Mittens Spills the Beans

Mittens has said he expected to be booed when he said he would repeal Obamacare.

Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he “expected” the negative response to his address earlier in the morning at the NAACP convention in Houston, where he was booed after vowing to repeal President Obama’s signature healthcare law.

“We expected that,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee told Fox Business Network’s Neil Cavuto in a interview set to air later in the day. “I am going to give the same message to the NAACP that I give across the country, which is that ObamaCare is killing jobs, and if jobs is the priority, we are going to have to replace it with something that actually holds down healthcare costs, as opposed to something that causes more spending for the government and more spending for American families.”

Never mind there is no evidence “Obamacare” is “killing jobs”; never mind there is evidence it already is slowing the rise in health care costs and will save the taxpayer’s money — would it have killed him to say “Affordable Care Act” instead of “Obamacare”? It’s one thing to say he disagrees with the President’s policies, but outright ridicule is just asking for it. And of course, Mittens was asking for it.

He said later of his audience at the NAACP, “If they want more free stuff from the government, tell them to vote for the other guy.” Yeah, them black folks just want the government to take care of them. Where have we heard that before?

Even George W. Bush wasn’t that blatantly racist.

Update: Mittens lied about when he left Bain. Next: New reports say sky is blue, grass green.

14 thoughts on “Mittens Spills the Beans

  1. “THEY.” “THEM.”

    Mitt’s got the racist bases heart’s all aflutter!
    Oh, be still their foolish racist hearts…
    Why did they ever doubt him?

    Mitt went into the Black Lions Den,” spit in the Black Lion’s eyes, and the “Black Savages” boo’d the poor white man, who was speaking “truth to power!”

    And then he told “THEM” that if “THEY” want free sh*t, that “THEY” should vote for THE OTHER GUY!”
    That, folks, ain’t dog-whistling, that’s cranking the wall of amps up to 11!

    Suddenly, Mitt doesn’t just look like just the whitest white man to ever run for President – he’s THEIR whitest white man running for President!

    And, the whiter the white man, the more they love him!!!

    Too bad Edgar and Johnny Winter aren’t Conservative politicians.

  2. Mittens is an elder in the Mormon cult, he has been conditioned to treat colored folk in a manner consistent with his religious beliefs

    My tinfoil hat thinks this may be a trick to get the niggras all riled up about Mitt the racist, then he’ll pick Condie for VP. Why then he’ll be able to say and do whatever, how could he be a racist and pick that colored woman for VP?

  3. Update: Mittens lied about when he left Bain.

    The last sentence of the linked article reads:

    In Romney’s 2002 race for governor, he testified before the state Ballot Law Commission that his separation from Bain in 1999 had been a “leave of absence” and not a final departure.

    If that’s accurate, and he never came back from the leave of absence, IMO Mitt’s statement isn’t a lie.

    Rest is fine.

    • If that’s accurate, and he never came back from the leave of absence, IMO Mitt’s statement isn’t a lie.

      But as late as 2002 he was still telling shareholders that he was managing Bain. So either he lied to the Ballot Law Commission or he lied to the shareholders. From the beginning of the Boston Globe article:

      Government documents filed by Mitt Romney and Bain Capital say Romney remained chief executive and chairman of the firm three years beyond the date he said he ceded control, even creating five new investment partnerships during that time.

      Romney has said he left Bain in 1999 to lead the winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, ending his role in the company. But public Securities and Exchange Commission documents filed later by Bain Capital state he remained the firm’s “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president.”

      Also, a Massachusetts financial disclosure form Romney filed in 2003 states that he still owned 100 percent of Bain Capital in 2002. And Romney’s state financial disclosure forms indicate he earned at least $100,000 as a Bain “executive” in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings.

      The timing of Romney’s departure from Bain is a key point of contention because he has said his resignation in February 1999 meant he was not responsible for Bain Capital companies that went bankrupt or laid off workers after that date.

      In something I read this morning and can’t find now, someone suggested that people who were shareholders of Bain from 1999 to 2002 have cause for a lawsuit, since the company was misrepresenting its management. The company made some bad investments and got a lot of people laid off during that 1999-2002 period, and Romney has been saying he wasn’t involved and can’t be blamed for that.

      So how big of a stooge do you have to be to say he wasn’t lying?

  4. He won’t pick Condi.
    She may well be, “one of those, you know – women who like women.”
    And she’s on record as being pro-choice.
    So, Bush toadie that she is, was, and ever more will be, the base won’t accept her. Allen West – yes! Condi – no.

    I can’t stand her, but I think she’s much more a person of her convictions than Mitt – whose only convictions, are whatever will get him elected.

  5. He went in to lecture the “help”.

    A$$hole. He really goes out of his way to be offensive. I remember when politicians tried to be likable– even W took a few stabs at that.

  6. “Bankers who get hundreds of millions of dollars in bailout money, however, can expect more free stuff than ever.”

  7. The details do matter, but we don’t really need to know more than we already do.

    The point of saying he “left in 1999” is that if he did, he can’t be blamed for all the stuff the firm did after that. But, whether or not he was showing up to the office, I don’t think even he is saying he didn’t remain the owner and chairman. Does he expect me to believe that if he objected to anything the firm was doing, he couldn’t have stopped it with a phone call?

    So, then, the best you can argue is that he just wasn’t paying attention to what they were doing, he was just banking the profits while other guys were doing all the work. Plausible, but it shows a fairly cavalier attitude about details that worries me in the context of a candidate for President. He didn’t even read the quarterly reports? Get a regular update phone call? The White House has to stay on top of a bunch of very delicate stuff simultaneously, much of it life-or-death, and also dollars-and-cents. How’s he going to cope with that?

    As I see it, either he’s lying and he was aware of what was happening in the firm and OK with it, OR he was tuned out and ignoring important details because his attention was completely absorbed by a much smaller job that President of the United States, working on the Salt Lake Olympics.

    I want a President who can keep track and influence what the Department of the Interior is doing at the same time as he’s coping with an issue at the Pentagon, and is still reading the reports from the CIA and the Department of Agriculture, not one who will turn around and say, “Yeah, I’m not responsible for what the Army just did, because I was busy with the G20 summit and wasn’t involved in the decisions.”

  8. But as late as 2002 he was still telling shareholders that he was managing Bain. So either he lied to the Ballot Law Commission or he lied to the shareholders….

    In something I read this morning and can’t find now, someone suggested that people who were shareholders of Bain from 1999 to 2002 have cause for a lawsuit, since the company was misrepresenting its management.

    So, the disclosures to shareholders and/or regulators may have been out of order — I don’t know or particularly care what the laws and regs require in that case. All I’m saying is, if I were to take a year’s leave of absence from work starting tomorrow, and then quit at the end of that leave, then I don’t think it would be dishonest of me to later say “I left that job in 2012.”

  9. This takes a potential positive– helping with the Olympics– and makes it a question mark. Let’s hear it for Obama’s team; they seem to be playing hardball.

  10. ‘pfair’ly, to completely, ignorant,

    No – as I’m sure you know.

    What you don’t know, I’m sure, is that by widening the pool of payers to include more people, it lowers the cost.

    The alternative is the Conservative Plan – which is to do virtually nothing.

    They want to “repeal” and “replace.”
    Well, 33 times they’ve tried to repeal it – and not ONCE offered a plan to replace it – besides some lame-ass talking points.

    So, either get informed and come back and discuss things, or, better yet, ‘Go – and never darken our towels’ again!’*

    *Groucho Marx – since I’m sure that would never figure that out, just like you can’t figure out what’s in your own best interests.

  11. “The alternative is the Conservative Plan – which is to do virtually nothing”

    Actually the conservative plan is to insulate healthcare providers and insurance firms from any liability, i.e. tort reform. That’s how they will insure the millions by making sure that lousy doctors and greedy insurance companies can’t get sued, it makes perfect sense! I mean thier are limits to the value of a human life, unless of course it has not been born yet.

Comments are closed.