The Moral Abomination That Calls Itself Mitt Romney

This rant is too good to not share.

There no longer exists any doubt that Mitt Romney intends to win the White House by conducting the most dishonest, unscrupulous and reprehensible campaign ever devised, in mere whimsy. The unethical stench of this man is not only breathtaking, it’s meteoric. I have never seen anything like it, never heard anything like it, never imagined anything like it.

All you American political history books, move over; there’s a new king of demagoguery in town, and future history will never see his malevolent depths of dishonor again.

What triggered this outburst? Today in St. Louis, just today, in just this one day, mind you, this despicable wretch of a man called President Obama’s economic policies a “moral failure of tragic proportions”; and he threw in, just for the hell of it, I guess, that “There is nothing fair about a government that favors political connections over honest competition and takes away your right to earn your own success. And there is nothing morally right about trying to turn government dependence into a substitute for the dignity of work.”

It’s only June, and Mitt Romney has already exhausted all the hideous possibilities of a Dorian Gray mentality that would make even Oscar Wilde blush. Moral. That’s this pathetic, vile little pol’s new favorite word. Moral. Here’s a man who leads a party that endorses torture as well as unprovoked war, and coddles the rich while showing indifference to the poor. Moral.

Combine Gray with Elmer Gantry and you’d still come up short of the “moral” abomination that calls itself Mitt Romney.

Pathetic, vile little pol. Definitely a keeper.

___

(The Romney source photograph is a Creative Commons licensed image from photographer Gage Skidmore.)

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook, Twitter and Google+.
.

 

40 thoughts on “The Moral Abomination That Calls Itself Mitt Romney

  1. Please, someone reassure me that this liar cannot possibly be elected POTUS! If the electorate stoops so low as to vote this man into office (and I wouldn’t put it past them – they voted Nixon a second term), then this country has completely and totally lost its way and there’s little hope for redemption.

  2. I hope that the American people are not stupid enough to elect this man. Of course I had the same wish in 2004 and was sorely disappointed that time.

  3. Yeah, Charlie, so was I. We’ve elected one liar in chief – that’s what scares me about electing another. It’s is absolutely scary that the right will believe anything these people say without question — even when they change the narrative.

    First is was the poor homeowners who caused the crash, not it’s the teacher’s unions that brought down our economy.

    I hate to make the comparison, I really, really do, but I feel like I’m living in Germany in 1938.

  4. The sheeple teabags were trained to hate Obama so much that they can’t think straight. They would vote for Charlie Manson if he was running.

  5. Diana & Charlie – Never , ever forget this. You can’t underestimate the stupidity of the public – and especially the voting public.

  6. Are all liberals as blind as this? Mitt Romney would not have been my first choice to lead our party but in comparison to the current president, he is Washington, Lincoln and Reagan rolled into one. Mario’s illustration, as lovely as it is, would have been more honest if those cardboard cutouts had images of Obama on them instead of Romney. Mitt Romney had a long and successful business career as well as 4 years as Governor of Massachusetts. The same could not be said of Obama. We have never had a president less prepared to govern this country. You are correct Mr. Blair, never underestimate the stupidity of the public.

  7. Romney has nothing in common with Honest Abe or George Washington, could could not tell a lie. And whether or not either of those statements are true, one thing is certain — both were more honest that Mitt Romney. Hell – even with Reagan’s Iran-Contra lies, I’d give him more credit for the truth than Romney.

    Reagan, like Nixon, should have resigned for that scandal.

    Eisenhower might have been the last honest GOP president. One that put his country before his party and his personal bank account (or that of his children). I might give some chops to Bush 41. At least he had the sense to get out of Iraq.

    But please, don’t dishonor the memory of two of our greatest Presidents by offering any comparison to them with Mitt Romney.

    Both would find him repugnant, as both were true patriots to this country. Romney is nothing more than a corporate raider who has set his sights on taking ownership of the US of A so he can dismantle it and make as much money off of it as he can for himself and his investors.

    A like all corporate raiders, the ends justify the means.

    Your comparison is shameful and I can guarantee that you will never find Romney’s likeness anywhere near Mt. Rushmore!

