FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Durst writes: "Here they are, the top ten females who cost Mitt Romney the presidency, each of them representing one of the myriad factors that helped construct the unelectable mosaic that became Bain's Captain of Industry."

Mitt Romney only gained ground in one of eight national polls taken on Wednesday. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)
Mitt Romney only gained ground in one of eight national polls taken on Wednesday. (photo: Jim Young/Reuters)


The Ten Females Who Cost Mitt Romney The Presidency

By Will Durst, Humor Times

12 November 12

 

How each and every one of Mitt's failures can be traced directly to females.

oley moley catfish. Well, thank god that's finally over. Further thanks that the climax was quick and clean. Almost surgical. Not as long a night as many first thought it might be. Except for Karl Rove that is, who for all we know is still scribbling numbers to prove the call on Clinton's re- election win in 1996 was premature. And as usual, Florida did all it could to gum things up, but was eventually rendered irrelevant. And long may it remain so.

In the end, President Barack Obama trounced, er, battered, um, eeked out a victory, or to be more precise, Mitt Romney lost. Or shall we say, found a thousand ways to lose. Except for one brief shining moment in the first debate, virtually carrying with him a defeat diviner. And each and every one of his failures can be traced directly to females. The distaff of life. Single women. Married women. Old women. Young women. Ladies and divas and flappers and baby mamas; duchesses, priestesses, shorties and floozies. So here they are, the top ten females who cost Mitt Romney the presidency, each of them representing one of the myriad factors that helped construct the unelectable mosaic that became Bain's Captain of Industry

  1. Michele Bachmann. Mitt had to draft on her right wing to win the primary battle and when he tried to tack back to the center appeared not to be the Washington Outsider he claimed, but a typical politician with the core values of a hollowed out chocolate Easter Bunny. With really good hair.

  2. Newly elected US Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. A state the former Governor lost by 23 points. Proof positive the man arouses the enduring passion of a broken garden rake.

  3. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who took foreign policy off the table making the entire election about the economy which kept getting better, gol darn it. And who can forget her husband. He certainly won't let us.

  4. Sandra Fluke who gave a face to the GOP's Paleolithic Bronze Age attitudes towards women, further exacerbated by the fact that no man in the party could seemingly shut up about it.

  5. Michelle Obama who is just darn likable. As is her husband. A stark contrast to Romney's cyborg demeanor and obvious discomfort around members of the human species.

  6. Superstorm Sandy for providing the opportunity for the President to look Presidential and for he and Chris Christie to French kiss on Atlantic City's Boardwalk crystalizing the concept that bipartisanship is not the saddest word. That's "goodbye."

  7. Ann Romney who would have made a simply terrific first lady. For Dwight D. Eisenhower.

  8. Candy Crowley who single-handedly halted Romney's momentum in the second debate by speaking way above her pay grade. Don't you hate it when the help speaks out of turn?

  9. All the Wal-Mart Moms , who never really understood that whole Cayman Islands bank account thing marking him not as the poster child for the 1%, but as the poster child for the .0001% of the 1%.

  10. And the last female responsible for Romney's loss; Rafalca the 15-year old mare who, while wearing the Romney silks in Olympic Dressage, failed to make the medal round and was probably shipped home strapped to the fuselage of a 747. Seriously, Mitt. Dressage?

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+150 # herman_the_german 2012-11-12 13:39
"Except for one brief shining moment in the first debate..."

OK, please quit saying that. The FiveThirtyEight forecast, which got every single state correct, never had Romney at or above 50%.

Is this one of the myths that will survive post-election?

The guy never had a chance.
 
 
-24 # herman_the_german 2012-11-12 17:45
Oh. First!
 
 
+56 # CL38 2012-11-13 03:06
Agree. Mitt's 'one brief shining moment"?
He lied each time he opened his mouth about what he would do.

That brief shining moment is made up by the right.

As for the smarmy comment about Bill Clinton: "And who can forget her husband. He certainly won't let us."
He worked his tail off to help Obama & other Democrats. So how about some appreciation and gratitude, Mr. Durst.
 
