All of a sudden, right-wingers love polls again.

And, as always, the so-called liberal media are not liberal at all. The news business is about business and this week the business involves Romney’s “stunning” comeback. The reversal in fortune will, no doubt, generate interest and thus revenue.

The source for all the Romney hype is a Pew Research Center poll that shows a dramatic turnaround in the horse race:

That same polling firm conducted a poll before the first debate, and it showed Obama with a 51-43 lead.

And now the gender gap is gone. Yes, gone. Almost overnight, according to this poll, the 18 point advantage President Obama had among women voters has disappeared. It’s 47-47 now, droves of women apparently now enlisting on the side of the aggressors in the War On Women.

One glaring micro-result of this poll is that before the debate Mr. Obama enjoyed a 52-35 advantage over Romney on being “a strong leader,” and now it is 44-44. That is breathtaking, and shows how much damage Obama’s debate performance did to his reputation.

Perhaps more telling, though, is that Mr. Obama has lost ground to Romney on the “Is honest and truthful” polling. Again, that is not a typo. Before the debate Obama was considered much more honest and truthful, enjoying a 14 point advantage. The latest results show the President with only a 5 point advantage.

That’s right. After all the Romney-Ryan campaign subterfuge, after all the lies Romney has told, after all the flips and flops he has engineered, after that unbelievably revealing “47%” secretly-recorded video, voters almost see him as honest and truthful as Mr. Obama. That, to me, is the real news in this poll.

And although the President did have a poor debate performance, that performance is not the cause of the change in these honest-truthful numbers. Romney lied through his pearly whites during that debate, and although Mr. Obama failed to call him out on most of them, journalists—mainstream journalists—have failed to do their job and point out the lies to the wider public who doesn’t get their news from MSNBC or The Huffington Post.

Instead, the Beltway Press gives us a variant of “both sides do it.” Both sides fudge the truth and round off the corners of the facts. Both sides. One is no worse than the other. That’s what I hear in the mainstream press.

Oh, you can tune into some programs on MSNBC and hear a lot of chatter about Romney’s utter untruthfulness. You can see his false statements juxtaposed with the truth or his prior statements compared to his present statements, which in many cases are complete reversals. You can visit HuffPo and see the same thing.

But mostly in the mainstream press the idea is that Romney and Obama are both—equally—guilty of spinning, of misleading, of lying. All of which allows Romney to say one thing one day and say another thing on another day, and when the Obama campaign calls him on it, it gets lost in the noise about “both sides do it.”

I will give you just one example of how Romney can say something in September (at least that is when it was discovered) and then completely contradict it in October, without so much as a whimper from big-time journalists on television.

On Monday, Romney gave a much-touted foreign policy speech. Here is the headline from a piece by Rick Ungar, “The Token Lefty” on Forbes:

“Lies and Reversals” is certainly what that speech entailed. Ungar listed as a lie Romney’s claim that Obama has not signed any new free-trade agreements in the past three years. But Obama signed agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia a year ago. So, Romney told a bold-faced lie.

But Ungar, a liberal writer whose audience is numbered only in the thousands and not the millions the networks attract, makes a more important point about Romney’s foreign policy speech, one that should be important to all Americans. Remember when Romney said the following in his “47%” speech (highlight mine):

I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say there’s just no way. So what you do is, you say, you move things along the best way you can. You hope for some degree of stability, but you recognize that this is going to remain an unsolved problem…and we kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.

Hope. Passivity. Romney’s statement, for which he received some criticism when it was revealed, announces hope and passivity as his strategy on those “thorny issues” in the Middle East.

Yet on Monday, Romney criticized Mr. Obama this way:

I know the President hopes for a safer, freer, and a more prosperous Middle East allied with the United States. I share this hope. But hope is not a strategy. We cannot support our friends and defeat our enemies in the Middle East when our words are not backed up by deeds, when our defense spending is being arbitrarily and deeply cut, when we have no trade agenda to speak of, and the perception of our strategy is not one of partnership, but of passivity.

Not only did Romney slander President Obama with the charge about defense spending “being arbitrarily and deeply cut” (it is not) and the charge about the trade agenda (which, as we have seen was based on a lie), but Romney repudiated his own prior stated position on hope and passivity, instead attributing it to President Obama! This guy is unbleepingbelievable.

Now, at the very least, one would expect that the morning after such a breathtaking reversal of a position Romney advanced in secret, behind closed doors, when he thought only fat cats were listening, that the mainstream press would call out Romney and his campaign for such a self-serving maneuver, especially on such an important issue.

Uh, no. Just this morning I surveyed mainstream news coverage—I’m talking mainstream news coverage here not partisan programming—via the CBS and NBC morning shows (these two networks also happen to be “liberal” in the minds of hysterical media critics in the conservative talkosphere).

Beginning the 7:00am C.S.T. segment, Rudy Giuliani was on CBS and John McCain, making his one-millionth TV appearance, was on NBC. These two gentlemen specialize in slandering the President, which they do often and well. The topics were, naturally, the debate “bounce” and Romney’s foreign policy speech yesterday. Here’s the respective headlines from those appearances:

You can read these articles and you can watch the segments, but you will not see any mention of that “47%” speech in which Romney talked about hope and passivity in the Middle East. Not a word. Not one bleeping word. Thus these Romney surrogates were not challenged on that issue in front of the millions of viewers who get their news in the morning via “trusted” news sources, CBS and NBC. Thus Romney gets away with yet another flop, another round of deceit.

Thus it is that folks begin to see Obama and Romney as pretty much equally “honest and truthful,” which can only work to Romney’s advantage, especially since he has shown, as I have said from the beginning, his willingness to say anything, absolutely anything, to become president.

With help from mainstream journalists, grease guns in hand, Romney may enter the White’s House as the greasiest presidential candidate in modern history.



  1. While my blog is much smaller, newer, and not at all political, I wanted to leave a quick note telling you how much I appreciate your intellectual analysis of our current political environment. I have found your writings to be very refreshing. 🙂


    • Dawn,

      Thanks very much. I wasn’t aware of your site until you commented, but I want to say good luck with it. Anyone promoting family, community, wellness, and the arts in the Joplin area is okay in my book. I, too, have a son at JHS, a senior this year. Going to school in a shopping mall has been, uh, interesting. I’m guessing your son will not have to do that, since the new digs are supposed to be done by then, right?

      I will link to your site, if that’s okay with you.

      Thanks again,


      • Thank you, Duane, for the kind words of support. Normally I would compliment you by saying something like, “you rock!”, or “awesome!”, but somehow such colloquialisms seem extremely juvenile over here on your site 🙂 I feel I need to bring my “A” game over here to the comments section in order to continue in the same vein of masterful articulation presented in your posts! But, hey, I have never been one to back away from intellectual challenge – which is why I immensely enjoy your writings. I, too, just found your blog, and am so happy I did (shame on me for taking so long!) Thanks for linking up to my blog, I really just want to provide others with updates on our rebuilding progress as well as remind us all about the importance of working as a community to ensure quality of life for all.

        As for the high school, I visit the mall campus from time to time, and, while the designers and construction crews did an amazing job transforming that space into a viable learning environment, it is without a doubt nonetheless a great challenge for kids to have to attend school in a mall. Which is why I am so incredibly thankful to all who voted in favor of the bond – some who regularly comment on your site (thank you, Mr. Wheeler!) Thus far we remain on time with the construction schedule, so, yes, my son will be a junior when the new high school opens (I also have a daughter who will be a sophomore when the new school opens and a son who will be a freshman the following year. My oldest daughter graduated from JHS on May 22, 2011, and I’m sure I don’t have to tell you how painful it was for her to drive by the old site before the demolition took place. Thankfully the site looks MUCH better now – exciting, actually.)

        Oh, my goodness – this reply was much longer than I originally anticipated, so thank you for the opportunity to converse, and I look forward to reading more of your pieces! Good luck to your son – what are his plans after graduation?



        • Dawn,

          My son is hoping to continue playing baseball after he graduates. He works very hard at it (along with his school work, of course), and there is a chance he will get to play somewhere, he just doesn’t know where.

          And you are right about the construction site at the old JHS. It does look a lot better, as we are on our way to seeing a new school emerge from the old debris. And that is exciting, even if, unlike you, I don’t have any more kids passing through.

          Good luck to you and yours and I look forward to your contributions both here and on your blog.



          • Oh, the best of luck to your son! My daughter was recruited by a few schools to play softball and ultimately signed with the University of Chicago. The recruiting process is stressful, scary, and incredibly exciting! I am forever grateful that Sarah had the opportunity to visit a couple of schools and live like a college student (albeit for only 24 hours) during her senior year. I am also incredibly thankful to Coach Harryman and Coach Vonderhaar for all their support during the whole process. I hope you all enjoy this time – really, it is so exciting (and, from a parent’s perspective, it is pretty wonderful to have coaches compliment your child) 🙂


  2. ansonburlingame

     /  October 10, 2012

    Polls swing all the time. It reflects the “gut” reactions of some Americans and you know as well as I do that such reactions can be infulenced by single events. Such is public opinion in a democracy, in my view.

    Take just the Akin incident, the “legitimate rape” comment. That one paragraph or two of an Akin quote buried him and I remain convinced that he will lose the Senate election rather decisively, like 40-45% vs 55-60% for McCaskil. Had he NOT made that comment it would have been a very close race, probably.

    But Akin as a politician and legislator is not JUST the Akin of the inane comment. He is a strong, right wing Tea Party legislator carrying his religion on his sleeve in many of his votes as well.

    On the other hand, the American public has seen enough negative attacks on Romney, with little else to counter them, that they were coming to believe he was the man depicted for over a year in this blog. But America saw and heard a very different Romney than you have been writing about for a long time. So of course you and other progressives use the “He lied” reaction.

    Americans saw and heard a man that countered the “spin” thrown at him by a weak and underinformed debate opponent. “That is NOT MY plan” Mr. President, was a common retort from Romney and then he laid out the principles of his plan (on taxes, etc.) and the President looked like a “deer caught in headlights” and you know it.

    Obama NEVER looks like that when he has full command of the stage and a telepromter. America saw a very different Obama as well as a Romney that was FAR different from how he has been portrayed by you and others.

    It is only through books, like those written by Woodward, and post meeting “spin” from the GOP that hint at a President unable or unwilling to LEAD and convince others that his way is the correct path to take. Watch Obama one on one last week, read the accounts of two Woodward books covering Obama decisions (Afghanistan and debt ceiling) and therein you see an Obama failing to lead just as he was shown as such last week in a one on one debate.

    Wrap it all up in a simple package if you will. What America saw last week, and I believe it is a true reflection of each man, was first a real and experienced Executive Leader and second, an inexperienced ideology spouting sound bites that were shoved back down his throat and he had not responses to effectivly rebutt the rebutals.

    In “fact”, my view, I do not believe there ARE any effective responses to what Romney is proposing for policy changes. You can only mutter “He lied”. Well I HOPE that Obama says that the next time around, “You Gov Romney are a liar”. Do you think Romney will not have a ton of sound bites to counter back at Obama if he chose to do so? But I also supsect Romney will not use such a tactic as well.

    Let Obama run around saying “liar, liar pants on fire” in a debate. Then watch a REAL leader respond with deep understanding of how policies need to be changed to move America foward. Then the choice will become even more clear to Americans. A man using ideology and play ground retorts against a calm and solid leader convinced that his approach is in fact the correct approach.

    That is call rhetoric versus substance and Americans can tell the difference, on a play ground or a Presidential debate!! They sure did last week and the polls reflect such observations.

    Romney through long experience has in fact been a leader, in business, in the Olympics and as a governor and that came through loud and clear last week. Obama has been an ideology and a community organizer, speaking only to large groups that already share his approach to governing. When Obama has to confront real and reasoned opposition to his views and does NOT have full command of the stage, well that is what all of America saw last week, a “deer in the headlights” ideologue called to account for his glib sound bites!!!



  3. It’s all the uncertainty principle: we don’t which Romney is in the box till we vote him in I suppose.


    • The right-wing, GOP primary Romney is the one voters will be voting for. You don’t say things like he said in that 47% video unless you mean them. Plus, in order to get a second term, he can’t afford to piss off the right too much, so he will have to govern that way. Remember George H.W. Bush and his violation of that “Read my lips, no new taxes!” pledge? Conservatives never forgave him for it and it may have cost him the election. Romney won’t make that mistake. If he wins, he will govern as a righty. You can count on it.


  4. ansonburlingame

     /  October 10, 2012

    Bush I lost the election because Ross Pero took away his needed votes. But indeed Ross P. ran because Bush raised taxes and he didn’t like that approach.

    As for the “real” Romney, I look at his record over a lifetime of high achievement. He was a “real” leader in business, a “real” savior of a dysfunctional Olympics and a “real” and effective governor in a highly democratic state. But despite an 85% political majority against his party, look what he achieve in MA as governor.

    The Romney in the primary had a huge hill to climb to achieve a majority consensus against the likes of Santorum, Perry and even Gingrich. Had that primary been strictly a one-on-one between Gingrich and Romney you would have heard a “different” Romney, in my view.

    As for believing Dem attack ads against Romney since the primary, forget it. All spin are such ads and you know it. If you think you can explain real political substance in a 30 sec ad then you are far more gullible than you anyone should be!!!

    Who you ask is the REAL Romney? Look at his lifetime record is my suggestion. In terms of his public presence, Romney is a man that has given very difficult “briefings” all his life before a wide variety of people, many initially opposed to his approachs, like Boards of Directors, stockholders, Olympic “schemers” with plenty of money at stake, and for a sure an 85% legislature against his GOP ideas. Yet in every case, thru leadership and having some good ideas as well, he rose to the top in every case, over the long haul.

    No way can you show such achievement over a lifetime from Obama!!! THAT is why Obama lost the debate, a debate with a far “better” man in such high stakes events. Substance versus sound bites, as I said before and Americans saw such distinction right before their eyes!!.

    My guess is you are going to see a similar but more “vicious” debate on Thurs. Biden is going to unleash every accusation imaginable against Ryan and the smarter, quicker and far more knowledgable Ryan will probably “eat him alive” if Biden tries such “Chicago tactics”. And for damn sure if Biden tries to “run on the record” for the last four years Ryan’s first assualt will be “why is the middle class buried”, STILL, with you guys in charge!!!



    • Sedate Me

       /  October 11, 2012

      I don’t think there IS a “real” Mitt Romney. Politicians are all fake, but this guy is the fakest I’ve ever seen. No hyperbole. The only one in the same ballpark I’m aware of is 1980’s Canadian PM Brian Mulroney.

      Romney is a used car salesman who will say whatever it takes to close the deal with whatever customer potential sucker he’s pitching to at any given moment. His “principles” are identical to whatever his audience’s are. Just look how smoothly he became a virtual Democratic Governor of a Democratic state with a Democratic legislature. Look at how quick he was to disavow his Governor days to win over hardcore Republicans. Look at how, during the debate, he largely disavowed the last 18 months of campaigning to appeal to undecideds and “low information” voters. And all without so much as a bead of sweat or increased eye blinking. He would have passed a police polygraph. Cool as ice.

      To me, that’s a guy who will point whatever way the wind is blowing. Such flexibility can prove advantageous once in power, in the way that the voters will have handed him a blank cheque to fill in as he sees fit. One can make an argument that not to be tied down to policies or principles is actually a good thing.

      The only other indicator of the real Mitt Romney comes from his tax returns. Here’s a man who “earned” approximately 50 million bucks (offshore tax shelters not included) in the last 2 years WITHOUT HAVING A JOB SINCE 2002. It’s not even 100% clear when his last job actually ended. Yet, despite this, he thinks a 13% tax rate is too high for jobless multimillionaires like himself. He wants that rate lowered.

      I wouldn’t feel comfortable doing a deal with a guy like that, never mind voting for him to occupy the most powerful elective office in the world.


  5. Can there be more than one kind of truth? I sure hope not, but I think political truth is more subject to confirmation bias than scientific truth. Or maybe not – there is that evolution thing and creationism. Hmm.

    Mendacious Mitt and the age of unreason. Has a ring to it, IMHO.


    • I think there is a tendency for novices to defer to scientific truth, since most of it is too technical for the average person to fathom (religious fundamentalists excepted, of course; they understand it all in the light of revealed “truth”). Thus folks will more readily accept something as true that has science’s imprimatur than, say, a pronouncement from a politician. Everyone thinks they understand politics and thus, weirdly, that makes them even more susceptible to confirmation bias!


  6. ansonburlingame

     /  October 11, 2012

    I am not at all sure that there can ever be “political truth”. Politics is all about getting others to adhere to your own views. It is not about ultimate truth which lies somewhere in the realm of philosophy or religion (maybe) and for sure mankind has yet to find much ultimate truth!!

    Maybe, just maybe, GOD or the gods hold such truth but you will never make that case politically now, will you???



  7. Anson,

    I have no idea what criteria you use when decided who is and who isn’t a “great leader.”
    Since you believe Mitt Romney displays personal qualities that exhibit “leadership” and “executive experience”, please share examples. The Mitt Romney I’ve followed for the past several years has been up, down, sideways and ‘cattycorner’ on every major issue. Every one. His core principals are made of Silly Putty.

    You suggest that “political truth” is epistemological ether, an unknowable entity transcending mortal understanding. When you flip a switch do you believe that light appears because of electromotive force or do little fairies hide behind the wall plate?

    I believe there is “political truth“, and Romney is its living antonym.

    You opine that President Obama is in in over his head, deficient in maturity, business experience and personal character. Let’s make a quick resume comparison. Romney has held one elective office. He served four years as governor of Massachusetts, roughly twice as long as a former governor of Alaska. Before being elected president, Obama served six years in the Illinois state senate and fours years as a United States Senator before leaving office to serve as the President of the United States. Obama has served in public office for 14 years compared to Romney’s four. Perhaps it is time you did another ‘apples to small appliances’ comparison and multiply Romney’s experience by four.

    It’s true that President Obama did not make millions of dollars as a private sector businessman. Romney, on the other hand, made a fortune. But rather than grow a business, he harvested existing commercial operations to maximize his bottom line. Assets were sold and employees fired or laid off. The lucky ones were offered their old jobs back with reduced pay and benefits, assuming the plant hadn’t been sheared apart and every salvageable piece of material sent to scrap yards. There’s a reason Romney quickly stopped touting his record as a “job creator.” I suppose Romney’s vulture capitalist experience was tapped when writing a Wall Street Journal editorial suggesting the American auto industry should have been allowed to collapse and its assets sold be off to pay creditors, rather than accept federal money and assistance for survival. But because he believes in nothing and takes no responsibility for anything, he pretends he meant something entirely different. He is the human manifestation of warp drive, able to harness the energy created when matter and anti-matter collide, running away from prior “political facts” with faster-than-light speed.

    There are many, many more examples of Romney’s mendacity. And this is the man you believe has more integrity than the sitting president. P.T. Barnum was a genius.


  8. ansonburlingame

     /  October 12, 2012

    So I am accused of saying, specifically, that “You opine that President Obama is in in over his head, deficient in maturity, business experience and personal character.”

    Well “That’s not my Plan” so to speak by and large. I have never said anything about Obama’s maturity or his character, period. I leave that to mudslingers.

    But as to Obama “being in over his head” I agree completely. He is an ideologue, not a leader in my view and his performance in the debate put an exclamation point behind that statement.

    BIDEN showed some leadership last night in my view. He was very much on his game, the wrong game in my view, but he was speaking with real insight and authority on matters related to defense as just one point, last night. He should do that considering his long experience in such matters as well. Ryan pretty much held his own on substance in defense matters but Biden did not back down at all and had some “facts” to back up his statements.

    Of course one of those “facts” now was it was the fault of the intelligence community in misinterpreting the Benghazi disaster!!! At least he didn’t say “Bush did it” but he sure tried to deflect the BLAME away from himself and the President!!! When a leader makes the WRONG assessment of a situation, he does not “blame his briefers”. He stands and says, I was wrong, and then tells the country what he is now going to do to make things “right”!!!!

    Recall if you will a Biden/Senator Graham visit to Afghanistan before Obama’s “surge decision” in 2009. THAT was a great and bipartisan view developed over matters in Afghanistan at the time, in my view and BOTH men deserve credit for their insights and advice at that time.

    Biden also had the right idea to attempt to negotiate a status of forces agreement in Iraq but failed in that attempt. I don’t blame Biden for trying to do so however. Probably unnoticed however was the comment that Iranian air power would NOT have been deployed in Syria today had such an agreement been in place today with American air power in Iraq able to prevent overflight of Iraq by Iranian forces, today!!!!

    But Juan, if you need me to tell you what a “good leader” looks like, I give up. I don’t claim to be one myself in any way BUT I have worked for many GREAT leaders in my professional career and I KNOW ONE when I see or hear one based on that experience. And to emphasize that point, their POLITICS does NOT make them leaders. Leadership transcends politics.

    But I suppose such a comment goes right over your head as well as that of Obama’s as well.



  9. Anson,

    I’m still waiting for examples of what you see as “leadership” qualities in Mitt Romney.
    You keep insisting that leadership transcends politics. In case you didn’t know, Romney is running for president. He is a politician. What I glean from your consistently dodgy comments is that you can’t back up an opinion with factual information. All you contribute is evasive hot air that ignores the topic-in-question and comments generated from the topic. This could explain why someone who consistently loads comments with straw men arguments doesn’t understand the definition of the false analogy fallacy. It doesn’t matter what is actually written in a particular post. RDG could write a blog posting about his fondness for baked flounder and your comment could easily be, BUTT WHAT ABOUT OUSTERS!!! (misspelling intentional).

    Try this simple exercise. Next time you feel compelled to comment, start with this: I disagree with _______ and here’s why.

    Assuming that you have a valid criticism and can make a cogent rebuttal reply, complete with supporting information, then a reader, like me, would consider what you have say worthy of serious discussion. But that also assumes that you are really interested in having a serious discussion.

    I don’t think Mitt Romney is good leader for any position, because he’s proven himself to be an unprincipled liar. Now I can back up that statement. You seem to suggest that these unsavory traits are common in all politicians, because politics is about “getting others to adhere to your views.” I take that to mean that lying is fine if enough gullible voters buy the BS. Small wonder that you bought into the Romney/Ryan tax plan.

    I’m pretty sure that you are familiar with the Romney/Ryan tax plan. Take out your calculator, do the math, and prove to me that a 20% across-the-board tax cut is revenue neutral. Hint: You can’t. But it would be interesting to see what numbers you come up with that reinvents basic arithmetic.

    BTW, try telling a liberal that Obama is an “ideologue.” Just make sure they’re not drinking hot coffee at the time.


    • Juan,

      You wrote,

      try telling a liberal that Obama is an “ideologue.”

      The first debate is a perfect example of what you are saying. Liberals everywhere were wondering how, if Obama were a man with liberal impulses, he could have stood there and not said (shouted!) over and over that Romney’s policies will hurt women, gays, and, uh, the poor.

      Obama’s leftist credentials are all figments of the imagination of right-wing broadcasters and writers. They make a good living off a radical Obama, not so much off a centrist Obama.



  10. ansonburlingame

     /  October 13, 2012


    I (almost) give up with you. Try Romney’s LEADERSHIP to pull a corrupt and dysfunctional Olympics fat out of the fire and make it a roaring success!!!



  11. Anson,

    Finally, an example of why you believe Romney is a “GREAT” leader. I’m surprised you
    didn’t mention Bain Capital, but then Romney rarely toots his own horn about an incredibly lucrative career as a vulture capitalist — especially in Ohio. Oddly enough, he only recently mentioned his tenure as governor. But that was so he could shape-shift yet again and become a bi-partisan moderate in Denver. I doubt if you like being reminded that he’s the father of “Obamacare.” After all, “Obamacare” is a terrible thing, a socialist abomination. For the past several years Romney has been running away from his signature legislative achievement because a “GREAT” leader can’t placate right-wing reactionaries if associated with anything remotely connected to our Marxist, possibly foreign-born, president. A “GREAT” leader can’t be conservative. No, he must be a “severe” conservative when pandering to anti-government extremists. I suppose you’ll have to make another subjective evaluation, one of those ‘I know a “GREAT” leader when I see one’ judgments when deciding which Mitt Romney receives your vote. And considering your views on the abortion issue, I again assume that the old pro-choice Romney is a more attractive candidate. I can understand why. Even though the new pro-life version reeks of phony conversion, a “GREAT” leader must conceal their personal convictions in order to bullshit ignorant, Bible-thumping bigots. Who knew being a “GREAT” leader takes near-heroic amounts of shameless pandering and biographical reinvention?

    I’m pleased that you brought up Romney’s involvement in the 2002 Winter Olympics. I believe this is another example of his breathtaking hypocrisy, and here’s why. Romney, who rails against federal spending and earmarks, procured $1.3 billion dollars from you and me to organize the most expensive Olympics games in American history, more than every other U.S. hosted Olympics combined. John McCain was livid at the lavish use of taxpayer funds, funds that went to provide Salt Lake City with a new $2 million dollar sewer system, $30 million dollars for upgrading parking lots and $33 thousand for an Olympic horse adoption program. The $33 thousand for an Olympic horse adoption program sounds like a steal.

    John McCain was not pleased. He called Romney’s “GREAT” leadership role in the Winter Olympics a “rip off of the taxpayers”; “an incredible pork-barrel project for Salt Lake City; and “an outrageous national disgrace.”

    But then in 2002 Romney may have been a spendthrift liberal. Who knows?


    • Juan,

      You wrote,

      For the past several years Romney has been running away from his signature legislative achievement…

      All undecided voters, to the extent they have a clue what is going on (most of them don’t), should think about that “running away.” Why would a man do that? Why would a man abandon his signature achievement? What does it say about him? It’s as if a father had a son playing in the big leagues and when folks ask him about his son’s career he said, “I prefer soccer.”



  12. Well John, to iterate Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase, “There you go again.” With the facts, that is. Nicely summarized.

    Romney’s Etch-a-sketch appellation is seeming more and more apt as time goes by, and it occurs to me that the Real Romney might not be either Moderate Mitt, Mendacious Mitt or Seriously Conservative Mitt, but rather none of the above. He might be simply Mutable Mitt.


  13. Jim,

    Mutable Mitt is a fair description. It’s more polite than Weasel Willard.

    The Onion, always funny, occasionally brilliant, satire has had fun with Mutable Mitt’s campaign strategy.

    “I’m lying a lot more, my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true. It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or be accurate or have any concrete positions of any kind.

    Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.”

    We’ve slipped past post-modern and into the world of post-truth, a world that Mitt appears to be very comfortable lying in.


%d bloggers like this: