You are currently browsing the monthly archive for April 2012.
Dave Wilkinson, a former secret service agent, gave an interview to discuss the scandal involving the secret service agents involved with prostitutes in Colombia.
Several comments were made during this interview that now seem absurd, given what we know about the acts of the Secret Service in Colombia. Mr. Wilkinson reported that:
1. The Secret Service has “0-tolerance for any type of misconduct.”
2. These agents are the “Best of the Best.”
3. With the Secret Service, “reputation is everything.”
4. The Secret Service will investigate this scandal to the “nth-degree.”
5. Any misstep will get you fired.
6. This is a case of a few bad apples.
To suggest that these agents are the “Best of the Best” brings back memories of Will Smith in the Men in Black, laughing at people who thought of themselves as the “Best of the Best,” but who were clueless about their job.
To suggest that the Secret Service agents and the military personnel in Colombia represented the “Best of the Best,” after they spent the evening partying with prostitutes, and then refused to pay the agreed upon amount for their good time, suggests that they were the Worst of the Worst. Not only did they engage in behavior that was morally reprehensible, but they didn’t even have the common decency to honor their agreement to pay the price for which they contracted. The phrase “honor among thieves” has been described as the phenomena that “ lying thieving bastards can trust each other.” In this case the Best of the Best may have qualified as lying thieving bastards, but they couldn’t be trusted, even by their partners in crime.
Bob Costa of the Nation Review devotes three pages to an article about Romney’s pick of a Vice Presidential candidate in a “Post-Palin” world. He concludes that the lesson of Sarah Palin and the 2008 election is that long resumes are in, and fiery rising stars are out. He observes that because Romney is a “competent manager” he will be smart enough not to pick someone with relatively little actual experience, like Rubio, Ayotte, Toomey, Haley, or Martinez. Steve Schmidt is quoted as saying that “in a post-Palin world, the only requirement that matters is whether this person is qualified to be president on day one.” Dick Cheney expresses similar sentiments saying that “the single most important criteria has to be the capacity to be president.”
Whew! What a relief. If Romney picks Rubio, Ayotte, Toomey, Haley, or Martinez now, it will be clear that his selection was the result of poor decision making, and would be evidence that he in an incompetent manager. Just yesterday we watched Romney’s willingness to say anything, even if contrary to past positions, if he perceived it was politically helpful to win votes. Thus, Costa is fooling himself if he thinks this is a “post-Palin” world. It seems that Romney will select the running mate that he perceives will win him the most votes, not the most competent person. If he selects a person with experience, it will not be because he would never endanger our country by selecting someone ill-prepared to serve, but because he is simply reacting to the Palin-fallout. We are not living in a “post-Palin” world. While she is no longer a politician, she is a force. When the President of the United States reacts to her comments about the secret service, it is clear that she still affects the political discourse.
On multiple occasions Sarah Palin has attacked Romney. In June of 2011 the pit bull took a bite out of Romney for his position on health care. In January of 2012 the barracuda was credited with referring to Mitt Romney as one of the GOP’s weakest candidates. In early February of 2012 Palin attacked Mitt, for his attack on her candidate, Newt Gingrich. By the end of February it was becoming increasingly clear that Romney would earn the Republican nomination. Even though Palin said she would support him “100% if he became the nominee” she criticized him saying that “he still had considerable work to do to get important portions of the party base on his side.”
Yesterday, as Sarah Palin was renewing her chant “drill baby drill,” Romney seemed to be intent on winning Palin’s support. Romney declared that he too “opposes environmental regulations for drilling of coal, oil, and natural gas.”
Once again Romney was “Going Rogue”. In the past he has worked to protect the environment. He appointed Mr. Foy, an environmental advocate, who initiated a lawsuit to cleanup Boston Harbor, worked to protect fishing grounds, worked to negotiate a regional climate-change initiative, and drafted regulations to cap emissions on coal-fired plants. Romney himself joined activists outside a coal fired plant indicating that the plants were killing people through their carbon emissions. Rick Perry, the Ex-Candidate, famous for his environmentally destructive policies, and his adoration of Sarah Palin , launched a “broadside” against Romney’s environmental record, pointing out that “Massachusetts was one of the first states to implement its own cap and trade program, which included limits on carbon emissions…”
With Romney’s adoption of Palin’s chant “drill baby drill” it seems clear that Romeny is willing to compromise any position to win favor with Sarah Palin. It is not a “Post-Palin” world. When Sarah Palin can inspire the Democratic nominee for President to respond to her comments, and inspire the Republican presumptive nominee to become more concerned about winning her support than protecting the environment, the damage to America being done by Sarah Palin is still very real.
Watch, and know that this is what we were all thinking!
From the moment you heard the name “Mitt Romney” you heard that he was a “flip flopper”.
However the number of changes in his positions indicates that the term “flip flopper” is too kind. “Rogue” is a much more fitting term. A Rogue is associated with a person who deceives or swindles, Synonyms might include, bad news, charlatan, cheat, con artist, criminal, crook defrauder, fraud, lowlife, reprobate, scalawag, scamp,scoundrel, swindler, trickster, and villan. The list of issues upon which this rogue has changed his positions is long and colorful. He has taken contrary positions on:
3. Ronald Reagan principles
5. illegal immigrants
6. global warming
7. union busting
9. assault weapons
11. the auto bailout
There are no other major issues in this campaign. It is obvious from this list that Romney is saying whatever he thinks will get him elected. Integrity and character are not words that could ever be associated with a person so willing to lead based on what is popular instead of their own moral compass.
Yet Romney describes himself as a person of “steadiness and constancy.“
Send this video to all your friends who think they like what Mitt Romney stands for and then ask them what he stands for?
Jimmy Kimmel is so understated. Hope you enjoy!