Romney Causes A Severe Fecal Matter Deficit In The American Leftist Media Via The Introduction Of Fear

In other words, he scares the crap out of them.


I want to add several snarky comments to this but I won’t because it is so, so spot on. That why we hear the liberals yelling,  Romney lies! He cheated! That’s not the real Romney! 5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich! 7.8% funemployment (a number that gets curiousier and curiouser)! We created 5 million jobs! Romney has a secret cancer ray! Romney beat up a gay guy in high school and cut his hair!

All of which, of course are proven lies or outright data manipulations/misrepresentations by Romney Obama.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Mitt Romney didn’t just beat Obama on Wednesday night. He also beat the liberal media. So great was his performance that liberal journalists simply had to concede the President’s defeat – a humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR. No longer can Romney be dismissed with a gag about a dog strapped to the roof of his car. This uptight rich guy could be the next President of the United States.

Evidence of liberal panic is everywhere. In the hours after the debate, the mood in the MSNBC bunker was near-suicidal – and it’s in tortured moments like these that all pretense of objectivity disappears. Chris Matthews (a former Democrat staffer turned TV motor mouth who undoubtedly talks in his sleep) ranted that Obama ought to watch MSNBC to learn how to fight conservatives. Ed Schultz was “stunned” and Rachel Maddow thought it might be sort of a draw (in the same way that the Titanic’s encounter with an iceberg was “sort of a draw”). The New York Times ran with the vague headline, “Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing Economy” and called the evening “unhelpful.” Why? Because their guy lost.

The media still has wet panties, just this time it is from fear-induced incontinence and not sexual arousal.

Remember that I said this here:

So the Democrats and their enablers may have something on their hands that they don’t have a playbook for: a honest, religious, dedicated family man who happens to be a BYU, Harvard Law and Harvard MBA grad and a very successful businessman and public servant  prior to being the chief executive of the State of Massachusetts.

Contrast and compare Romney with the last few Democrats running for president, Bill Clinton – a womanizing, intern diddling liar, Al Gore – a fanatic limousine liberal eco-nut, John Kerry – a dilettante gigolo Beacon Hill social climber, John Edwards – another serial philander and ambulance chasing trial lawyer, a baby daddy who was screwing Reille Hunter while his wife was dying of cancer, and  the current president, Barack Obama – a dope smoking, coke snorting tepid non-entity with a protected past, a community organizer with no private sector experience, a political opportunist who was trained at the feet of socialists, Marxists and radicals.

There couldn’t be two more different arcs to a life. Where Obama has sought the shadows and hid behind a curtain of anonymity, Romney has lived a life in the sunlight with nothing held back.

Romney’s clean background and successful (and publicly visible) career are so different from what the Democrats know that they can’t find their ass with both hands right now.

13 thoughts on “Romney Causes A Severe Fecal Matter Deficit In The American Leftist Media Via The Introduction Of Fear

  1. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a law permanently banning automatic assault weapons saying, “Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”, he said at the signing.
    [All research done with Wikipedia, take it or sue me]

    Whether the statement is true or not, the Constitution says nothing about the right to hunt, because shooting a twelve-point buck isn’t going to prevent an act of terrorism, the Founders meant for us to aim higher up the food chain.

    But the point that I set out to make is that Romney is insulated from old quotes like these, now that he is the nominee. Republicans won’t remind voters of his flirtations with liberalism, they want him to win. The Dems can’t use quotes like these; it would undermine their larger message, that Romney is a right-wing troglodyte.

    Here’s another battle Romney won’t have to fight…

    In 2006, his last year as governor, Romney spent all or part of 212 days out of state, laying the foundation for his anticipated presidential campaign.[218] The cost of the Governor’s security detail for out-of-state trips increased from $63,874 in fiscal year 2005 to a cost of $103,365 in the first 11 months of fiscal year 2006. Romney’s use of state troopers for security during his campaign trips was criticized by former Governor Michael Dukakis, who never traveled with state troopers during his 1988 presidential run, and Mary Boyle of Common Cause who complained that “[t]he people of Massachusetts are essentially funding his presidential campaign, whether they like it or not.”[219]

    Shades of Michelle’s trips! The Democrats must be licking their chops, waiting for the moment to drop this October surprise on Mitt’s head.

    Except, maybe not….

    A Romney spokesman noted that Romney did not accept a salary while he was Governor and that he paid for his personal and political travel, while the superintendent of the State Police pointed out that the Governor never requested the security and that the security detail followed the Governor on all trips.

    mmph! Romney turned down 560,000 bucks in salary alone during his 4 years running the state, and the troopers were assigned without his say-so. The dems may want to stick to digitized working singles and breaking dawns in their ads.

    There’s always the dog story, fellas…….

    • Gee, Greg – how much do you think the Mass government in taxes out of Mitt’s investment income – because as governor he took no salary?

      We know he is no dyed in the wool conservative – how soon you forget the battles that were waged here during the primaries…but he is a helluva lot closer to a conservative that Chariman Maobama is…and as conservatives support the 10th Amendment, we are fine with policies that are done at the state level – what he did in Mass was seen as right wing based on the far left political makeup of the state.

  2. I tell you, I believe this race will become very interesting…Yesterday, I watched him on the campaign trail, and he spouted the same BS that he did in the debate (reckon those folks didn’t watch it because they all applauded the lies.) It truly is confounding to me how people cannot see the light. If one listens carefully to the debate, it really does boil down to ideologies.

    You know what? I think it is time for Divine intervention. I’m Lutheran…..I’ve got connections… Oh, I’m also a certified vampire slayer…just don’t call me Buffy.

    • “he spouted the same BS that he did in the debate”

      That would be because … that is all he has. Hell, that’s all the liberals have in general, Kells.

      • I tell you, Augger, it is like what G. pointed out: Everyone seems to be deaf and dumb when it come to facts.

        Mr. Kells said there was a caller on the Derrel Day show who stated that he believed Obama threw the debate because he wants to be free of this presidency, have his money and his security detail, &c.(the Sarah Palin/Bill Clinton route) It is an interesting theory……but I don’t think I’m buying it; I believe his ego to be too large.

        Then again, I know he’s a smart fella…..smarter than what we witnessed. Do you think he threw the debate on purpose?

  3. Yawn. Yes, even I, and much of the so called “MSM” granted that Romney had “won” the first debate. But how did he do it? Not by detailing his plans. Not by showing how he would lead. But by, for the most part, changing his position on many issues, moving to the center (which is where EVERYONE who has paid attention these past many months knows Romeny resides, while still throwing bones to the far right, mostly via one liners.

    And let’s face it- Part of it was also that Obama did so poorly. He rarely challenged Romeny. He rarely dove into any of the number of issues he could of. Maybe the “altitude”. Maybe just being exhausted from being president & running a campaign. Maybe just going “WTF am I here, of all places, on my wedding anniversary?!”.

    Kind of sad that Romeny, who for months the GOP was looking for anyone but. Who has failed to detail any of his alleged plans. Who has refused to release the names of his bundlers. And his tax returns. Suddenly “wins” not because he has done any of those things he needs to do but because he puts on a good show.

    • Drug boy; do you not think a person aught to be flexible? Romney had an 87% Democratic congress whilst governor, and was flexible. The state did some great things. How flexible is Obama? Hint: He gave his answer in the debate.

    • I got this Kells. Drugs, I need to fix your post a bit …

      Kind of sad that Obama, who for years the the liberals was looking for anyone but. Who has failed to detail any of his alleged plans, or even provide a budget for his entire presidency. Who has as refused to release the names of his bundlers, or his college transcripts, or did not keep his promise and provide us a look at Obamacare before he had it rammed down our throats. Suddenly “loses” not because he has done any of those things he needs to do such as meet with world leaders, or protect Ambassadors who specifically requested, but because he puts on a good show … but only when he has a teleprompter present.

      There, all fixed up for you buddy. 🙂

    • And Obama’s brilliant debate tactic was to…keep quiet? And Romney “won” in quotation marks? Actually, Obama had his hat handed to him decisively – there is no need to put it in quotes as if it was a supposition.

      I think it is funny that all of a sudden you lefty morons want details – when you elected and support a president who ran on vapors. This is a perfect example of how the left requires an exacting and precise definition for everything conservatives do and just saying the words counts for your side.

      Hope and Change.

      Obama is the least substantive president ever elected in modern times, worse than Carter.

      I know that this happened before you started trolling us but as I reminded Greg above:

      We know he is no dyed in the wool conservative – how soon you forget the battles that were waged here during the primaries…but he is a helluva lot closer to a conservative that Chairman Maobama is…and as conservatives support the 10th Amendment, we are fine with policies that are done at the state level – what he did in Mass was seen as right wing based on the far left political makeup of the state.

      You might want to follow Michael Moore’;s advice and start practicing the words, “President Romney”.

      • “I think it is funny that all of a sudden you lefty morons want details”

        Agreed. Shit, I want details too. Not the details of a presidential hopeful, but I would love to see specifics of a sitting president.

        But that’s just not how this liberal administration rolls, now is it drugs?

        • The truth of the matter is that Romney is approaching this exactly like a business turnaround. A while back, I wrote:

          I have done it – I’ve fired and replaced, I’ve shut entire businesses down…and there are people working in those remaining businesses today that would not have jobs had I not taken those painful decisions on. In my career there has been only one business that I couldn’t save and that was because the people who owned it would not acknowledge that there was a serious problem and as a result, they didn’t allow me to move fast enough to correct the issues. It was my second turn-around and I learned from that one that unless I had total control, I would not sign on to another one…and I haven’t.

          Doing a turn-around takes very few skills other than an ability to recognize problems, quickly assess the people who will be in the canoe with you as your team, speak honestly and directly about everything, have a bias for action (never delay a decision – better to be strong and wrong than weak and right) and an ability to create stability in an ambiguous world.

          The way to solve big, complex problems is to constantly test solutions and directions – if anybody ever tells you that they had a solid plan that never changed during a turn-around, they are lying – fire them immediately. The most dynamic situation you will ever face is when everything is going wrong and nothing works. There is no instruction manual for that. You have to make decisions and try them out – if they are wrong, you will know soon enough to change course. The key is building a sustained momentum – keep moving forward no matter what. It may not be in a straight line, most likely it won’t be, but motion equals survival – stasis equals death.

          I have never had a specific plan that was detailed down to the individual actions because in business, conditions change, there are always things that you don’ know but even knowing that, I don’t get mulligans. I don’t get to say, “I failed because the problems were worse than I was told” or “It is Bush’s fault” because the expectation is that I’m getting paid to fix the problems no matter what they are. You do try to understand as much as you can before you start but there are so many things that are out of your control – i.e. the market – that you are a liar if you say that you have a specific, iron-clad, detailed plan. The truth is that you are lucky if you know 50% of what you are walking into.

          The plans on Romney’s website look exactly like the executive summaries of turn-around plans that I have submitted to my bosses over the years. The first thing he is focused on its creating cash flow – get the economy moving through energy cost reductions and then expand the tax base to generate more cash inflow and that is the key – keep the lights on and pay the bills.

          Obama’s solution is to take the only product that you have left that people are buying and double the price – that is what taxing the rich amounts to, raising the price on the last client base that is paying for your product – when the right answer for businesses and government is to expand their client base by selling the product cheaper (i.e more people paying lower taxes).

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.