called about the proposed Dream Act, and most of them aren’t children but grown adults who have no real memory of living anywhere but in America.

    So we have Willard Mitt Romney in a nutshell: A bitter hateful liar who thinks anybody wanting to go to college who can’t quite afford it out of pocket should be in hock at the maximum interest rate possible, access to health insurance coverage at current market rates is a gift, college age women who use contraception are essentially whores, and the poor and minorities — especially African American and Latino voters — only didn’t vote for Romney like they absolutely would have, had not that meddlesome President Obama not bribed them all with free medical care for life, immigration amnesty, and birth control pills.

    Actually, I’m a little bit hurt and offended that he didn’t blame same-sex marriage equality and pot legalization as well. I mean, c’mon, Republicans have been bashing gays and hippies decades before the ConservaDems took it up.

    In closing: I’m seeing a pattern here, with Mitt all worked up and indignant over the idea of people he sees as undeserving getting stuff for free, to the point where he globally characterizes things as ‘free’ that aren’t at all. Certainly not in fact-based reality. I think we can add ‘delusional’ to the list of things manifestly wrong with Mitt’s psyche.

  10. BeccaM says:

    The Cayman Islands. After all, much of his money is already there. Or maybe Luxembourg, the other place where much of his fortune resides.

    He could even build himself a gigantic mad castle, with rooms for all his entire brood, any number of future sister-wives and car elevators galore.

  11. BeccaM says:

    And now it’s not just 47%, but 50.6% who are poopy-heads for not voting for Willard.

  12. karmanot says:

    “Give the man a break!” Give Mitty a break? ROTFL!

  13. karmanot says:

    Maybe if you were more informed about ‘Womyn’s Studies’ you would be less of a troll, but I doubt it.

  14. karmanot says:

    If Kolob is Mormon heaven, But you are not going there and end up in that ‘other’ place

    do you become a kabob?

  15. karmanot says:

    The third Reich is even more spot on.

  16. karmanot says:

    In Mitty’s case I just love me some Schadenloser.

  17. karmanot says:

    Mitty, the loser has a pouty sad.

  18. In his famous 47% video, he even named food as stuff people wanted. What a pathetic, self-pitying racist bastard. Good riddance Roms. go off to that good night/

  19. GoBlue says:

    No doubt in another 10-20 years we’ll see Tagg Romney running for president. Attempting to avenge Daddy’s loss is what the younger Republican generation does.

  20. Aaron_000 says:

    Those that fail to learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them… hopefully in 2016.

  21. Mike__in__Houston says:

    This is an excellent summary, and the original is even better:

    Gop to the Nov. 3 entry, called “Romneyism.”

  22. Webster says:

    Mitt “train-wreck” Romney needs to crawl back into one of his many domiciles and STFU.

  23. dcinsider says:

    As a former constituent of then Governor Romney, none of this is surprising. He’s always been an elitist prick with an entitlement mentality. Everyone hated him when he was Governor, and we still do.

    The only good news is that he is now heading for the obscurity he so richly deserves. This guy’s historic importance is now relegated to a Trivial Pursuit card.

    Good riddance. And take that group of war-dodging cowards you call sons with you.

  24. Krusher says:

    Mtt Romney’s philosophy reminds of a quote I saw somewhere about Fortune magazine, and I’m really sorry I can’t remember who said it. The quote was something to the effect that leafing through the pages of Fortune is like reading a strangely sanctimonious pirate manual. That’s our Mittens, a strangely sanctimonious pirate.

  25. lynchie says:

    thank you Karl Rove. Your seat at the wake is available now.

  26. rmthunter says:

    I think it’s more that the Romneys of the world have a view based on Darwinism — survival of the fittest — without understanding what it means: they do see it as a series of exploitations. Progressives tend to take their lessons from a different understanding of evolution — the adaptive value of sociality, as demonstrated over several million years in a number of species: cooperation for mutual benefit.

  27. JamesR says:

    Yes, but we have no idea how much stealing went on – we will never know for sure – by the proprietary electronic unverifiable vote-stealing devices. Owned by Republicans. All we know it’s at least 3.5 million.

