Still clueless

Did you see the Romneys' television interview with Chris Wallace on Fox over the weekend? No, I didn't either, but I read reports of it today and it is clear to me that these two out-of-touch individuals, living in their own privileged world, still do not get it.

They were so sure that it was "their turn" to occupy the White House, that they were destined to win a huge victory last November. They just do not understand how it all could have gone so wrong. But they have their theories.

Mitt believes it was all those goodies that the dastardly Obama gave the country, particularly the Affordable Care Act which guaranteed health care to so many people who hadn't been able to afford it before. He said that he underestimated its popularity, but that it motivated all those poor people and the brown, black, and young people, to get out and vote. For Obama.

Of course, in Mitt's view, all the rich white people, who are totally altruistic and who had more concern for the country than for their own self-interest, voted for him, but he just couldn't attract enough of all those "others."

Ann knows why they lost. It was the media's fault. The damn media just wouldn't let Mitt's sterling quality of character shine through their filter. If only people could have seen what a truly caring guy her man is, he would have won in a walk.

In the view of this deluded couple, the policies that they ran on had nothing to do with their rejection by the voters. It was just all those gifts that an incumbent president was able to give to the voters, aided and abetted by the liberal media all the time.

So, here we are almost four months later and they still do not understand - and neither does their party - that the American public was simply not buying what they were selling. We do not approve of the policies that they were espousing.

We do not want Planned Parenthood defunded and abortion made illegal. We do not approve of the government interfering in women's personal health decisions, made in conjunction with their doctors and their families.

We do not believe in "self-deportation" of immigrants to this country, and we believe that people who take the risk to come here, even if they do it illegally, should be afforded respect and the protection of the law and that they should have an opportunity to redeem themselves.

We do not believe that elderly or disabled people who have worked their whole lives and paid into the social safety net system that is Medicare and Social Security are "moochers" and "takers" when they start receiving the benefits of that system.

We do not believe that millionaires and billionaires and multi-million dollar corporations should be subsidized by our government by allowing them to get away with paying little or no taxes while the rest of us ante up our fair share.

We believe that we should be doing everything possible to encourage children and young people to pursue education so that they will be prepared for the world of tomorrow. We should not be making it harder for them to get the training they need.

Well, I could go on, but surely one can see the problem here. Mitt and Ann Romney and their fellow Republicans were on the wrong side - i.e., the exclusionary side - of all these issues and American voters did not approve. That is why they lost. But it is unlikely they will ever be able to admit that, even to themselves.

 

Irony rules

Remember way, way back a few weeks ago when we learned what Mitt Romney really thought about 47 percent of his fellow Americans? "Those people" who it was his job not to worry about? In retrospect, those uninhibited remarks that Romney made to a bunch of his billionaire and millionaire supporters in Boca Raton, Florida may have been the final nail in the coffin of his doomed presidential candidacy. Once Americans learned how he disdained them, it was very hard for them to warm up to him.

So Romney lost the election.The final total of votes still hasn't been calculated, as some votes are still being counted, but today a significant and highly ironic milestone was reached. Today Romney's percentage of total votes dipped to 47.48%, while President Obama's stands at 50.8%. In other words, President Obama's rounded percentage is 51%; Mitt Romney's rounded percentage is - wait for it! - 47%.

And irony rules the day.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can't stop insulting voters

First it was Paul Ryan blaming the Republicans' loss on "urban" voters. Wonder who he could have been referring to? No doubt all those people who listen for "dog whistles" understood him very well.

Of course, Ryan neglected to mention that his ticket also lost predominately white and rural states like Iowa and New Hampshire, and underperformed in Midwestern states, but then the flimflam man has never lived in a reality-based state. 

Speaking of the state where he does live, Wisconsin, he lost that, too, AND he lost his own home town! 

Then along came Ryan's partner in losing, Mr. Romney. Speaking this week to donors to his campaign, he blamed the loss on President Obama giving "gifts" to various segments of voters. Here's just a snippet of his insulting remarks about "those people" who didn't vote for him; you know, that irresponsible 47 percent. Except it turned out to be 51 percent.