 
+256 # MainStreetMentor 2012-11-12 14:36
The "females" mentioned may have been "contributing factors" to the demise of Romney as a candidate ... but I maintain the REAL reason he failed was: Mitt Romney.
 
 
+26 # vicnada 2012-11-12 20:37
... and perhaps what he intimately shares with all the women: silk underwear.
 
 
+20 # NOMINAE 2012-11-13 05:22
@ MainStreetMentor

You are of course, completely correct in your dry analysis.

But can it be possible that someone using an avatar like the icon you display with your online "handle" really doesn't "get" the fact that Will Durst is a *satirist* who writes for a mag called "Humor Times"?

I have yet to read a Durst column that is not accompanied by outraged reader comments (not yourself, in this example) calling for Durst's blood simply because said readers are hopelessly unable to distinguish satire from a serious article.

Lighten up people. The battle has reached a lull. You can sit down and take five - maybe search the sofa for loose change and a missing sense of humor.
 
 
+6 # CL38 2012-11-15 02:03
...it's hard to relax....to think we might actually be able to let go and stop being hyper-vigilant ...it's been a long tough 12 years of GOP lunacy.
 
 
+4 # robniel 2012-11-14 00:25
And Willard will never admit he's a failure.
 
 
-83 # HerbR 2012-11-12 14:58
What would all of these women have had to do to change the outcome somehow ?
 
 
+77 # Skyelav 2012-11-12 17:09
Become someone else. You republicans have to start looking inward not how to change your talking points. Tokenism has been replaced with attitude change.
 
 
+13 # kelly 2012-11-13 10:36
Oh...I don't know. Hillary could have done a terrible job as Sec'y of State, proving that Obama had no skill in picking able people to help him govern or was incapable of mending fences. Ms. Fluke could have either not made her case so eloquently or the Republicans involved could have tried a little civility(that was not her doing). Michele Bachmann could have shut up...if that were possible. Her reactionary tone--calling people who were not communist even lying about other people's religious affiliations did her in and just being in the running forced Romney into the position of having to run further to his right just to defeat her. It was a position he could never escape from. I picked and chose because I didn't want to go through them all but I still have more if you insist. Anyway, suffice it to say, these women had a hand in it but for the most part, it was the Republican reaction to these women and their obvious talents that ultimately destroyed Romney's chances.
 
 
+5 # soularddave 2012-11-14 01:34
This is only the "short list". These women are mentioned because we all know about them.
 
 
+133 # anntares 2012-11-12 16:20
What about a list of 10 or 100 men - the ones who want to force women to have children of rapists, stop and check i.d. of anyone who looks "illegal", keep Bush tax cuts despite two unfunded wars, evade or block business regulations that would have minimized or even prevented the '08 financial crisis, fillibuster any programs that help Americans including veterans, get rid of the department of Education, allow voting qualification and tests that punish voters stuck in underfunded schools in impoverished areas (why should a voter have to fill out a form the poll worker can fill out, then be disqualified for any spelling mistake?), lengthen voting lines so parents who can't afford all day sitters and workers who will lose their jobs if they go M.I.A. more than two hours get fired, etc. etc.
 
 
+2 # kelly 2012-11-15 08:46
Those are the ones that could have changed the outcome for the worse, of course, if he had had a larger turn out from his base. Honestly, I think a few people just didn't vote out of their Christian conservative, "I'll never vote for a Mormon" values. These women and their classy reactions to what the men did and said spoke volumes more to Obama's voters than those men themselves. But things those men said hurt them in their own general elections. As you could see, even in states--for instance MO--that Obama lost, men like Akins also lost. Those women rallied their bases and got them angrier than the men did, therefore this time angry women beat lethergic Christian men.
 
 
+86 # Barbara K 2012-11-12 16:40
If this list stands, I'd say "More power to them." Some by being intelligent, and some by being idiots. Actually, I think it was the voters who brought Romney down -- We, the American Voters who voted for the President to have another term. Go Mr. President.
 