  8. That’s ok RedStateGal – bet you voted for Bush. Bet I’m right.

    You can sit in your Republican Tea Party Sean Hannity echo chamber and go on about how horrible Obama is, but you hate to admit that he killed Bin Laden and pulled the country back in an upward direction after your guy sent us spinning into the sewer. Not an easy task – especially with the Repubs fighting him all the way out of spite and racism.

    No, Obama isn’t perfect. The economy isn’t fixed. But we are doing better than almost any other country in the world. That is the comparison we should be looking at – not whether Obama got into office and brought back the prosperity of the Clinton years with the wave of his wand. Your guy f*****d it up too much for that to happen.

    But hey, if you really believe Romney will fix the economy by giving even more tax breaks to the rich, go for it. If you think Romney will be good for foreign affairs by bringing the Bush neo-con team back to the white house, go for it. But if you only have reasoning skills on that level you might want to save your voting privileges for American Idol. That won’t effect my country at all…

    Bet you voted for Bush. Bet I’m right.

  9. OC Liberal – Don’t be too hard on redState girl. You have to make allowances for the fact that she is naive enough to believe that if everyone in government was a Christian they’d all be nice and fair. You also have to take into account that she’s not used to thinking for herself, but repeating what she’s been told, whether they’re prayers or political slogans. Everything she says comes out of some preacher’s prayerbook or some politician’s playbook.

  10. Well, my life would be SO MUCH easier if I just followed someone or something like a drone. but I sure wouldn’t be proud of that.

  11. Do liberals honestly think they’re superior to conservatives, or is tearing down conservatives just their way of building each others’ self-esteem?

    ““There is nothing fair about a government that favors political connections over honest competition and takes away your right to earn your own success. And there is nothing morally right about trying to turn government dependence into a substitute for the dignity of work.”

    It’s only June, and Mitt Romney has already exhausted all the hideous possibilities of a Dorian Gray mentality that would make even Oscar Wilde blush. Moral. That’s this pathetic, vile little pol’s new favorite word. Moral. Here’s a man who leads a party that endorses torture as well as unprovoked war, and coddles the rich while showing indifference to the poor. Moral.

    Notice how the author attacked the man, without ever addressing the issues raised by the man. It’s just another example of how the left shoots the messenger when they don’t agree with the message.

  12. Notice how the author attacked the man, without ever addressing the issues raised by the man. It’s just another example of how the left shoots the messenger when they don’t agree with the message.

    Knock it off, Tommy. Those points have been addressed a zillion times by countless people. It has no effect on the actions of Republicans. They don’t give a shit. They’re on a mission to take down this president and have been so since day one. They’ve been blocking every effort to deal with the state of the economy because it serves their purposes to do so. The last thing that Republicans want between now and November is an upturn in the economy.

    Do you understand this basic point or not?

  13. Seems to me that the subject of the rant was the one attacking the man and avoiding the issues. Romney was giving voice to the old trope that people who call themselves conservatives have a monopoly on morality, when, in fact, their moral character is at least as deficient as that of the people they criticize.

  14. What can we say. First, they accuse our president of being a “terrorist” supporter, even AFTER America’s most hated, Osama Bin Laden is brought to justice under President Obama’s watch. Heck, they give BUSH credit, even though 9-11 happened under HIS watch, and even AFTER stated on LIVE INTERNATIONAL television that catching Bin Laden just was not a priority for him, these HATEFUL SOBS vote Bush for a second term. Each and every person who “re”elected Bush must actually have been in cahoots with Bush in protecting Bin Laden. SICK doesn’t even begin how I feel.

  15. Actually, EVERYTHING that the repubs accuse the dems of doing, and I mean everything, they themselves ( the repubs) are doing, or plan to do in the near future.

  16. “Knock it off, Tommy.”

    Really? Knock it off? Are your debating skills slipping, or are you just having a bad day today?

    I agree with E.A., and with Sydney. Except with Sydney’s comment, the projection works both ways. I see the world as a house of mirrors. I see in you, what’s in me, and you see in me, what’s in you. People fight about things that could be easily resolved if each of us just took responsibility for our own shit.

  17. Let me say it again…knock it off, Tommy. I did write something after my first ‘knock it off” which offers a reason as to why I wrote it. Convenient of you to just ignore it.

    And if you agree with E.A., why would you make the statement you made in your first comment?

    While you see the world as a house of mirrors, millions are suffering from this economy but you’re still going to vote for the guy who plans on continuing the Bush policies that were a major reason for the economic collapse. You support a party that is doing all they can to obstruct government and economic recovery because it is in their political interests to do so.