  28. HolyMoly says:

    The only thing is that the civil rights erosions I mention were started under Bush and continued and even expanded under Obama in some cases. I can be pretty sure that Romney would have continued to expand the erosion. That’s one reason I voted against him, along with his abhorrent domestic and foreign policy platforms.

    I can’t see how Republicans would vote against Obama based on the civil rights issues I mentioned. They gave full-throated support when Bush started it all. Even Darth Cheney and other prominent Republicans have praised Obama for retaining Bush policies in this area. I guess you could argue that they suddenly found the Constitution once a Democrat was the one implementing these policies.

    On the flip side, many Democrats who once spoke of Bush “shredding the Constitution” and were up in arms about these things suddenly became silent on the issue once Obama continued them. Some even offered a defense of his actions. But really we should be applying pressure to make the changes that need to be made. “Wait until the election is over because you REALLY don’t want Romney in office.” Okay, now it’s over. Now let’s straighten things out so the next Dem president knows the score.

  29. JamesR says:

    A better portrait of the bullet we dodged last week could not have been drawn. By the bullet itself no less.

    I thought we might have been left with the treat of a shred of decency and magnanimity, (even if filtered mostly through self,) with his mercifully brief and apparently unscripted concession speech, but no. Keep it classy Mitt.

  30. karmanot says:

    Obama’s great gift to the 47%: A LOSER MITTY.

  31. Dumbo says:

    Next time, the Republicans should offer no-bid contracts to Hispanics and African-Americans. That’s SO different from just “giving stuff” to people who don’t deserve it. It’s more Free-Enterprisey sounding.

  32. Finn says:

    Yep he sounds bitter, but please:

    “Peace (or something less than us dying every day) in Iraq”

    That is simply laughable. An escalating drone war in numerous countries, killing innocent people left and right (oh! but not “us”, so it’s OK), and simply ignoring Afghanistan so you can say “peace” is so off-putting I can’t really put it into words without being rude about it.

  33. Jim Olson says:

    And that’s why Romney got as many votes as he did. Republicans didn’t love him, but they LOATHE Obama.

  34. Finn says:

    Yep he sounds bitter, but please:

    “Peace (or something less than us dying every day) in Iraq”

    That is simply laughable. An escalating drone war in numerous countries, killing innocent people left and right (oh! but not “us”, so it’s OK), and simply ignoring Afghanistan so you can say “peace” is so off-putting I can’t really put it into words without being rude about it.

  35. RR says:

    How can anyone seriously dispute the veracity of what Gov. Romney said? Sure, it was inelegantly stated, but it was a private conference call by a private citizen who is not running for any office. Give the man a break!

    The fact is, this election was won NOT because Obama won over the undecideds and independents with convincing arguments. Romney won with the latter group even in many of the states that Obama won.

    Obama won because of turnout–and why is that, exactly? His star has faded a great deal since 2008; his celebrity this year wasn’t strong enough to drive turnout. The fact is, his policies DO favor the groups who turned out heavily and made the difference on election day. Obama’s war cry of “tax the rich” resonates with the people who know that extra money will be used to pay for entitlement programs that directly benefit them (LOL, what deficit?). The idea of getting free healthcare and so much more without having to work for it, nevermind the deep costs the nation will incur as a result, is a strong motivator for the lazy masses (also known as Obama’s base) who believe the government, and, by extension, their fellow citizens, have a responsibility to provide everything for them from cradle to grave.

  36. emjayay says:

    Since the 26 and unders are not going to need much medical care except for the rare disease or accident, keeping them on their parents policy (instead of going without insurance), which the parents have to pay for, is probably a good deal for the insurance company.
    Contraceptives without a copay probably gets those without the disposable income to get on the pill, and others who are maybe not that responsible in general also. These are women who are perhaps more likely to get an abortion if they get pregnant, or if not obviously carry the baby to term. Either one of these is going to cost the insurance company a lot more than the pills. No doubt they did the math before agreeing to it.

  37. BeccaM says:

    The takeaway message from all this? We now know when Mitt Romney tells the truth about his positions and how he feels: When he’s in a room full of mega-wealthy plutocrats just like himself and he’s insulting half of America, calling them lazy, irresponsible moochers.