 
+121 # happycamper690 2012-11-12 16:52
I'd add an eleventh woman. The anonymous woman Romney counciled while he was a Mormon bishop that she was required to carry on with her pregnancy despite life-threatenin g complications.
 
 
+76 # Skyelav 2012-11-12 17:11
Not to mention Malia and Sasha!
 
 
+12 # margefromtn 2012-11-12 17:29
#HerbR.... not exist??? that might have made a difference.
 
 
+96 # vt143 2012-11-12 17:59
#11 RUTH BADER GINSBURG
Even people who had soured on Obama couldn't stomach the fact that a Romney win would have given him at least one Supremo pick.
 
 
+49 # panhead49 2012-11-12 18:21
Dang Will - whattya got against Mamie Eisenhower ;)

I can only hope Rafalka did NOT come back into the United States in small cans labeled ALPO. Unless there is something in the tax code....
 
 
+27 # mim 2012-11-13 01:55
I prefer the real Mamie Eisenhower. To my knowledge, she never publicly insulted the American people as Ann Romney did.
 
 
+8 # bmiluski 2012-11-13 14:21
No, no. she's very safe. After all, she's romney's $40,000 tax refund.
 
 
+47 # dr. labwitch 2012-11-12 18:26
President Eisenhower was married to a lady something Ann Romney is not and never will be.
 
 
+12 # kbarrand 2012-11-12 19:21
Was that really necessary?
 
 
+74 # rye 2012-11-12 18:27
I'm already sick of last week's election. Now the problem is that Obama can't screw up.
I hope he grew a few more vertebrae.

We need a whole lot more than 10 women..to remind him not to give in to America's most dangerous enemy, the far right
 
 
+12 # equusursus 2012-11-13 01:15
"We need a whole lot more than 10 women..."

You are so correct. We need a citizenry that is involved and proactive. Every voter for Pres. Obama should find one person and initiate them into the process of civic activity and responsibility. We all could start with our school boards to bring back Social Studies in Middle School and required Political Science classes in High School, closely followed by Speech and Debate classes. And to do all this we must first start with our sitting and elected Senators and Representatives and put the fear of God in them that if they do not change the "system" in D.C. and enforce the rights of the Constitution as they were meant in the broadest sense, then they will be out of a job post haste. Education is at the top of the list long term. They must initiate the nullification of "Citizens United". They have the power now. They do not need a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives them the power to reverse SCOTUS decisions. They need to grow a spine and push the agenda. Pelosi will be gone soon and Harry Reid will be right behind her if he does not stop cutting deals just to get something "Democratic" done.Congressio nal terms should be one year longer than presidential terms and should encompass a 3 term limit. Election day should be a national holiday.
 
 
+2 # LetJusticeRoll 2012-11-13 11:39
Quoting equusursus:
"We need a whole lot more than 10 women..."

And to do all this we must first start with our sitting and elected Senators and Representatives and put the fear of God in them that if they do not change the "system" in D.C. and enforce the rights of the Constitution as they were meant in the broadest sense, then they will be out of a job post haste. [snip] They must initiate the nullification of "Citizens United". They have the power now. They do not need a Constitutional amendment. The Constitution gives them the power to reverse SCOTUS decisions.


I love your comments about becoming a more proactive citizenry, but I don't understand your statement about the Senate's not needing a Constitutional amendment in order to reverse a SCOTUS decision. Please explain what you mean and how the Senate has the Constitutional power to do this.
 
 
+60 # Floridatexan 2012-11-12 19:00
#11 - his mom, who was so busy schooling him in the Mormon faith, she forgot about MORAL INTELLIGENCE.
 
 
+20 # CL38 2012-11-13 03:16
Mitt's father was a major influence in his life. I learned something recently that stunned me. Mitt's father, George, used his influence and power -- and that of the Mormon Church -- to target and attack supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment. Romney & the church destroyed the very real possibility that enough states would have ratified and added the Amendment to the Constitution (in the estimation of those would know). George Romney (& Mormon Church) characterized ERA supporters as 'gay', deviant and immoral back in '79-'80's.

I would say that Romney's father had a lot to do with his lack of moral intelligence - probably much more than his mother.
 
 
+6 # BradFromSalem 2012-11-13 10:56
CL38,

Your revelation about George Romney certainly explains why he was a Republican. With all the comparisons to Mitt over the past year, with George always coming out ahead, way ahead, on nearly every issue; its almost reassuring to see one where they philosophically agreed.
 
 
+1 # CL38 2012-11-15 01:51
It shows Mitt's anti women positions are very ingrained and that his father also pretended to be someone he truly wasn't. See the article @ http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/romneys-supposed-liberal-republican-father-attacked-womens-rights-advocates-moral

Also, there's a secondary piece by Frank Rich that touches briefly on the same issues: http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/mitt-romney-2012-2/index3.html
 
 
0 # CL38 2012-11-15 02:10
Also, according to the Frank Rich article, George Romney also wasn't quite as supportive of the black rights movement as he pretended to be.
 
 
+21 # readerz 2012-11-12 20:32
Hurricane Sandy may have kept more voters from the polls than brought them to the polls, but Sandy could be a problem for us.

Start with taking help to the streets instead of only to the banks, and helping the poor: Before hurricane Katrina, NOLA had about 480,000 people (according to NYT article of Feb 3, 2011), and after Katrina less than 350,000, most who moved away and did not return. The loss of life from Sandy, although terrible, does not compare, but... we are talking about many thousands more people displaced in NY/NJ, hungry, with no place to go, and NY/NJ has something ugly on its doorstep that NOLA doesn't usually get: winter. These are a lot of angry people, and I hope that things work for them. They won't accept mere words, and when I lived in NYC, my friends and family voted for people based on who got things done. There are still plenty of buildings without basic utilities.

Second, Sandy represents something else that neither candidate wanted to talk about: climate change.

So, I don't think it was gender-unspecif ic Sandy, but Mother Earth, that should be the star of this article. The trouble is, we need to do a lot more before we can say we "won" anything.
 
 
+63 # mim 2012-11-12 21:07
Lily Ledbetter, who gave Romney the chance to show how much he supports equal pay for women.
 
 
+17 # davidr 2012-11-13 10:47
You bet. Also, Cecile Richards, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Patty Murray, Rachel Maddow, Stephanie Cutter, and let's not forget Ayn Rand.
 
 
+16 # Jean Louise 2012-11-13 11:02
Quoting mim:
Lily Ledbetter, who gave Romney the chance to show how much he supports equal pay for women.

If you ever have an opportunity to hear Lily Ledbetter speak, run, don't walk to hear her. She has more common sense and intelligence in her little finger than Sarah Palin, Anne Romney and Michele Bachmann combined.
 
 
+44 # fixerguy 2012-11-12 21:22
Ok guys, PLEASE quit giving them excuses for Myth. Bottom line; Myth lost and lost big for one reason and one reason only: He LIED, He lied in front of TV Cameras (so we can PROVE it), and then, when he got called out (fact-checked) on his LIES, he LIED some more...THAT is why he lost. And the republicans lost seats in the house and senate for the very same reason...Their boys LIED, and got caught!
 
 
+4 # NOMINAE 2012-11-13 05:31
@ fixerguy

Good gawd, man, and all of your "thumber-uppers ", these are not "excuses", they are *JOKES* !

The author is a SATIRIST, who writes for a mag called Humor Times. (See the tiny print around the above picture).

Lighten Thy LOAD !
 
 
+41 # Corvette-Bob 2012-11-12 21:46
I am so glad that I will not have to see Mitt Romney anymore. He is the biggest liar who has ran for the Presidency in modern times (I cannot speak of earlier times). He made Richard Nixon seem like a choir boy. With respect to Paul Ryan I hope that the Republicans pin their hopes on him because he is also a big loser.
 
 
+27 # GGmaw 2012-11-12 22:28
Just one more reason - women just didn't like him.
 
 
+19 # CL38 2012-11-13 03:18
...women intelligently and instinctively didn't trust him.
 
 
+11 # rhodge4477 2012-11-12 23:45
The most important word in this article is the word "IRRELEVANT". Republicans have (by their own design) become IRRELEVANT! Please use the word IRRELEVANT in front of the word 'republican' at every opportunity. Irrelevant Republicans...r olls off the tongue rather nicely I think. (Also we could use a correction with the term "right" wing. Intentionally calling them the "rong" wing (misspelled intentionally) would go a long way symbolically, but I'll leave that up to the reader...) So, don't forget.. "Irrelevant Republicans" every chance you get. Also, yeah for the marriage equality measures as well as the Marijuana (Cannabis) ones! What a day! What a win!
 
 
-27 # RLF 2012-11-13 06:57
You seriously want us to give you money to put articles like this in our faces? Clean it up RSN.
 
 
+7 # ahaywood 2012-11-13 07:22
OK rhodge4477...IR RELEVANT, IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT REPUBLICONS.... .CON ARTIST. Did I forget to say IRRELEVANT, IRRELEVANT Fox News!!!!! There you have it, the party of the wrong-wing that thinks Americans are stupid, uninformed and dependant on government hand-outs. Bull crap. We at least pay more than our fair share of taxes and when our people lose their jobs because of a Republican names i.e. "G. Bush" with his endless un-paid-for wars and letting the rich become free loaders who are non-taxed, then we, the people and 99%ers, deserve to be helped by our government. Thank God, I, myself am OK, but my heart belongs to this country and ALL of the people, black, white, yellow, brown... We rule USA...USA...USA . Now what we need to do is get our congress to start working on keeping our elections honest and out of the hands of dirty RepubliCONS..in cluding..Rove who is probably fast at work working out 2016 and re-districting/ gerrymandering (changing the bounderies of election district to give one party an unfair advantage over the other party) to push us once again in the RED. I'm putting my bet that MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell, Rachel Maddow, Cris Matthews, Ed and Rev S., et al to keep the heat on the REDs.
 
 
-4 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-13 07:28
I know this comment is tangential to the main point, but it bears noticing: Where the heck is this great Obama triumph?

An incumbent president won. By what precisely what margin of the popular vote will remain uncertain for a while (recounts and possible legal challenges and so on), but I think I'm of safe ground by saying that Mr. Obama got no more than 52% of the popular vote, and Mr. Romney got no less than 46% of the popular vote (with Greens and others accounting for the variations in the arithmetic).

So, as a "lesser of the two evils" kind of guy, I am pleased or, better, relieved that Mr. Romney did not prevail, I am also worried that a lot of "progressive" people might think that some sort of massive victory was won.

They are wrong! A massive disaster was barely averted. What is needed now is a strong leftist presence, pushing the "Rockefeller Republican" (i.e., Mr. Obama) toward some set of policies that will advance issues such as universal, single-payer health care and retard issues such as what Gore Vidal nicely called "the shredding of the Bill of Rights."
 
 
+5 # mjc 2012-11-13 10:05
Perhaps a good look at election results wuld change your point of view...but I doubt it. The popular vote was something over $3 million. Romney took the heart of the confederacy...b ut it's a little late.
 
 
+5 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-13 14:11
Your reference to the $3 million may be saying more than you're willing to admit.

Anyway, what I SAID was that, on the basis of the popular vote, Obama did NOT win a landslide victory. (I wish he had.)

That means than Democrats should not sit back and smile smugly. Democrats must also not simply write off "the confederacy" as though it might soon disappear.

And Democrats must understand that Mr. Obama is (by international standards) a right-of-center market-oriented politician.

The USA, as I said, barely averted disaster. This is no time for complacency. President Obama must be pushed harder and further to the left if the ideals of "change you can believe in" are to be realized.
 
 
+5 # kelly 2012-11-13 10:47
Let me put it to you like this. In 2012, the republicans did NOT get a majority of the popular vote. In 2008, the republicans did not the majority of the popular vote. In 2004, they did. In 2000 again, they did not. In 1996, they did not, In 1992, they did not.
In 5 out of the last 6 elections the Republicans, an old, tired party, with old tired ideas have lost the popular vote. This "bears noticing" and is a point that is lost to all of the republican pundits and apparently the people who keep saying where is his mandate. Sure our country is divided... but for the last 6 elections it seems to have been decided.
 
 
+5 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-13 14:16
Agreed!

But the Democrats have prevailed by the slimmest of margins in most cases ... and only because the Supreme Court intervened to steal the 2000 vote from Mr. Gore.

Your country is divided for sure. And the division is, at best, 55:45 (when best = a Democratic majority.

In case you don't understand, I am writing from outside the USA and I am not an American. I do, however, know that American politics affects us all, and I worry when Obama-supporter s seem gleeful about having won a razor-thin election.

You people still have terribly far to go, and I beg you to keep pushing on!
 
 
+8 # GGmaw 2012-11-13 15:25
Actually - as the real vote count in Florida revealed in 2000 - Gore really won the election. (Gore won the popular vote by about 600,000.) Since it has been shown how black-box (computer) voting can be hacked, how absentee votes can be lost, how people can be prevented from voting - Obama probably did win by a very large landslide.
 
 
0 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-13 14:19
By the way, if you don't like what I'm saying, perhaps you'll be persuaded by Tom Engelhart's "How This Do-Nothing Election Did Not (and Will Not) Change the World" (TomDispatch.co m) today ...

or maybe not.
 
 
+2 # dovelane1 2012-11-13 18:33
Good sense - Obama said we had a lot of work to do. If he was telling the truth, which I think he was, that means he agrees with you. As do I.

I just am not sure how many people really or fully realize how much work there is to do. Considering the amount of problems coming with the global warming issues, I am very concerned about what will happen to both the US and the world.
 
 
0 # kelly 2012-11-14 08:34
I did not say we don't have work to do. I am just sick of people saying that the people don't want something they want. The majority do want it they wouldn't be voting that way. Now, we must get to a point where we can come together. It is vital to our nation's survival. But influences from outside must not be allowed to taint the system...most notably big energy, pharmaceutacals and other interests that seem ready to jump in at any moment to dictate policy to us through intimidation, fear and propoganda. It actually creates a more closed society here and causes smaller minded Americans to withdraw into boxes of isolationism and creates policies of which include denial of global warming, war and selfish disregard for global economics. It was a do something election--it helped us keep right wing extremism out of office.
 
 
+6 # Mark 2012-11-14 14:30
Why we can not see the elephant sitting in the living room is beyond me. 9/10th (well perhaps my math is off, but a large majority)of the ills in this country can be directly attributed to the fact that our legislators are bought and paid for by wall street. Until we realize that the he who pays the piper dances we will all still be wall flowers waiting our turn. Get money out of politics and we have solved the bulk of our problems.
 
 
+4 # motamanx 2012-11-15 12:02
Mark is not correct. Our legislators are bought and paid for by big oil, the arms manufacturers, and the media conglomerates.
 
 
+2 # goodsensecynic 2012-11-15 17:20
Mark & Motamanx:

You're both right. Your legislators are controlled by Wall Street financiers AND Big Oil, arms manufacturers, media conglomerates PLUS Big Pharma, agribusiness, chem companies, etc., etc.

Incidentally, some Republicans made me laugh when the said that Mr. Obama's win made them think about of moving to Canada ... where:

(a) Mr. Obama would find himself on the right wing of the Conservative Party;
(b) federal elections have never lasted more than 74 days (and that was in 1926);
(c) political parties are limited to about $20 million spending (less than either US party spent in Ohio in just one week);
(d) corporations are forbidden from donating any money, and individuals are limited to gifts of $1000.

Somehow I don't think those folks would feel comfortable with such things, never mind that capital punishment is forbidden, gay marriage and abortion on demand (paid for by our universal, single-payer health insurance.

Of course, I shouldn't be smug. Because of our peculiar parliamentary system, Stephen Harper won a majority government with less than 40% of the vote; but, never mind, he'll be gone soon.
 
 
+2 # Milarepa 2012-11-16 02:02
Will, you forgot Mother Nature, a big lady and Sandy's mother!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN