This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 19, 2012 10:50 AM. The previous post in this blog was More layoffs in wind energy. The next post in this blog is Time to rename the soccer stadium?. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Mitt Romney: America's Eileen Brady

His candidacy is foundering.

Comments (21)

Jack --

Thank you for the correct use of "foundering".

I am so tired of reading the excreble "floundering" in the Zero and other print outlets.

That's a great analogy, Jack. Eileen was the best person for the job. Instead, we'll get an entrenched, narcissistic, union-pandering over-spender.

Hear hear, Nonny. I've asked people who use "floundering" if they even know what it means. What always terrifies me is that they don't even know what a flounder is, much less why something might want to impersonate it. (That's a pet peeve of mine that even exceeds the misuse of "penultimate" as referring to "going above and beyond the ultimate".)

Founder certainly fits the case, but flounder could be apt as well in the sense of clumsily flopping about to no good effect. I think you need to modify it by saying flounder around, or flounder aimlessly-to say simply the candidacy is floundering would be incorrect, as you say.

Yawn.... Typical liberal chest beating. The liberals have certainly turned a blind eye to reality...

Yes, reality is on the Rush Limbaugh Show.

"Eileen was the best person for the job."

Not so much in my opinion. I see the parallels between her and Mitt in the sense that she had scads of money to spend on her campaign, and all she really did was say "I have business experience, and I will use that experience in running the city as mayor." There were few specifics, and voters were asked to take a leap of faith based on the fact that she was married to a former minority shareholder in New Seasons. Obviously, it didn't work. Admittedly, she was a better choice than Nutsy or Char-Lie, but that isn't saying much.

Mitt says he will make 14 million jobs, without doing anything more than tax cuts for the rich (exactly how large they will be is to be determined in consulting with the Tea Party bullies in Congress), shrinking the social safety nets provided by Social Security and Medicare, and gutting the regulatory apparatus overseeing his buddies on Wall Street.

Admittedly, Eileen was a better choice than Nutsy or Char-Lie, but that isn't saying much. Scott Fernandez was the best person for the job as Portland's mayor. He's not a developer/union/Goldschmidt hack so he didn't make it out of the primary.

A minor nit-pick, U.K.: Romney is pledging to create 12 million jobs, not 14 million (and I guess each of the 2 million of the difference is potentially important to someone). And that happens to be the number of jobs that can be expected to be added to the economy if nobody does anything different going forward. So it's not much of a commitment, if any.

Sure they are both wealthy and supposedly entrepreneurs but a huge difference is that Romney has held a major political office. Brady was a political neophyte. So Romney really doesn't have a good excuse for his campaign incompetence - except that he is a big goober.

The latest polls show Obama and Romney neck and neck. That is not exactly foundering in my book.

Any R would founder on the shoals of polls (yuk, yuk) of D +13 (or even D +8) bias. Does anyone really expect D turnout to be the same or greater than in '08?

Or is that the "hope" of hope 'n' change talking?

We could ask Jay-Z, Beyonce' or Letterman for a more unbiased opinion, I suppose...

And that happens to be the number of jobs that can be expected to be added to the economy if nobody does anything different going forward. So it's not much of a commitment, if any.

Yes, it might be a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the problem is that he wants to take credit for those jobs, wherever and however they might emerge. Obama is guilty of this as well, to be sure.

I've pretty much written off the presidential election. The best we can hope for is congressional gridlock.

I hope every supporter of the current White House resident takes this to heart, and assumes that all is lost for Romney. That way they can devote their efforts and rhetoric to the other more important things.

No need to send any more money towards the incumbent's campaign, or engage in GOTV efforts. Simply cast your vote for President Obama, or if preoccupied with other matters, you don't even need to bother going to the polls as the President now has it in the bag for an easy victory.

It's so good to hear that this Presidential campaign is over.

I'd hate to be in a foxhole with the current crop of Republicans, though my guess is that they wouldn't be there too long once the going got tough. Republicans used to win elections by marshaling all their might behind their guy. Now, all the GOP insiders bail out at the first sign of trouble, pausing only to name some scapegoats. Cheer up, guys, you've got hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on deceitful attack ads, and six more weeks to run them.

Twelve consecutive years of blaming Clinton and Obama for everything up to and including cloudy days seem to have eroded the GOP's collective critical-thinking skills. "The party of personal responsibility" never stops blamestorming long enough to consider that their product may be flawed.

Well if the Romney campaign is floundering, why are the polls so close this week?
Nevada is a battle ground state; and unless the Democrats in Las Vegas all turn out, Nevada looks like it will go for Romney.

Well if the Romney campaign is floundering, why are the polls so close this week?

Pew shows Romney down 51-43 in their latest poll, which is the widest margin I've seen. You can really find pretty much whatever you're looking for in the poll scores. Politico has a poll with Obama up 47-46 among "likely voters" and 52-37 among the general public.

I noticed that Nate Silver of 538.com dropped Obama's likelihood of victory down from 80/81 percent to something like 74 at the end of last week. A case could be made that Romney got some initial bounce from the embassy attacks in Libya/Egypt.

Pew's survey was taken Sept. 12-16, which is prior to all the "47 percent stuff."

What was all that whining I was hearing after the 2010 election wondering how the polls could be so wrong?

Polling is just another way of lying with numbers.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day.

Is somebody hedging their bets? Obama thinks he will lose?


Jack you are too kind to Romney, Eileen is clearly a much better person.

Looks like O's long game reelection plan is so far working out better than could possibly be expected. Let the Repubs hang themselves with their ideological bs and their candidate will self destruct, just like McCain (and for that matter Bush 2005 on). Bibi still might have an October something up his selve to try and bail his utterly cynical buddy out but things look good at the moment. I just hope to god the D's can hold the Senate, but what we really need is Pelosi back in charge so some s*** can get done again... Sadly Rove's Citizens United cash will probably keep the lying cynics running the house (as opposed to the Dems who I consider merely contemptuous liars)

Not much good is going to get done. Corporate CEOs and foreign banks have this country by the short hairs, and another financial swoon could happen any day. But if O gets another four years, at least we won't get the most backward Supreme Court in 75 years.

Clicky Web Analytics