Mitt Romney still can't accept the fact that he lost the election because he's a bloated, disloyal, cold-fish, flip-flopper who thinks that half of the nation doesn't take personal responsibility and wants to sponge off of the government. Now, he's blaming the Republican primary debates and the television stations that ran them.
These comments were made in the same telephone call to donors where he stated that Obama had won because he had given "gifts" to certain constituencies. Romney also said in this phone call that the debates were the problem. "We had 20 Republican debates, that was absolutely nuts," he said. "It opened us up to gaffes and to material that could be used against us in the general, and we were fighting these debates for a year, and the incumbent president just sat back and laughed." Of course, you can't argue with the fact that Republicans are going to make gaffes if you put a television camera on them and a microphone in front of them, as Romney well knows himself, but how does the news media fit into that?
Romney said that the television networks that hosted the debates were against the party to start with. He said next time, that the GOP has to "agree that we're gonna do, you know, I don't know, eight debates, and we're gonna, we're gonna do one a month, and we're gonna pick stations that are reasonable, it's not all gonna be done by CNN and NBC, alright, I mean we're gonna try and guide this process so that it's designed to showcase the best of our people as opposed to showcasing liberals beating the heck out of us."
The scariest part of this entire quote is that there might be a next time of Mitt Romney running for President.
Photo by DonkeyHotey on Flickr.com
Gabriel Legend covers current events for Gather News, and writes horror fiction as well. He is participating in this year's National Novel Writing Month Challenge. You can follow him on Twitter (@GabeLegend).
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 108
While the long primary campaign of the GOP Dwarves went on and on, the Obama team was setting up field offices in places where the GOP tried mightily to suppress the vote.
Romney received fewer votes than McCain, but you won't convince the simple-minded wingnuts that it was not the fault of "some one else".
One longs to see a day when Republicans start acting like adults and take responsibility for themselves.
I'd be curious to know what kind of whack-a-doodle nonsense peddled on NewsMax would have made a difference in this election.
Attacks on the media by right wingnuts usually mean, "how can it be that only a tiny minority of Americans wear the tea-bagger tin foil hats".
Sure, the Krazy Klown Kar show that was the Republican primary fight didn't help any of the contenders, including Mitt, but they had soooo many other problems that it's hard to believe that so far, Romney had blamed the media and "gifts" from Obama. How unbelievably out-of-touch with reality can this guy actually be?
To be fair, Romney isn't solely to blame for what happened. The whole Republican brand has been badly damaged, and that was made clear in the recent election. There were plenty of Republicans in House and Senate races who lost by significantly worse margins than Mitt.
I think that between the party itself, the candidates, the campaign strategists, the right-wing media, the Teabaggers, the televangelists, and all the various pundits, pollsters, etc. that make up the right-wing echo chamber, there's enough blame to go around. Plenty to keep the Republican circular firing squad busy for a while yet.
The Republican circular firing squad! I love it. Conservatives cannot forgive failure and regularly eat their own. It is amusing to watch.
Liberals should make sure they have lots of ammunition and stand back and watch the chaos.
I still get teary-eyed when remembering that Gingrich called Romney a "vulture capitalist".
You say that like they'll eventually get around to blaming eachother...do you really foresee that in the future, ever?
Some of them already are (including here, here, here, and here), and I expect more will do so in the future. Bring popcorn! :)
We know Romney lied repeatedly because Republican candidates told us he did. Why didn't Romney's lies defeat Obama? Could it be that some people looked at the fact checkers and decided that Obama's lies were mild and Romney's lies were whoppers?
Nope, but I'm not surprised if it makes you feel a little better to think so, Marilyn. Do you think that all the attacks on Romney from the far right/evangelical/Teabagger mob might have had something to do with Mitt losing?
Do you think, for example, that when you referred to Romney as "Obama Lite" and said "We need to make sure he's [Romney's] not the nominee. Too many people have said they'll vote for a rock before voting for Obama", you might've been playing a small part in his eventual defeat?
Or do you think you made up for it later by gushing about how awesome and presidential Mitt was?
Love that list, RF! :)
His biggest, of course, at least so far, has been Benghazi.
But he lied in all of his ads. He lied when he claimed that he tried to work with Republicans. Nope. Never happened. He lies so much that it's an every day event, and you all have been so enamored with him that you can't even see the lies.
Apparently not.
"His biggest, of course, at least so far, has been Benghazi."
Proof?
"He lied when he claimed that he tried to work with Republicans."
Really? So that wasn't Obama that knuckled under to the repubs by extending the Bush tax cuts for the 1% when he didn't want to? And that wasn't Obama that met with repub leaders to discuss the stimulus bill and expressed a willingness to forego elements of healthcare reform that were most distasteful to repubs? If Obama didn't do that, then who did?
Make no mistake, Marilyn, Obama's efforts to reach across the aisle with an open hand were met with a closed fist by a unified GOP that had no other interest than making sure he was a one term president. Thankfully, they failed.
1. Take a deep breath and consider that you could be wrong. It has happened before I'll bet. It has happened to all of us. So, start with the assumption that there is at least some possibility that you might be wrong.
2. When you see a fact about Obama and you think to yourself "that's not what Pastor Biblethumper said, so I don't believe it" or whatever it is you say to yourself, look it up in a completely unbiased website, or find a direct quote and get the actual truth. Don't go to www.conservativedrivel.com or where ever is it you normally get your information. Go somewhere unbiased and factual.
3. If you are wrong about that one thing, then rinse and repeat about all the other garbage you have been swallowing.
4. Start posting arguments that contain factual information so that you don't look like an idiot. If you can't find an argument any longer, then you may want to concede that Obama is actually doing a pretty dang good job.
5. Later, you may want to take a look at that whole 2000 year old book of fairy tales and Skydaddy thing, but one step at a time.
Her article of January 2012 begins:
"Romney has run an ugly, hate filled, lying campaign...."
We never saw the Lane Stream Media work so hard at getting a politician elected to office.
Ryan's adherence to the lunatic ravings of sociopath Ayn Rand, despite the serious coverage given to the three ring circus of the Republican primaries and the transparently unqualified clowns on offer as candidates for the highest office in the land, despite the complete refusal by the mass media to acknowledge the video evidence of Romney cheating by bringing a crib sheet to the first debate... the American Public saw through the mirage and re-elected the only president in US history who had no honeymoon period after being elected to office.
It would be far more accurate to say "Never saw a band of Republican Dwarves work so hard to destroy the candidacy of a man they hated."
As noted above, the Democrats said very little abut Romney during the first half of the year.
On Gather, like on the rightwing spin machine, the "news" was about the unstoppable Rick Perry, the "real Christian, Huckabee", the conservative appeal of a much married blowhard who was funded by a corrupt gambler, etc.
The mainstream media largely adopted the spin of the GOP-leaning poll companies - -USA Today offered two daily headlines trumpeting Romney's spurious lead in the GOP-leaning Gallup Poll.
In general, no matter which side of the political divide a candidate comes from, if the losing candidate and/or his/her supporters spend a lot of time talking about how the election was stolen, I just shake my head and walk away. People generally lose elections because more people voted for the other candidate. Other explanations almost always violate the principle of minimum assumption (Occam's Razor) egregiously.
Here in Cincinnati during the last weeks, the media showed every minute of Obama's campaign speeches, but only snippets of Romney's, no matter what time they were in town or what would be knocked off the air.
I don't know if you are being facetious, R.F., but the polls throughout the primaries did show this phenomena - as Romney's name recognition grew, his disapproval grew even more.
The sore losers on this page forget how hated Romney was by many Republicans.
I have a "Gather Idiots" file in which I have saved some of the choicest examples of anti-Romney extremism by tea-baggers.
these numbers are already going down, and will continue to go down as unemployment eases.
The highest proportion of tax-payers in the population was reached during the Clinton years - still the best economic time in modern American history.
Nicely noted, Colin. America flourished under a truly progressive Income Tax.
No, and that's a facile and feckless analysis. First of all, everyone pays taxes. It might be gasoline tax, food tax, cell phone tax, services taxes, but every American consumer pays some form of taxes.
Second, people in lower income brackets pay a larger percentage of their total incomes in taxes than their more affluent neighbors.
Third, among those paying no income taxes are the majority of active duty soldiers and their families, who don't make enough in salaries to pay income taxes.
And I could go on, but you get the gist. Your statement is a nice talking point, but has little correlation to reality.
When we owned a small business, we paid nearly 50%. The cost of incorporation was prohibitive in the first few years. Between that & the payroll taxes, medicare, etc. the taxes nearly bankrupted us. It's disgusting that people of little means struggle to pay a "fair" share only to watch it be given away as corporate welfare to selfish jerks who refuse to contribute to the people whose labor has made them wealthy.
I can't count the number of times I've seen the trolls here call it stealing--in what way can it possibly be stealing to expect an equal contribution? I honestly don't understand people who can defend this crap.
It's high time that every person with any kind of income pays taxes. Perhaps then those who take will have a little more thought to how much they ask the government to "give" them. Free smart phones? Give me a break.
Is the money withheld from my pay for medicare and social security a tax? Is the state income tax a tax? Are sales taxes a tax? Is property tax a tax? Then there's gasoline and tobacco and other taxes. How about paying those tolls on the highway? What about the fees for my car license?
You see, we all pay direct taxes, Marilyn, no matter how low our income may be. We also provide the money that the affluent use to pay their taxes on rental property and their businesses.
So how about the rich put the same percentage of their income into the government that the poor do? Would that be fair?
And it's time that everyone with any kind of income pay the same tax - 10% would do if we reduced the government. 15% max. Everyone, no matter what their income. No deductions. No loopholes. Everyone pays. That would be fair.
But as much as y'all like to use the word "fair" you don't really mean it. What you want is for rich folks to pay more.
You are proving that you know absolutely nothing about ecomonics, the tax system, nor the reason for payroll deductions. More importantly, your "Hollier Than Thou" attitude towards those who are on welfare or some other government assistance program, speaks volumes as to your ethical principles and moral being.
As far as being a taker, I would ask, what disability program did you pay into while you were working. I don't remember there being any such program in my 49 years of blue collar employment.
If you did not pay into a program specifically designated for disability, but are now collecting disability welfare checks, then, by your own accusations and assessment, that would mean that you are one of those "Takers."
Not a provider nor a giver, but a "First Class Taker" and as well as being a "First Class Hypocrite".
Further, depending upon your age and physical condition, you will more than likely be collecting those free "Disability" checks for many years to come.
Scott, you probably already know this, but, in response to your statement about a pay deduction for disability: It's likely that you had L&I {Labor & Industries} deducted from your pay for on the job injuries. Both employee & employer pay a portion--you do not get this back. It sort of covers disability, but it works more like insurance than a long term payout--they expect you to take a settlement at some point, & stop claiming. Social Security Disability is paid out over the long term, for on the job injuries, as well as other injuries & illness. The Social Security deducted from pay covers this as well. If you haven't worked/earned enough to cover the payments, you can still collect.
I think {not sure} budget wise, that & Social Security retirement payments come from separate funds, but, ultimately, any excess over & above what has been individually paid in is supplemented by other tax payers--depending on how much difference there is between what Marilyn paid in & how much she'll receive before she dies, which is likely a huge amount, she is a "taker" according to her own, & Romney's definitions.
Marilyn, not everyone gets back the full amount of Federal Withholding they put in--you don't get back payments taken out of your check for Medicare, L&I, Social Security, Unemployment, etc. directly the way you do when you file an income tax return, ever. You can, however, get back far more than you put in if you need to apply for those benefits. If you're receiving disability, it's really doubtful that even a small percentage of the amount you've already received in cash & medical benefits came from your own pocket. How much are your prescriptions alone/month? Personally, I would think you'd be grateful instead of going around parroting what Romney has to say about "takers"--he was referring to you.
Not happening of course.
So wouuld I, Chris. I am still curious about how this "numbers guy" could not produce anything that looked like a plan.
...then where did all those news quotes from the right-wingers here praising Romney come from?
I would also like to know the source and extent of voter fraud. The Bush Administration did a nationwide study of election irregularities and found less than 100 cases of people voting as someone else and that was in 30 years of elections all over the nation. So there's a good chance, at those rates, that there was no more than one or two cases.
But there are lots of kinds of voter fraud. Like fraudulently removing eligible voters from the voter lists. I wonder how ofter U.S. citizens were disenfranchised by fraud of election officials.
Why didn't the media fawn all over him and praise his every belch, burp, hiccup and fart? Don't they know how privileged we all are to be subjected to those? Why didn't the television cameras show the brilliant, golden aura that conservatives see when they observe any of the 1% in person?
And why didn't the media do more to reveal the deeply offensive aspects of having a negro in charge at the White House?
Americans didn't even realize that they could not be denied coverage based on an Insurance Company whim or a pre-existing condition. This creeping socialism was never revealed.
Could not Fox News have created a LONGER list of half-wits, conspiracy-theorists, washed up relics of failed campaigns to complain about any public praise of the President.
I saved a file of some of the funniest attacks on Mittens when he was running against Santorum, Huckabee, Perry, Gingrich, and Bachman.
On of the looniest authors on Gather, now loudly claiming that votes were rigged against Romney, called Willard dishonest, deceptive, and without character.
Pefect, Rory!
Now we see the real Mitt Romney. A man who fails to bow out with dignity.
MITT YOU WERE A FXXKED CANDIDATE. That's why you lost.
We know what Obama's lies are. They happen constantly. And they were horrible during the campaigning. I see you bought all of Obama's lies once more. Sad.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/12/mitt-romneys-lies
From '100,000 new jobs' to Obama's jobs record to his first name, Mitt Romney has a truth problem
By Robert Schlesinger
January 12, 2012 RSS Feed Print
As his briefly front-running campaign sunk in the polls under relentless punishment from Mitt Romney's "super PAC" allies in the days before the Iowa caucuses, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich caused a brief stir by matter-of-factly telling a TV interviewer that Romney is a "liar."
"Why are you saying he's a liar?" his apparently shocked interlocutor pressed. The notion that Mitt Romney routinely makes statements lacking a factual basis should not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the campaign. On the left, Paul Krugman has marveled that no other candidate has ever "lied so freely, with so little compunction." On the right, The American Conservative's Daniel Larison wondered about why he lies, concluding that the former Massachusetts governor is "so contemptuous of the people he tells lies to that he never thinks he will be found out."
With Romney sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire and leading in the polls in South Carolina, this is a good time to catalogue some of Romney's greatest hits thus far.
"100,000 new jobs." Romney has repeatedly claimed that during his tenure at Bain Capital, "net-net, we created over 100,000 jobs." His campaign defends the figure by tallying the current employment totals of some companies Bain aided. That's a stretch in and of itself, but it's also not a net figure. It lacks the balancing context of how many jobs were destroyed by Bain. As the Los Angeles Times reported in December, while Bain helped some companies grow, "Romney and his team also maximized returns by firing workers, seeking government subsidies, and flipping companies quickly for large profits. Sometimes Bain investors gained even when companies slid into bankruptcy."
Indeed, the Wall Street Journal looked closely at Bain's record under Romney and found that 22 percent "either filed for bankruptcy or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses." Which is not really terribly surprising: Bain's raison d'etre is not job creation but wealth creation for its investors. As Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler noted in an article Monday calling Romney's "100,000 jobs" figure "untenable," Romney and Bain "never could have raised money from investors if the prospectus seeking $1-million investments from the super wealthy had said it would focus on creating jobs."
As a corollary, when Romney's record has been criticized, he has dismissed criticisms as an attempt to "put free enterprise on trial." It's not an attack on free enterprise. It's an attack on Romney's strained attempt to spin his successful record of wealth-creation into one of job-creation. It's also a recognition that while a net good, the free market has its destructive side—and it's a fair question to ask, whether voters consider experience in that sort of vulture capitalism as a good qualification for the presidency. Do they want government to be run more like that kind of business?
Obama's jobs record. By Romney's own logic (touting jobs created but ignoring jobs lost), his attacks on President Obama's economic record are nonsensical. He told Time that Obama "has not created any new jobs," and he told Fox News last week that Obama has "lost" 2 million jobs as president. This is indeed a net figure, but also a misleading one. When Obama took office, the economy was shedding jobs at a rate of nearly 1 million jobs per month, losing roughly 3 million during the first four months of 2009. But presidential policies don't take effect as soon as the incoming chief takes his oath. Once Obama's policies started to take effect, the trend turned. The country had added 3.2 million private sector jobs over the course of 22 straight months of private sector growth. By Romney's definition, the president has created more than 3 million jobs—not enough, but also not none.
In fact the biggest drag on job growth is the 600,000 public sector jobs that have disappeared under the auspices of budget austerity. As my colleague Danielle Kurtzleben reported in September, "government jobs are being shed by the tens of thousands almost every month, hindering an already weak recovery."
"Entitlement society." Romney has argued that Obama "is replacing our merit-based, opportunity society with an entitlement society," where "everyone is handed the same rewards, regardless of education, effort, and willingness to take risk." As New York's Jonathan Chait has observed, "This accusation is approximately as accurate as claiming that the Republican Party wants to pass laws forbidding poor people from making more money." The idea that President Obama (or any Democrat) advocates for equality of outcomes simply lacks a basis in fact.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the budget and deficit.]
It's an important fabrication, because it marks a turning point in Romney's attacks on Obama. Previously the president was characterized as ineffectual, but not a socialist. Forced to battle to win the GOP primaries, Romney has adopted the Tea Party's extremist rhetoric. It won't play with swing voters, even delivered in his polished drone.
Defense cuts. In an October speech on national security, Romney promised to "reverse President Obama's massive defense cuts." One problem: Pentagon spending has gone up under Obama, from $594 billion in 2008 to $666 billion. The 2011 request was for $739 billion. As Rick Perry would say, "Oops."
No apologies. Romney has said that Obama "went around the world and apologized for America." This is part of the conservative, dog-whistle meme that Obama is un-American (and possibly even a foreigner!). While the notion of an international apology tour is a staple of the conservative case against Obama, it is also fictitious. The Washington Post's fact-checker concluded that "the claim that Obama repeatedly has apologized for the United States is not borne out by the facts, especially if his full quotes are viewed in context." Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology from Romney on this one.
"Mitt." It's a small one, but might be my favorite. During a debate in November, when moderator Wolf Blitzer introduced himself by saying that "Wolf" is really his first name, Romney greeted the audience by saying, "I'm Mitt Romney, and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name." In fact, Willard is his first name. It's a lie notable for being so mundane: Why would someone fudge their name? It's almost as if he can't control himself.
Get over that fact that you and your party got your butts kicked.
I just love it when you post one these evidentiary type comments.
Marilyn, you opened a can of worms that now cannot be controlled. It now turns out the Mitt Romney was more of serial liar than even I knew. Now what do you think of the failed candidate you voted for?
Marilyn, your best bet is to do what Republicans have told Romney to do. " JUST SHUT UP!"
R. F., Marilyn and the rest of the anti-Obama crowd hates fact checkers. You are one of the best.
KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK.
November the 7th was in my opinion, the first day of a brighter future for our country, it's government and it's people. Let's bury the past appropriately in history books and move progressively forward. The daily rehashing, discussing and arguing the results of the election, here on Gather News and elsewhere on the internet, only serves to cast a shadow of gloom over what should be a joyous time for our nation.
Sorry if my comment has rained on the doom and gloom crowd who want to continue with the nonsensical debating of that which can not be changed.
It must be hellishly agonizing to live in a world of mental conspriacy, paranoia and maniacal self doubt. I sincerely feel sorry for you, in your self created sphere of anguish and misery.
And I find it funny that one person here living on disability that pays no taxes is running at the mouth about others paying taxes.
I pay taxes so maybe that person shouldnt be looking her gift horse in the mouth..bitch long enough and YOUR program will get taken away.
Are you implying that there is a loudmouth conservative here on GNP, who herself, has been unfortunately forced to depend on a monthly disability welfare check for her existance. A conservative member who has been posting comments in opposition to other Americans in similar circumstances, receiving government assistance ?
It simply can't be true, you must be mistaken. I say this because, absolutely no self respecting, anti government, anti social program conservative, would ever even consider receiving one of those Obama "Gifts."
Everyone knows that only us, lazy, non tax paying, 47%ers, beg for and depend upon government assistance programs and Obama freebie handouts.
Oh yes, the "real Republican belief that pregnancey cannot result from rape, that the earth is a few thousand years old, that the chief purpose of government (reflecting the number of bills introduced and passed) is to force intrusive medical practices upon women.
The anti-factual, anti-scientific gibberish of the right is omnipresent.
Pray tell, how can it be "explained" better?
Then the People spoke. Well, they didn't actually speak: they inked in dots, pulled levers, dechadded the lineal descendants of Hollerith cards, and in sundry other ways made their preferences known. And in the end, they decided that they liked one guy (or his policies, or his handshake, or his kids, or some equally relevant criterion) better than the other. And then the Blatherators are fired up again, like demented chainsaws, to explain why. But it comes down to something very, very simple. A small majority of U.S. voters thought that B.H. Obama would do a better job as President than W.M. Romney. What's so hard to explain? What's so hard to understand? Either the voting citizens of the United States are so incomparably STOOOPID that they cannot among them generate an actual cogent thought or opinion without help from the media, or... just maybe... they are actually capable of rational thought, and they just liked one guy and his policies better than they did the other guy and his policies. The Republicans can try to explain all of this to us for the next thirty election cycles, but it comes down to one thing: the majority preferred Obama. Don't give us crap about not explaining; don't give us crap about "gifts", don't give us crap about anything. Just look at the results and understand that the American People on the whole didn't like your guy.
And fire up those Blatherators, because the next Presidential election is only a few short months -- about 47 of them -- away.