THE DEMOLISHING OF CANDIDATE MITT ROMNEY IN A “SUDDEN DEATH” DABATE ONE
First of all I’d issue a caviat as kind of a warning to answer question directly addressing the issues raised my questions and not laps into tea party “talking points” all the while counting on the fact that he’s going to do just that so I can lure him into various “chess” traps. And I’d raise the example of a worker in a metal machine shop, or perhaps working with farm equipment and how if you’re not careful on the job you could use a finger or a hand or something in a moment of inattention. Romney would say “Well this is a contest for President of the United States, which is a little more significant than a common macfhinist”. Then I would quote “Jesus said that if you can’t be trusted in small things, how can you be trusted with Large things”. If he appears slow to acknowledge this remark I would add, “Your Church does teach and believe the words of Jesus, doesn’t it?” And then I would go on to cite some statistics about the Supreme Court and how utterly important it is these next four years to get the right guy picking the nominees. And I would mention that President Obama has a smaller percentage of his nominees for all sorts of post- - more are vacant from lack of Congressional action than with any other administration. And did you know that this is the most conservative Supreme Court we’ve had in the last 75 years or since at least 1936. And four of the most conservative justices in the last one hundred years are on the bench right now. That would be Roberts, Scelia, Thomas, and Allito. And Justice Kennedy, the swing vote of this court, is the tenth most conservative justice of the past hundred years himself. And the fact is that if the popular will of the people, which you tea party people claim you prize above all else, were carried out in 2000 then Al Gore would have been President and the Supreme Court would look very different today. And at some point the topic might come up - - or I would overtly ask Romney, “Just why is it that you want to be President anyhow. When you ran against Ted Kennedy you tried to pass yourself as a moderate liberal to garner votes and you still lost. And you did the same thing running for Governor in Massachusetts in 2002. At some point in his answer he’s revert to talking points and use the phrase about ‘I’m running to stem the leftward drift in politics today”. Then I’d bring up Citizen’s United and remind him that when it first came out in early 2010 that fully eighty percent of the American people were against it. If he were to respond, “That’s why it’s been important for our people to get the Truth out there”. And I’d go, “Your point is well taken. This activist decision is among the most activist decisions any Court has ever rendered, and it was decided in a minute issue that the Justices broadened out into a major ruling. And because of this all sorts of Pac organizations have come into politics and corporate money that was illegal before. How do you expect the average democratic candidate running for congress to be able to complete with it. You know we need to go back to some sort of public financing of elections to keep this sort of influence peddeling out of the race. Because the idea that these PAC groups do NOT represent specific political candidates is a bad joke. You know it and I know it. Romney may respond, “Well President Obama chose to use his own money in 2008”. And I would say “That was absolutely wrong. What do you think about that yourself?” Here is another trap. If he says he agrees with the President to spend the money himself I’d go “Then in reality you don’t think President Obama did anything wrong?” If he says what the President did was wrong I’d go, “Well does that mean a President Romney would advocate for some sort of Public financing of elections once in office”. I would go on to cite things like how Obama ran on a public option for Health Care and how many who voted for him wanted him to go after the massive financial and political corruption of Bush and Chaney- - not to mention the violation of civil liberties? If he brought up (which he will) this new Obama executive order limiting certain liberties under emergency conditions I’d then go, “Well then does that mean we can count on a President Romney to be a champion of limiting governmental snooping against citizens?”
I would then go on to discuss how out of touch this last congress with the American People and cite the recent vote on the Buffet Rule being voted down despite the support of 72% of the American people, and go on to advocate higher taxes for people just hoarding money. If he says Business can’t expand because taxes are too high, I’d ask the question “Would you rather, for instance have 85% of five hundred thousand or 70% of a million, and see how he reacts. I’d also throw in the point that jobs are not created by Big Money but by necessity and use the example of the donut shop in the shopping mall with lines out the door all the time and wanting to hire on a new employee. But another guy doing no business won’t be hiring anybody because that would be pointless. If he says “Money creates jobs”, I’d go- - well demand from the common people creates the necessity and opportunity to hire on new employees. And if he says “I am better qualified to run an economy than the President” I’d go right in and ask about their College cources and academic performance. And also bring up the fact that like so many of the rich he’s “risk adverse” and that’s why people like him hoard their money in off shore accounts, because they make more money just sitting on their money and NOT paying taxes than they would going out Investing it, apparently, which seems an argument for higher tax rates discouraging “:sitting on vast amounts of cash”. And then I’d bring up Rick Perry and the Federal Reserve and how he had said that if money again costs ten percent there would be more of it available. And I’d ask him if he agreed with Rick Perry. If he said he didn’t agree with that I’d then say “How many other participants in those other Republican Debates do you have fundamental disagreements with?” And I’d go on to illustrate how at one time the right had a valid point thirty years ago when inflation was ten percent and people paid at least 28% tax on money they didn’t really make. And that wasn’t fair but then throw in “You wouldn’t want to go back to times like that would you? That’s what Rick Perry described as the good old days we had under Ronald Reagan. And then I’m probably somewhere bring up his Mormon Faith. And I’d ask him “You do consider yourself a good Mormon don’t you? Aren’t you proud of your Faith? And if he said it wasn’t proper to mix Religion with government I would remind him of all the other Republicans who talked about the practice of “Faith in the Public square” such as Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. And then I’d add – “My point was that other Mormons aren’t like you. There favorite line isn’t “I love firing people”. The income democragraphics of the state of Utah are much more even then the rest of the country- - but you yourself want to increase the disparity between rich and the poor. If he uses the phrase “class warfare” here I’d cite statistics on mental health and suicide and drug addiction and violence, and the whole bit. And I would again remind the people watching that what Mitt did with Bane capital was “risk adverse behavior” out to do this chop chip opporations and get a quick buck and even people like Newt Gingrich said what you did was exploitative, and Rick Santorum said the President of the United States was not a C E O. And I might even throw in something about unemployment in Massachusetts and how that state doesn’t seem to be faring very well now economically. And then I’d go after this whole “Birthday Gift” thing, and suggest that if some nobody said something about me I’d just ignore it and two days later everyone would have forgotten it. But you have given Hillary Rosen the sort of publicity she can’t buy and she’ll probably get a book deal out of the thing and who is giving Who a “gift”. And then I’d mention how Rush Limbaugh was at his most Giddy when it was likely the nation would default last August. And I’d remind him that Michelle Bachman was an advocate of doing nothing to raise the debt limit. And ask him if he agrees with Michelle Bachman on this issue- - and by the way she says she’s thinking of supporting you. And I’d mention the whole 92% thing with women and jobs lost. Are you going to sit there and tell us all that 92% of all the people who’ve lost their jobs and gotten a pink flip - - in the past four years- - have been Women. Are you REALLY going to claim that? If he says “No” even once, then I’d tell him to shut up on the issue then.
I’d then go on to attack this whole Anne Romney thing saying that she did NOT relate to the problems of working women and how she probably has had more one on one time with her horses than she had with her own kids. You know how these rich people love their horses. And how the kids were raised by two “O Pairs” (sexier than just a nanny) from Belgim and France, respectively. And I’d mention Roe vs Wade and how this Court cannot be counted on to stay on a narrow issue but any Ruling is possible with any issue. And I’d stress that Roe vs Wade overturn is a real possibility. First though I’d ask him on his stance on Gays and Abortion while he was governor and how he was for these things then. Mitt – true to the tea party will vehemently deny these things - - and then I’ve got him right where I want him. And I’d say, well, women of America, you’ve heard it for yourself. And I would add that over fifty percent of Americans are now for Gay Marriage and even Barry Goldwater back in the eighties was sympathetic to problems of gay people. And again I’d say that a moderate republican like Stevens was the most liberal justice on the court when he retired and how people on the left such as Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold don’t even exist any more. And I would probably summarize by saying that Mitt Romney is just the latest chapter of tea party extremism, and how a vote for Romney is a vote for the tea party and if that’s what you want- have at it
.
My final brief rant is against “Therapists”. It would be impossible for radio psychiatrists to function unless they could diagnose every problem you have in two minutes of listening and then take the other two to tell what you need to do to fix everything. Therapists can’t function without using “Always” or “Never” way too much or their other stock and trade of “That’s your whole problem right there”. The phrase “Whole Problem” comes up far too often. Also on this whole Dr. Phill thing about “Explain to me your problem and don’t EVER bring it up again” I’d just say “The reason why Dr. Phil is asking you to repeat yourself several times is not because he’s concerned about you - - but in doing this he shows that he does NOT care about you. Because a GOOD therapist would only have to hear something once to pick up on it. And I’d do the whole Faith and practice trip on Dr. Phill two. If he said Christianity and psychiatry did not mix I’d just remind him of all the people who tout the virtues of “Carrying your Faith with you throughout the day”. And sometimes therapists- - will excuse- - like say a dominant parent who suddenly changes his mind and now is giving you exact opposite advice from what he’s been saying perhaps for decades, and if Dr. Phil were to go “Why can’t you allow someone to change their honest opinion and forgive their prior statements and not carry it around as Emotional Baggage”. That’s another worn out phrase “Emotional baggage”. I’d just say, “Well Dr. Phil, ass you yourself have said so often - - “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”
No comments:
Post a Comment