    What a petulant, self-entitled, shallow, pathetic little sociopathic parasite he is.

  38. BeccaM says:

    First item, and a different interpretation of your purported ‘facts’: To characterize forgiving a student loan as a ‘giveaway’ is to use a pejorative term. A more accurate term would be “an investment in a person’s education.” We used to have that as an ideal in this country.

    Wrong again about contraceptives being ‘free’ in terms of receiving them. The ONLY thing going on here is insurance being required to cover them as part of their policy without a co-pay. As far as I can tell, I’m still paying my premiums, therefore I am ENTITLED to the coverage for which I’m paying. All they did was add a rule saying that because contraceptive medication is in fact important to women — and for a great many of us, we took them not to prevent having babies, but because our reproductive systems were screwed up.

    And no, we’re not going to stop beating that ‘dead horse’ of the auto industry bailout. If Mitt Romney and the GOP had had their way, there wouldn’t even be a General Motors for us to debate whether it’ll last or not. And quite honestly, a whole lot more Americans would be out of work, millions more, if the entire auto industry had gone belly up as it threatened to do in 2009.

  39. Jim says:

    I think Robert Reich put it best about a week ago. Paraphrased,

    Romney does have a core: say and do whatever to win (rules have no point), the rich are superior and deserve everything, everyone else deserves nothing, women should be obedient to the church, and no one as rich as Romney should have had to pretend to be interested in the common folk.

    I thought Reich was spot on.

  40. Eyeball_Kid says:

    The incredible story is that he got as much of the vote as he did. A big hat off has to go to the best propaganda machine that ever operated in human history. Otherwise, Romney/Ryan get about 15% of the vote. How Republicans don’t have buyer’s remorse from the fact that they nominated him is beyond description. He ran the worst campaign possible while not getting arrested for multiple felonies.

    Romney’s surrogates, led by Sununu, were nauseating.

    Romney could have eaten live babies while smoking a hookah on the TV and Fox News would praise him for his multi-tasking skills.

    They were doing everything wrong and they only lost by 3.5 million. That’s the real story.

  41. Immir says:

    Romney lost because he can’t open his mouth without lying. Ryan was the same.

  42. Immir says:

    Face it Republicans, Romney was a pathetic candidate, representing a failed and out of touch party. Keep whining losers!

    And red states, please secede, we are tired of supporting you.

  43. Hue-Man says:

    Hope that eventually regular people will be able to communicate with TeaParty/GOPers like Willard:

    Breakthrough lets Canadian man in vegetative state communicate with doctors

  44. theoracle says:

    Well said, John.

    When thinking of Mitt Romney’s idea of “giving” (basically to the 1 percent), I can’t help but think of Dick Cheney. As VP, Cheney looked at our government as a money-making scheme for his rich Republican buddies, as well as himself, taking taxpayer money from all Americans and redistributing it to the wealthiest. No-bid contracts. Halliburton. Starting wars based on lies, then awarding no-bid contracts to crony Republican companies and individuals (Iraq, Afghanistan, and almost Iran). Hurricane Katrina (both during and afterward). Private charter schools, same. Private intelligence gathering companies, same. And in the process of this redistribution, along with cutting income and capital gains taxes on the wealthiest Republicans, Dick Cheney (with George W. Bush and Capitol Hill Republicans “giving” all the help they could “give”) drove up the federal debt by over $5 trillion. So, if Mitt Romney would have won on November 6th, we’d have seen more Dick Cheney’s idea of “giving,” and we all know how great that was for our country…NOT.

  45. rulesreason says:

    I agree that Romney sounds bitter.

    However, some facts are in order.

    Two of the three programs that John refers to are giveaways. And require someone else’s money. If the govt’ forgives student loans, then it is using tax money (yours and mine) to cover the costs of a college education. A worthwhile investment if the major is Computer Science or MBA. Not such for Communications or Womyn’s Studies.

    Free contraceptives? No such thing. It costs money to pay scientists to invent them, drug companies to manufacture them, and health care companies to distribute them. If they are given away for “free”, then someone else is paying for them. Either tax payers or other patients (higher premiums). Basic economics dictates that if you give something to someone for free, then somebody, somewhere, is paying for it.

    The third item, keeping kids on parents insurance policy, actually makes sense. It’s not free. Either the parents or the kids are paying for it, via higher premiums. And the insurance companies actually like it — millions of young, healthy people who might otherwise not buy insurance. Big new pool of customers.

    And PLEASE — stop beating the “auto industry” dead horse. GM is headed for bankruptcy again. The US (taxpayers) still own billions in stock. And while the Dow Jone has gained 20% since GM was bailed out, its stock has DECLINED 30%. GM is a failure. It won’t last long.

  46. SkippyFlipjack says:

    sure, you could get all meta like that, or you can just bask in the sight of a guy who lost an election demonstrating very clearly exactly why he lost, and why it was right and good that he lost

  47. caphillprof says:

    Romney was sort of a cross between King John and the Sheriff of Nottingham–the anti Robin Hood.

  48. HolyMoly says:

    I feel like the jury is still out on civil rights though. To me it seems like a mixed bag of results; some good, some bad. His policy towards gays was something I applaud. They’re finally starting to see some of the basic rights extended to them that every other American has, and that’s a step in the right direction. But there are other civil rights issues where he has not been good at all. For example, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, “material support” laws, and extrajudicial killing of U.S. citizens far from any battlefield.

    Honestly, I voted against Romney more than I voted for Obama. Yes, there are some things about him that I like, but I’m just not feeling it on the civil rights front.

  49. mf_roe says:

    Kobob beckons,

  50. mf_roe says:

    Most politics are just pandering to the interests of subgroups. Change doesn’t come from politics it comes from culture, the normal dynamic is a given system becomes so corrupt that popular culture eventually rejects it for something else. The modern version of America is terminal, nothing is going to save it. The question is will the people know enough to replace it with something better. Current indicators seem to indicate Americans of ALL stripes are remarkably ignorant of the nature of the problems we must solve within our lifetimes if modern civilization is to survive.

  51. Indigo says:

    Will he flee to Canada? Maybe New Zealand might welcome him. Australia?

  52. SkippyFlipjack says:

    This whole thing kills me. What could be more appropriate. The guy shoots himself in the foot by revealing that he thinks 47% of the electorate is greedy lazy bastards; that, along with the “Mitt to Detroit: Drop Dead” op-ed cost him the election. But apparently it wasn’t calling half of American greedy takers that caused him to lose, it was those same greedy takers getting bought off by the Democrats.

    How awful that Obama pandered to those narrow, self-serving special interests, “everyone under 27” and “everyone who isn’t white”. Oh, and that other special-interest group, “women”.

  53. mf_roe says:

    Most biological systems break down as exploitation arrangements, the more powerful taking from the weak. Progress gave us a model for moderation of this natural order to something less chaotic, more sustainable. The insane oligarchs are clueless about how they will survive once they destroy their host organisms.

  54. leliorisen says:

    It’s really pretty simple Mittens. You lost the election because America preferred Obama’s 4-year plan to yours.

    You also lost because it is hard for America to trust a man who didn’t produce a tax return with re-designing the tax code. And that is just for starters.

    The reason you did not know you were going to be taken to the woodshed is that you live your life in a bubble. Your campaign, your network, your pundits….do not represent America. Well, maybe slightly over 47%, but that is about all.


  55. mf_roe says:

    This time Obama will act quickly and structure the results to become operative immediately. No waiting two or three years to see the goods. If you think this is good thing you expect Obama to do what you want, if instead you think Obama is going to complete the evisceration of the middle class not so good. Either way, when Obama swears the oath in January the deal will already be cut—so much for the election, rendered moot by the Lame Duck session.

  56. RepubAnon says:

    Whereas still more tax cuts for billionaires and deregulation of the Koch brothers’ businesses is merely giving the job creators some (not all) of what they deserve. As the comic strip “Get Fuzzy” observed about cats: “They never know just how good they have it – yet, somehow, it’s never enough.”

© 2020 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS