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)
The Ten Females Who Cost Mitt Romney The Presidency
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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."
- Ann Romney who would have made a simply terrific first lady. For Dwight D. Eisenhower.
- 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?
- 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%.
- 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?
|
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. |
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 19 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 18 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
 20 May 2013
|
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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.
I would say that Romney's father had a lot to do with his lack of moral intelligence - probably much more than his mother.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 !
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."
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.
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.
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!
or maybe not.
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.
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.
RSS feed for comments to this post