    Do you take any responsibility for that shit?

  18. Is this what political debate is? Expressing our thoughts and sticking to every one of them regardless of facts or circumstances? What’s the point?

    Tommy, I don’t expect you to turn around and suddenly announce that you’ve seen the light and will spend the rest of your life defending liberal causes. You’re a Libertarian and I can and do respect your sincere belief in its principles. We can even find agreement on some of those principles…social issues for example…although for entirely different reasons.

    But what happens when you’re presented with facts or historical content that goes against some of those beliefs? Do you take the time to reflect on those beliefs within the context of newly discovered data or information? Do you conform any of your previously held beliefs based on this information or do you stick to your guns and stubbornly refuse to change a single comma?

    This is what I find frustrating about debate of a political nature. Facts don’t seem to count. If presented with something that does not support one’s beliefs, then simple sidestep the argument and attack with some unrelated issue or simple claim that both sides do it. End of argument.

    Have a good night.

  19. You’re finally starting to see it the way I do. It’s people’s attachment to beliefs that cause conflicts, not the facts. Facts are indisputable, beliefs are irrefutable.

    You absolutely believe you’re right. I absolutely believe I’m right. People will go to war to enforce, or defend, what they absolutely believe to be right.

    Wars are not won by the side that’s wrong. Since both sides think they’re right, the right side always wins. “Winning” means convincing more people than the other guy, that you’re right.

    Every conflict is based on a belief held by someone, which is in conflict with a belief held by someone else. Facts can’t dissuade beliefs, so there’s “no convincing them”.

    Hence, why we have political debates.

    Sweet dreams.

  20. Well, there you have it, Mario. (He) could have just said that one thing, >Facts can’t dissuade beliefs, so there’s no convincing them. < Oh wait, can't forget the "no convincing them"

    I pulled that thorn out of my side. I pulled it out, then stomped on it until the thorn no longer holds me hostage. I was held by those ever lovin' ways so many Christians get stuck in. Beliefs over facts. I learned to listen, let myself be educated by the experience, and intelligence of others. Allowing myself to see through the eyes, and ears of others. Then I started reading other books. I researched, A LOT, not so convinced that the things I learned had any basis to change my beliefs, and what happened??? I found FACTS!!! I feel more free as a Christian then I ever did before.

    Something for redstategirl: Liberals here are not blind. The liberals on this site, they actually took the time to listen to you, even though you insult them with. "are all liberals blind as this?" Cone on, now. I'm Christian. I'm a voting Democrat, and I live in a blue state, and this makes life harder because the majority of our politicians in power here, are GOP. Ask other Christians outside of your church if they like your idea of a theocratic nation. I'm one that does not. Why? It sure isn't fear of Christ or his teachings, it's the Christians themselves. You certainly gave the people here a taste of the very reason why they don't trust Christians.
    There is also the fact that this nation is suppose to live by our Constitution. That is, we are all equal to each other in living in this country. We are NOT to build a theocratic nation because, and regardless, if you got your schooling right or should I say, right public schooling, or not, it is Constitutionally illegal. I think you have a gift here. You could learn something. You don't have to change to learn, but it would be good to take the time to research what you could learn here. We have an individual mind for a reason. We were created that way. :)

  21. From Romney: “…government dependence into a substitute for the dignity of work.” I recall this — the dignity to work even if you’re a new mom – it only counts if you’re poor. If you rich, not so much. Your dignity to work as a stay at home mom only counts if your rich enough to afford it.

    Now I understand Tommy completely:

    Tommy said, “People fight about things that could be easily resolved if each of us just took responsibility for our own shit.”

    Then Tommy said, “Facts can’t dissuade beliefs, so there’s “no convincing them. Hence, why we have political debates.”

    You don’t have to take responsibility for your own shit, if your beliefs have no basis in reality. Beliefs trump facts and that’s the basis for political debate.

    Hmmm….I’m guessing more often than not, beliefs are the basis for war. Most people debate facts — what are they? How were they determined? What do they mean? What will be their effect? Debate is used to persuade. As history has shown us time and again, beliefs are used to go to war. Debate won’t kill you; war will.

    Gotta love that logic.

  22. No, Tommy, I don’t think I’m seeing it the way you do.

    “Beliefs are irrefutable.”

    No, they’re not. Why would you think that beliefs are impossible to disprove? You just made my entire case here, that is, that facts don’t seem to matter to people like you. You’re not a country at war for personal gain, you’re not even a slimy politician seeking power at the expense of truth and integrity, willing to screw the electorate for any cost. You’re a businessman and citizen who gets to cast a vote every couple of years. Your beliefs should matter to you and should be ground in the best knowledge available, should they not? Beliefs should not be pawns in a game of one-upmanship for the simple reason that they very much define who we are.

    So, tell me please, what is your excuse for refusing to allow facts to alter your beliefs?

  23. There is a difference between refuting beliefs and changing them. It’s actually quite easy to refute someone else’s belief, but damned hard to make that person give it up, even in the face of contradictory facts.

    There’s an excellent book on the topic: Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) : Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. One of my favorite quotes in the book comes from a section in which the authors are discussing the notion that much of the South has never gotten over the Civil War: “Slavery may be gone with the wind, but grudges aren’t. That’s why history is written by the victors, but it is the victims who write the memoirs.” (page 197).

  24. If we could all live by the Japanese proverb, “A wise man changes his mind,” the world would be the better for it. The proverb doesn’t mean that you should capriciously change your mind at the drop of a hat but, when you have more complete facts to analyze and a different direction than that you initially took becomes obvious you would be foolish to stick stubbornly to your original opinion.

  25. “Beliefs are irrefutable.”

    No, they’re not. Why would you think that beliefs are impossible to disprove?

    Try convincing a Christian that Heaven isn’t waiting for them, or a radical Muslin that 72 virgins will be their reward for killing thousands of infidels. Try convincing someone with a fear of flying that modern commercial aviation is far safer than driving their car through their own neighborhood.

    What someone believes can be proven wrong with facts, but the attachment to the belief is often stronger than the facts. What was the last personally harmful habit you wanted to let go of, but just couldn’t? Smoking? Drinking? Overeating? Gambling? The facts are there, telling you why it’s a good idea to stop, but you just kept doing it. Beneath the rational mind, are beliefs that drive us to act irrationally.

    We all have them. I look for them in myself continuously. If I’m not getting what I consciously ask for, I assume that there’s an unconscious belief guiding me to get whatever it is I am getting.

    The key to letting go of beliefs, is not being attached to them. Beliefs are not who we are, but people think they are what they believe. They become attached to a belief as if it’s part of who they are. People forget that they’re the observer, not that which is being observed.

    “So, tell me please, what is your excuse for refusing to allow facts to alter your beliefs?”

    Every question that you ask me, ask yourself first. Liberals have just as many locked in beliefs as conservatives. To believe otherwise, is a little self-righteous.

  26. Well Tommy, I have a comment. You said you think you have it right and Mario thinks he has it right.

    What is the subject? I guess it is the political operation of society.

    This is like two mechanics diagnosing the problem with a car. You have differing prescriptions for fixing the vehicle. What you often fail to acknowledge is that facts can be your guide. Mario says Keynesian economics, you say Libertarian doctrine (fill in the curator here, Ayn Rand?).

    Mario has decades of evidence showing that his method is heavily tested and used by nations all over the world. While not a panacea, it is the best theory that has worked over the past 100 years for Capitalistic Democracies.

    You have a belief system that has not been tested. There are no examples of countries solving their economic woes with your theory.

  27. “Well Tommy, I have a comment. You said you think you have it right and Mario thinks he has it right.

    What is the subject? I guess it is the political operation of society.”

    When I made that comment, OC, I was speaking generically. I wasn’t referencing a specific subject. My point wasn’t focused on a subject, it was focused on the power of beliefs and their impact on peoples’ decision making process.

  28. You are right, I was diverting to a more general subject. It just seems it is always grounded in that.

  29. Tommy I have a question for you. I believe I saw a post of yours where you stated that “the rivers would not turn to sewers” if the government would just get out of the regulation business.
    So my question is, why are the corporations such as those owned by the Koch brothers, poisoning the public waters, air and lands as we post away.
    Why don’t they just do what you believe they would do if the government was not evolved. Are they like children who don’t want to clean their rooms because their parents told them to?
    Also, I have a regulated meat/sausage business, how many people would I have to sicken with with contagion before I would be stopped?
    I am asking these questions seriously, if you don’t mind answering in a serious way, I would appreciate it.

  30. Tommy, when I was a very little girl, I saw my first elephant…I said, “Mommy, mommy, look it’s an elephant!”

    I truly believed I was seeing an elephant for the first time. I was soooo excited. It was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen.

    And then facts got in the way when my mother told me, “No, honey, that’s not an elephant, it’s a cow.”

    So I could have stuck to my belief that it was an elephant, or I could have faced facts and taken my mother’s word for it that it was a cow.

    Guess which one I chose — belief or fact?

  31. Sydney, I don’t know how Tommy will answer but anyone who wants to know what an unregulated meat packing business looks like need read no further than Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Anyone who thinks the business has developed moral principles enough to run unregulated is a maroon (Bugs Bunny terminology).

  32. @Diana. She hasn’t arrived yet but your well wishes are much appreciated. Due date is tomorrow but I’m predicting she’ll make her grand entrance into the world on Friday.

    @Charlie. Good choice of books to illustrate what a Republican (or worse, Libertarian) country would be like – early 20th century America where workers had few rights, social programs were nonexistent, poverty was out of control and few regulations existed to stem corruption from the rich. A time when the rich got richer and the poor struggled with little chance of bettering their lives. A time when the prevailing attitudes were those of Social Darwinism.

    Bugs Bunny ‘maroon’ here.

  33. Sydney – I’ve consistently said that sensible regulations are necessary in an orderly society. As an argument against libertarian views, liberals will often say that we want to turn the country into Somalia. To say things like that about libertarians is a lie, which I thought was against what liberals stood for. Being against over-regulation, isn’t the same as being against all regulations.

  34. Is it an elephant or a cow?

    MODERNIZING CONSERVATISM

    Steven F. Hayward

    Rigorous analyses from centrist economists Christina and David Romer of UC Berkeley4, and from libertarian economist (and Reagan White House alumnus) William Niskanen conclude that the starve-the-beast strategy fails. Strikingly, Niskanen’s analysis found that lower taxes correlated with higher levels of federal spending. As a result, Niskanen argues that raising taxes may be the most effective way to reduce government spending.

    William A. Niskanen, who passed away in 2011, was chairman emeritus and a distinguished senior economist at the Cato Institute. Between 1985 and 2008, Niskanen was the chairman of the Cato Institute, following service as a member and acting chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. Niskanen also served as director of economics at the Ford Motor Company, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley and Los Angeles, assistant director of the federal Office of Management and Budget, a defense analyst at the Rand Corporation, the director of special studies in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the director of the Program Analysis division at the Institute of Defense Analysis. He wrote on many public policy issues including corporate governance, defense, federal budget policy, regulation, Social Security, taxes, and trade. Niskanen’s 1971 book Bureaucracy and Representative Government is considered a classic. His final book was Reflections of a Political Economist: Selected Articles on Government Policies and Political Processes.

    From http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj26n3/cj26n3-8.pdf

    Problems with Starve the Beast

    There are three major problems with the starve-the-beast argument:
    (1) it is not a plausible economic theory; (2) it is inconsistent with the facts; and (3) it has diverted attention away from the political reforms needed to limit government growth.

  35. Slavery ended in the sixties -THE NINETEEN SIXTIES after a four-hundred year run, followed by Jim Crow enslavement well into the 20th Century. I would like to know what word(s) were used in the households of Bohner, Mitch McConnell to describe people of color when these folks were growing up. Of course, you would never get the truth; nor the real reason these people and folks of their ilk had the singular DAY-ONE objective of ousting President Obama. I think the real reason these old white guys had it in for him was the color of his skin.
    No, no it’s his “Socialist” philosophy…balderdash! From the left Mr. Obama seems little different from his predecessor except that he’s smarter and tells the truth.

    Know how yo can tell Mitt is lying? Well, he gets sort of “jumpy” in his skin and then his lips start moving. (Who, btw, in debates with Ted Kennedy in the nineties was whipped like a rented mule. I look forward to the face to face between the Shape-shifter and President Obama. Should be great theatre.

    Mitt, THE ROMNEYAN SHAPE-SHIFTER, the Wall street Gekko raider and ineffectual governor . Why would anyone vote for this empty suit?

Comments are closed.