With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift. 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…

You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in 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. 

Every word drips with disdain.

After he was caught out with his remarks about the 47 percent at that meeting of his backers in Boca Raton, he said that he had not expressed himself "elegantly," which may be the understatement of the year. He went on, of course, to assure us that he really cared deeply about 100 percent of Americans. But this latest meeting with backers gives the lie to that. The Romney who dismissed the "47 percenters" and the Romney who has nothing but contempt for "those people" who are swayed by "gifts," that is the authentic Mitt Romney. The sore loser.

Now, if Romney had been elected, you can bet he would have been passing out "gifts" left and right to his super-rich friends. Slashing their tax rates and putting in special breaks in the tax code that only apply to the very, very rich and, of course, doing away with that regulation thing and generally making the world safe for robber barons.

What a piece of work these two guys are. Real charmers. Wonder how they ever lost?

If they really want to know, they could look in the mirror. But that would probably be more reality than they can bear. 

The Etch-A-Sketch candidate shakes it up again

Who was that sweating man in the presidential debate last night? It certainly wasn't Mitt Romney, at least not the Mitt Romney we've come to know over the last eighteen months or so. No, this was a much milder version, a candidate who thinks we "can't kill our way out of this." That'll be a big surprise to the neocons with whom he surrounds himself and who he trusts as foreign policy advisers and who would likely serve in a Romney administration. Secretary of State John Bolton, anybody?

Last night Romney shook that Etch-A-Sketch for all it was worth. No longer is he panting to get into another war in the Middle East. Belligerence toward China is all but gone. It's right that we should get out of Afghanistan by 2014. And, of course, President Romney would have taken out Osama bin Laden! What president wouldn't?   He essentially reversed every foreign policy position he has taken in his entire campaign. He hopes that the stupid voters, especially the stupid women voters that he scared with his war-like earlier positions, will accept this new moderate Mitt, no questions asked, and forget about the old tea party Mitt. In this effort he will no doubt be aided by the lazy mainstream media that never questions anything.

I was particularly struck by something he said about the new Islamic governments in the Middle East. He wants to help them achieve democracy. Most notably, he wants to help them achieve "gender equality" in their societies. Yes, women workers and voters of America - he believes in gender equality in the Middle East, just not in the United States.

But what exactly does Mitt Romney believe? The truth is, we don't have a clue. Personally, I don't think he believes anything except that he is entitled to become president of this country and that anything that he has to say or do to achieve that goal is perfectly acceptable. In her column today, Joan Walsh refers to him as the "man without a soul," an apt description.

We don't know what he believes because he changes his message to be whatever he thinks his audience on that particular day wants to hear. And so he's been on all sides of the auto bailout, the economic stimulus, the Affordable Care Act, contraception, a woman's right to have an abortion if she believes that is the right choice for her, raising taxes on the super-rich, just to name a few issues.

Furthermore, speaking of taxes, we'll never know whether Romney paid any over the last ten years, because he is so ashamed of those tax returns that he will not reveal them. He knows if he released them, his candidacy would be completely doomed. (My personal belief is that he paid no taxes and that, in fact, he probably received refunds in some years because of all the deductions and write-offs that he took.)

A couple of days ago, I wrote about George McGovern, a man of honor and integrity who always stood up for what he believed in, even when it wasn't the popular stance or wasn't what his audience wanted to hear. McGovern had the courage of his convictions. Willard Mitt Romney - not so much.

Jon Stewart must love Mitt Romney!

As usual, the most cogent commentary on the latest Romney debacle comes from Jon Stewart.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Meanwhile the Rush Limbaugh/Fox News brigade is urging Romney to own his out-of-touch statements and not back down. It looks like Romney is heeding their advice. There will probably be even more fodder for Jon Stewart very soon. He and all the other late night comedians must bless the day that the Republicans nominated Romney.

That's it! No more Ms. Nice Blogger!

I am beginning to be thoroughly pissed off by Mitt and Ann Romney and their rich friends. This latest debacle with the video secretly shot when Mitt thought he was among his own kind and could freely speak his mind is just one more example of people who are so divorced from the real world that the rest of us live in that you have to wonder just why the man would ever condescend to even want to be president of a people that he so thoroughly despises. Oh, I forgot - it's the power and the opportunity to make even more money for himself and his friends. That's all it's ever about with him. There is no bottom line except the bottom line.

The most appalling thing about this video is that it reveals that this is what he really believes! It's not just red meat for the base. He was speaking off the cuff and apparently from the heart so we have to assume that he really believes that 47% of the citizens of this country are worthless moochers.

Where does one even begin? Well, the statement has been thoroughly refuted elsewhere by people much more knowledgeable than I, so I won't even start except to say that, yes, I am probably one of that 47% who were never, ever going to vote for Romney no matter what he said, but I would have at least given him a respectful hearing. Now he's lost the chance even for that. He thinks he has contempt for those of us who receive anything that he categorizes as government assistance? Believe me, I'll see his contempt and raise him an outright disdain.

The irony is that when he talks about those recipients of government "entitlements," many of those people are his strongest supporters. The only demographics in the country that show Romney consistently leading in the polls are the elderly and the white men.

The elderly are the prime recipients of government largess through Social Security, Medicare, and Veterans' benefits, but I seriously doubt that any of them would consider themselves "moochers," having worked hard during their working lives or having laid their lives on the line for their country to secure those benefits.

As for the white men who support Romney, specifically the poor white men who are his strongest supporters among this group, they frequently pay no income taxes because of the Earned Income Tax Credit and, if they are unemployed, they are probably receiving Unemployment Benefits. Are they moochers because of this? No, most of them would prefer to be working and paying income taxes, but will they be offended enough by Romney's comments to refuse to vote for him? Probably not. His skin is the right shade and they really believe in their hearts that they can be just like him, given the chance.

Of course, another demographic supporting Romney is that comprised of millionaires and billionaires, but that is a small group.

And then there is Ann Romney. She's the one who is supposed to "humanize" her robotic spouse, the fact that she is just as condescending and snobbish and out of touch as he is notwithstanding. We are supposed to give her a pass because she has suffered. She had breast cancer. She had miscarriages. She has multiple sclerosis. Well, let me tell you who has suffered: The women who have miscarriages and cancer and debilitating diseases but still have to get up in the morning and go to work because their families are depending on them to put food on the table and a roof over their heads! Ann Romney can't see or empathize with "those people." She only sees and talks to the rich white ladies in her own social class, the ones who, like her, never worked a day in their lives. And she is Romney's ambassador to women! No wonder he's losing that demographic by double digits.

Let's not forget Romney's friends, people like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and the private equity manager named Leder whose house Romney was at when he made his now infamous comments that were caught on video. But at this moment, I'm thinking more of Romney's foreign friends; specifically Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who evidently despises President Obama and is doing everything in his power to swing the American election to his friend Mitt. He is trying his best to drag Obama into another Middle East war, this time with Iran, because he badly wants to attack that country but apparently he doesn't dare do it without American backing. So far, President Obama isn't biting. We can only hope that he will keep his cool and keep telling Netanyahu "NO!" (And also, let us devoutly hope that once the election is over, Netanyahu will pay a steep political price for his interference.)

Meantime, thanks to our Supreme Court, we have no idea how much money Netanyahu and his friends are throwing into the Romney campaign. You can bet that the Israeli prime minister is doing his own bit of fund-raising for the Republican nominee that he clearly favors. He's probably hitting up all his rich friends to send money to help influence the election, in hopes that a President Romney would be more amenable to his war-mongering.

The election cannot be over soon enough for me, at which time I sincerely hope that Ann and Mitt Romney will retire to their seven houses - or however many it is - and their parties with their billionaire friends where they can say anything they want without being videotaped and where I will never have to hear of them again. Just leave the rest of us to get on with our piddling little lives in peace.

A profile in stupidity

Mitt Romney may be an absolute whiz when it comes to making money by shutting down companies and outsourcing jobs, but when it comes to understanding the way the real world works, he's an idiot. That's the only explanation I can see for his behavior in response to recent events in the Middle East. Moreover, not only is he an idiot, he is a craven political opportunist willing to make "profit" from capitalizing on the deaths of devoted American public servants who put their lives on the line every day to protect and defend the interests of this country. In that sense, not only is he an idiot and an opportunist, he is unpatriotic.

I can write that last paragraph because we have freedom of speech in this country. It is a concept that is sometimes hard for people in other parts of the world to fully understand. So when they see or hear of an offensive anti-Muslim film like the one that was used as an excuse to incite the riot in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of four Americans from the consulate there, it is hard for them to understand why the U.S. government cannot just arrest the perpetrator of the obscenity and shut down distribution of the film. When the U.S. government fails to do that, they jump to the conclusion that the government itself condones the film and its message and they use that reasoning to stir up hatred against the government. The concept that a government cannot control what its citizens say or write or what images they load to YouTube is literally foreign to them.

And so we have riots occurring around the Middle East today and U.S. diplomats lives' are being put in danger because another bigot with a political agenda of his own produced a film deriding the Prophet Mohammed and insulting the Muslim religion and loaded it on YouTube, an act that was calculated to incite violence thus lending credence to the self-fulfilling prophecy that Muslims are violent people. His actions may not be against the law (although that is yet to be determined, I think) but they are most certainly immoral and unpatriotic. Anyone who would knowingly, willingly put the lives of our public servants in other countries in peril cannot be said to have the interests of this country at heart and they deserve our censure and disgust.

And what of politicians in this country who would take advantage of such a volatile situation to try to advance their own political agendas? Yes, people like Mitt Romney and the few like Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus, loudmouth radio host Rush Limbaugh, Senator John Kyl, and half-Governor Sarah Palin who have supported him. They deserve a double serving of our censure and disgust and they deserve to be run out of public life altogether.

Ironically, as demonstrations, some of them violent, spread across the Middle East in response to a film that is utterly stupid and without any artistic merit, the United States is apparently viewed more positively by the ordinary citizens of the area than it has been in many years. There has, for example, been an outpouring of outrage from citizens of both Libya and Egypt over the violence that took the lives of Libyan ambassador Christopher Stevens and others. Likewise, the governments of Libya and Egypt have expressed their outrage and regret. It should be noted also that Libyans fought to defend the consulate in Benghazi from its attackers and that at least ten of them died defending it. While it is natural for Americans to focus on the deaths of our own citizens, we must not lose sight of that and we must remember and honor the memories of those brave Libyans as well.      

Free speech is a difficult concept. It may be our greatest strength as a country, but it can cut both ways and it can be used against us. It is sometimes a burden as well as a gift, because we have to put up with a lot of stupid speech to ensure that we protect everyone's rights. But I think that the very least that we can expect of someone running for the highest office in our country is that she or he speak with probity, thoughtfulness, and intelligence about issues, and if s/he cannot meet that standard then s/he should remain silent. Mitt Romney should have remained silent. Instead, he gave us a memorable and devastating profile in stupidity.

UPDATE: And then there are the thoughtful responses - Pictures from a pro-American Libyan rally.

It's gonna be a long three months

So now we know who all the candidates will be in the November presidential election. It's Obama-Biden for the Democrats and Romney-Ryan for the Tea Party Republicans. Three months of listening to the Randian Ryan and the robot Romney. It's going to be a long autumn.

The two seem made for each other really. The inauthentic, espouse-any-position-to-win Romney and the phony baloney deficit fighter Ryan. Neither of them is a friend to truth.

Paul Krugman has written extensively over the last couple of years about the Ryan budget and about the phony math which drives it. He had another post about it on his blog today, wherein he opines that the selection of Ryan as vice-presidential candidate was really about "exploiting the gullibility and vanity of the news media, in much the same way that George W. Bush did in 2000."

"...it’s because many commentators want to tell a story about US politics that makes them feel and look good — a story in which both parties are equally at fault in our national stalemate, and in which said commentators stand above the fray. This story requires that there be good, honest, technically savvy conservative politicians, so that you can point to these politicians and say how much you admire them, even if you disagree with some of their ideas; after all, unless you lavish praise on some conservatives, you don’t come across as nobly even-handed.

"The trouble, of course, is that it’s really really hard to find any actual conservative politicians who deserve that praise. Ryan, with his flaky numbers (and actually very hard-line stance on social issues), certainly doesn’t. But a large part of the commentariat decided early on that they were going to cast Ryan in the role of Serious Honest Conservative, and have been very unwilling to reconsider that casting call in the light of evidence. "

It's all about the inside-the-Beltway pundits who like to pretend that both parties are equally to blame for a dysfunctional government. They can't be bothered to actually sort out the story and tell the truth. They simply report "he said, he said" as though each side's statement was equally true and thus they can pretend to be even-handed. These lazy so-called journalists are one of the boils on the butt of our society.

In other coverage of the Ryan selection, Joan Walsh of Salon.com had a good column which, like Krugman's piece, pointed out the phoniness of the man. She started with a recitation of Ryan's many years as a recipient of government largesse.

"Paul Ryan was born into a well-to-do Janesville, Wisc. family, part of the so-called “Irish mafia” that’s run the city’s construction industry since the 19th century. When his lawyer father died young, sadly, the high-school aged Ryan received Social Security survivor benefits. But they didn’t go directly to supporting his family; by his own account, he banked them for college. He went to Miami University of Ohio, paying twice as much tuition as an Ohio resident would have; the in-state University of Wisconsin system (which I attended) apparently wasn’t good enough for Ryan. After his government-subsidized out-of-state education, the pride of Janesville left college and went to work for government, where he’s spent his entire career, first serving Republican legislators and then in his own Congressional seat..." 

Consider the hypocrisy of the man who wants "smaller government" and yet has been supported by that government for most of his life and who would destroy the Social Security system as well as Medicare. It's much like the hypocrisy of his idol Ayn Rand who was a recipient of Social Security benefits and Medicare after she became disabled. She would be so proud.

Walsh also points out that the Catholic Ryan received a rebuke from the nation’s ultra-conservative Catholic Bishops for his budget plan. The bishops, whose social consciences seem to be stuck somewhere in the Middle Ages, thought the plan so devastating to the poor and middle class that for the first time in memory they involved themselves in politics for reasons other than denying women freedom and promoting Republicans. When a budget is too draconian for these guys, you know it must be truly awful.

We don't really know much about what Romney would do as president, because he hasn't been inclined to tell us. Mostly he just gives his phony chuckle and says we should trust him because he's such a rich man and a successful capitalist. Of course, we'll never know just how successful he is because he'll never share those devastating tax returns that show him as a free-loader on society. But at last the curtain has been pulled aside just a bit and we get to see the kinds of decisions he might make as president. The selection of Ryan to be his running mate is a bright flashing warning: Voters beware!

Put up or shut up, Mitt!

"Let me also say categorically: I have paid taxes every year. A lot of taxes. A lot of taxes." - Mitt Romney

Harry Reid has really gotten under Mitt Romney's very thin skin with his statement that he has been told by someone from Bain Capital that Romney didn't pay any taxes for at least ten years. Romney keeps sputtering indignantly that yes, he did, too, pay taxes! A lot of them! And we should just trust him on that and drop the subject. Then he goes on to say that Harry should "put up or shut up."

Put up what? Harry's financial disclosure forms are a matter of public record. It's Mitt's that are in question. And Reid is just reporting what someone has told him. He doesn't vouch for its accuracy, although he claims the person is a reliable source with knowledge of Romney's finances.

This squabble is obviously very easily resolved. Again as Reid has pointed out, all Romney has to do to prove that the statement is inaccurate is to release his tax returns, preferably the last twelve years of returns just like his father George did when he was running for president. That is, unless those returns would not absolve Romney of being a non-taxpayer. Or maybe even worse, perhaps they would show that this billionaire has actually received refunds from the IRS.

That's my theory of why the man is so reluctant to put those tax returns out there. I believe that there are years - perhaps even every year for the past several - when the Romneys actually received an income tax refund from the federal government because of all the deductions and write-offs taken. I suspect that Romney guesses, probably rightly, that middle-class American taxpayers who scramble to pay their taxes every year would not look kindly upon a man with seven or eight houses, a Swiss bank account, and money stashed in the Cayman Islands, not to mention a million dollar IRA, who received some of their hard-earned tax money in a refund!

So, I think Mitt will continue to resist calls to release his tax returns because he has made the calculation that what's in those returns would be much more likely to sink his candidacy completely than his stonewalling the issue. He may well be right. But that's no reason for Harry Reid to stop calling him out on it. Give 'im hell, Harry! Or just tell the truth and he'll think it's hell.

The fine art of diplomacy - Mitt Romney style

Mitt Romney goes to London, which is awash in preparations and excitement for the Olympics and also awash in hope that the Games will give the city and the country an economic boost, and he promptly rains on their parade. He called their preparations "disconcerting" and questioned the city's enthusiasm for the Olympics. He went on to say, “The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.” As for whether Londoners and the British public in general are really looking forward to the games, here's what Romney had to say: 

“Do they come together and celebrate the Olympic moment?” he asked about the British people. “That’s something which we only find out once the Games actually begin.”

Honestly, Mitt, didn't your Mama ever teach you that if you can't say something nice about someone, just don't say anything at all? And did she ever mention that it is impolite to criticize your host? 


I thought Prime Minister Cameron's response to the implied criticism was on the mark.

 “We are holding an Olympic Games in one of the busiest, most active, bustling cities anywhere in the world. Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere,” an allusion to Salt Lake City, which hosted Games that Mr. Romney oversaw. 

These kinds of verbal stumbles are, of course, the kinds of thing that Americans have come to expect of Romney. He may, in fact, be the biggest stumble-tongue in politics since George W. Bush. It does not help that he has no authentic persona or ability to connect with people and so he comes across as stiff as a department store mannequin.

Furthermore, he has a very sketchy relationship with the truth, and he's told so many different versions of so many different facets of his personal story and his political stances that it is very hard for him to keep them all straight. And then there are his stump speech and his political ads in which he baldly accuses President Obama of doing and saying things which he demonstrably never did or said.

In short, the man lies and he's rude to boot. Just as rude, it turns out, when visiting foreign countries as he is to people who question him in this country. Mitt the diplomat. Let's hope he gets out of London soon or we may find the outraged British declaring war on us!

The good old Bank of Mom and Dad

Poor Mitt Romney. He just keeps sticking his foot further and further into his mouth, repeatedly proving that he doesn't really have a clue about how average people live in this country.


His latest clumsy effort at "connecting" with his audience was at Otterbein University last week where he told students, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business,” 


In advising them to borrow from the Bank of Mom and Dad, he cited a friend of his who took out a $20,000 loan from his parents. Never mind that $20,000 wouldn't even see a student through most (if not all) public universities today, I guess if you don't have parents that are rich enough to front you the money, you would just be out of luck in Romneyworld. Students who are poor or middle class who have dreams of a college education need not apply.  


When did investing in educating our young become considered poor social policy and poor politics in this country? Today we risk losing a whole generation of young people who will not be able to pursue higher education because of the cost and because one of our dominant political parties insists that only those that are able to pay for it on their own should be allowed to go to college. They don't believe in upward mobility. In fact, considering the economic policies that they espouse, one is forced to conclude that their goal for the nation is downward mobility. 


Meantime, the United States continues to fall further behind in the rankings of students' performance, particularly in math and science. We who benefited from the foresightedness and the generous spirit of our parents' and grandparents' generations are failing our children and grandchildren. History will not look kindly upon that failure.

You like grits? Really?

One of the funnier things in the political news of the week has been the sight of Mitt Romney trying to cozy up to Southerners as the Republican primaries move to Mississippi and Alabama next week. Romney has been talking about how much he likes grits and about how he's learning to say "y'all." Of course, he's already tried to woo NASCAR fans, talking about how some of his best friends are NASCAR team owners.

I'm sorry to tell Mr. Romney that the real test of being able to employ true Southern-speak is not being able to use "y'all" correctly. (Non-Southerners almost always make the mistake of using it as a singular noun, when any true Southerner knows it is always plural.) No, the true test is being able to use the catchphrase, "Bless his/her heart!" convincingly.

"Bless his heart" is the phrase used by Southerners, Southern women, in particular, to indicate that no ill will is intended by what is being said - even if it is, and it usually is. You can call a man the most sorry, low-down, despicable son-of-a-whore to ever walk the earth, but as long as you end your diatribe with "Bless his heart!," nobody will accuse you of being mean-spirited.

In fact, I would think that "Bless his heart" might be a very useful phrase in politics. Romney could tear down Santorum or Gingrich or even his favorite target, Obama, at will, and then finish his excoriation by using that magic phrase and everybody will think what a kindly, tender-hearted man he is, one who really tries to think the best of his enemies.

I really think Romney should get himself before a mirror and start practicing that phrase. There might still be time for him to employ it before next Tuesday's primaries and who knows? It might make all the difference. I guarantee you talking about grits and saying "y'all" won't.

At least so far he hasn't been reduced to talking about the height of the trees. But then maybe Alabama and Mississippi trees are not the "right height" as Michigan trees were.

From "must-win" to "can't win"

After weeks of seemingly taking for granted that he would win in Michigan, Mitt Romney is now playing down the state, trying to lower expectations. I guess he's been reading the polls which have shown Rick Santorum leading him by a substantial margin.

Actually, in polls released today, there seems to be a swing back toward Romney, but Santorum still leads. Significantly, though Romney likes to claim Michigan as one of his "home states," the people there don't buy it. Two-thirds of those who participated in the poll did not consider him a Michigander.

In fact, Republican voters across the country don't seem to be buying much of what Romney is selling these days. Even if he manages to eke out a win in Michigan now, voters really, really don't seem to like him and are not ready to get behind him in a big way. But do they like Santorum any better? Well, women don't, and for good reason since he seems intent on denying them basic rights to health care. Not that Romney, or any of the other Republicans for that matter, are any better on women's issues.

At this point, it seems to me that Romney just can't win in Michigan. The only way he could be considered a winner would be if he racked up a huge margin over Santorum. But that seems more and more unlikely.

Poor Mitt

Poor, poor Mitt Romney. He just can't get any respect from his own party. And if he can't get them to fall in line, how will he ever win a general election?

By now, it was supposed to be all over but the shouting. He was supposed to be able to show his strength in these February primaries and caucuses and put to rest any doubts about his ability to appeal to the base. Instead, he has lost a majority of the contests to Rick Santorum (!) and barely scraped by on others. True, he did win Florida by a good margin, but that's looking less and less impressive.

I think the problem with Mitt is that no one really knows who he is. He's afraid to show them who he is for fear they will turn against him. In fact, if he could just once take a real authentic stand on...anything, really, it might actually turn things around for him. But he doesn't trust himself to do that. Maybe he's switched sides so many times and tied himself into so many knots trying to make himself attractive to all sides of the issues - which in Republican politics means the conservative side, the really conservative side, and the bat-shit crazy wingnut side - that he no longer really knows what he believes or where he stands. I have a sneaking suspicion that the only thing he believes any more is that he should be president, no matter what the cost in money or in sacrificing principles.

In fact, does the man even have principles? Well, he doesn't worry about poor people, he believes that corporations are people, and that the poor downtrodden banks are "hurting" and "scared." These core values lead him to the conclusion that the interests of the 1% must at all costs be protected and never mind the 99%.

Oh, yes, and he thinks it might be a good idea to start yet another war in the Middle East - this time with Iran.

You would think that all those "principles" would be like catnip to the Republican faithful, and yet still they just can't fall in love with him. They don't believe that he believes what he is saying. Poor Mitt. He just can't close the deal. Maybe he never will.