Why Willard "Mitt" Romney will NEVER be AMERICA's President

LOL, I can already hear the cavalcade of indignation!  "What do you mean"? "How can you say that"?  "Communist"!

Stop it, you are tearing me up in laughter!

This seemingly audacious claim is not the equal and opposite reaction to four years of hypocritical tea baggery nor a reply to Senator Mitch McConnell's proclamation to help make President Obama a one term president.

This statement comes from the fact that there is virtually ZERO chance that Willard Romney will secure enough support from the citizenry nor enough votes in general to overcome the following realities:

1) At least 48-50% of the electorate will not support him,

2) that Republican efforts to traitorously suppress voter access and turnout speaks to their fear of the 80%, record turnout of 2008 which resulted in the record breaking vote for Barack Obama,

3) an apathetic percentage within the voting age population,

4) the fact that "the franchise" is inconsistently and unbalanced for the incarcerated and paroled in the US, making the voices of these yes citizens under, and I would add unfairly, represented.

So what the facts show is that while Romney may eek out a dubious electoral "win" and by statute be proclaimed the President of the United States, we can see that he will hardly have the support of the nation as a whole to become the leader of America and subsequently his presidency would be shrouded in a quasi-illegitimacy and certainly will never have a functional "mandate" to rule -- even while he rhetorically devises one in the recesses of his imagination.

Romney's "47%" comment notwithstanding, where he essentially said that this percentage of fellow Americans are not his concern, and revealed in points 2-4 above show us is that there is an unheard voice within America that may not be represented.  While the Republicans in general and Romney by way of his 47% comment specifically discard this segment of the population, their presence will be felt in myriad socio-economic ways ranging from education, to nutrition, to healthcare, to transportation, to employment (or unemployment, AFDC and the like) to the costs of incarceration should these former unmet needs find them resorting to the underground or alternative economies and/or crime.

The Republicans/Romney could opt for Paul Ryan's solution and essentially let them run amok as the US devolves into an Ayn Randian dystopia.  But here too the "libertarian" crowd will rue the day as disease and crime would undoubtedly outpace "law and order," reverting the country into not a Randian dystopia but more probably something more resembling a neo-feudal cesspool.

Avoiding this dilemma and preserving America will then fall to the Senate Democrats (now predicted to retain majority within the Senate) to neutralize a Ryan/Romney/Republican crusade on America and to, in turn coining McConnell's pronouncement, "make Romney a one-term president" and neuter his agenda!  (Refer to previous post on this topic).

So we can see that even if Willard "Mitt" Romney becomes the 45th President of the United States, he will do so with a minority of support and with a country more fractured than anytime since the Civil War.  Romney will not have a mandate for anything and quite the contrary; will have to "govern" a country that at least functionally, and I would add patriotically, does not "have his back".

In this circumstance, good luck Mr. Romney.  Democratic Senators, do your thing!

 

 

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I hope and pray that you're right. We don't need an opportunistic corporatist in the White House whose only core value is expediency.

  • Nice piece!

    garmancartoons.com

  • In reply to Mike G:

    Thank you! Thank you for posting!

  • And as if Obama has a mandate or majority to govern. Pfft. What are YOU smoking? There's a reason there's too much polarization in this country - TOO MUCH POWER HAS BEEN CONSOLIDATED IN THE HANDS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. As far as your knock against libertarianism, you clearly don't believe in, or read, the United States Constitution. The powers granted to the states have been subverted for a long time, clearly contradicting how the framers intended it to be used as a basis for government. Indeed, our Constitution was meant to hold the nation together in very basic terms...guaranteeing specific rights, providing for military protection, equal protection under the rule of law, etc...but it does NOT give the federal government the power to impose its will - "for social cohesion" - on the American populace. The federal politicians have far too long seized upon power. Power is best disseminated and given back to state and local governing. Beyong our safeguarded liberties and the rule of law, what is good for Illinois may not necessarily be good for Tennessee, and so on. Power back to the people...and on a far more local level!!

  • In reply to ryno:

    Your selective and narrowly interpreted OPINIONS are duly noted and published. Additionally, I would submit that Obama's record breaking vote, in addition to the other elements I proffer, make Obama's victory far more legit that anything Romney will be able to flim-flam.

    . . . and what say you if Obama is re-elected? Another "fluke". Either way, the country is changing and along with it, its demographics are singing new and diverse tunes -- and will change the body politic (its statutes and their interpretations) in the process. One would be wise to adapt or become extinct. It would be wise for a constitutional convention to be convened for the 21st Century to hash out just what we are debating; meanings and interpretations for a new era, a changing country, a changed people.

    From my/our perspective, your understanding of the constitution is sorely lacking. Funny how people with your line have selective amnesia: promoting the general welfare is a major "socialistic" component element found in the constitution, one you conveniently forget . . . or wish didn't exist. It does, and is just a valid and important as the limited few you cite.

  • In reply to ryno:

    You know who else I remember complaining about the federal government imposing its will on social matters when it should be the state's right to decide? Southern slave states shortly before the Civil War.

  • In reply to Kate:

    GREAT point! Funny, the more things change the more they stay the same!

  • If the present administration gets re-elected, I fear for our country. Freedoms will be lost as it is already happening. I was hoping things would be different when President Obama came into office, but I am terribly disappointed in him and the people he choses in his administration. With everything I have read about Governor Romney he has integrity - don't believe all the lies.

  • In reply to Lara777:

    LOL what "freedoms"? What a red herring! You mean the freedom of plutocrats to exploit the middle class? The freedom to live without fear of banckruptcy due to health concerns? The tyranny of Mitch McConnelll and his minority in the Senate derailing the public will?

    You are right. With Republicans . . . the freedoms of the electorate and middle class are eroding!

    As far as Romney, phuleeezze. The man wouldn't know the truth or a consistent belief if he tripped over it! You need to read more and simply watch the flip-flopper in action! The man and his agenda is disasterous for the middle class!!!

  • fb_avatar

    THERE IS A HALF BREED COMMIE RAT in the BLAK HOUSE and YOU SAY A HUMAN CANNOT BE PRESIDENT----

    EAT IT YOU MONGREL!!!!

  • In reply to Thomas Blakley:

    LMAO, and this exemplifies why "your side" is a dying, nearly irrelevant breed . . . a dying "FULL" breed (not that there are anthropologically such a things as full breeds in the first place)! But this is not my opinion alone. It is one also shared by right-wing pundits from George Will to Karl Rove. Adapt or get left behind in the 21st CENTURY!!!

    Plus, 47% Rommey is hardly "human" . . . or at least isn't a patriot.

  • I could never vote for anyone who openly states, "I don't know why airplane windows cannot be rolled down!" Or who goes to our Mother country and insults their entire Olympic Production or who, behind closed doors, mocks 47% of Americans or who boasts, "On my first day in office I will strike down Obamacare" not even calling it by its appropriate name, Affordable Health Care.

  • In reply to JetfireK:

    . . . or fails to note that healthcare reform was his baby and then seeks to deny his baby all while trying to claim the birth his baby as his namesake . . .

    Willard "Mitt" Romney is a FRAUD -- in the tradition of PT Barnum and snake oil salesmen everywhere!

  • fb_avatar

    I agree that Romney will never be America's president because he does not care about nearly 50 percent of America's citizens. I wish Romney was in my classroom the day after his 47 percent comment was released. Most of the students in the inner-city school where I work "depend" on the government because of life circumstances that are particularly difficult.

    Let Mr. Romney tell my students in person that they are "victims," who "believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it." Let him look them in the eye and say his job is "not to worry about" them. Let him admonish them by saying that he could "never convince them to take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Let him tell Jerome, whose mother is dying, and has to support his family, or Donna whose parents both died tragically a year apart, or Marisol who goes regularly for chemo treatments but still finds the time to do her homework, apologizing for her absences, or Jason who is living in a motel because his father is out of work.

    Had Romney been in my class that day, he would have observed outrage and sadness in the faces of the children before him. But he would have heard, too, the eloquent defense of their dignity. He would have seen the pride on their faces when they spoke about their families. He would have witnessed the character, kindness, and innate goodness of that 47 percent of Americans who have the strength and the will to depend upon themselves.

    James Mulhern, www.synthesizingeducation.net

  • In reply to Scholar Mulhern:

    You honor the post with your addition and your insight. Thank you!

  • fb_avatar

    'THE TALENTED MR. WILLARD “Mitt” ROMNEY' – Is Willard (a rat by any other name), the Mormon Madoff, a RICO Act Violator? http://tinyurl.com/9h2xstg

    ROMNEY: THE MOST FRAUDULENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN AMERICAN HISTORY: http://tinyurl.com/8rqvp8o.

    The Talented Mr. Romney is a 'sham-wow candidate' who echo’s American Psycho Patrick Bateman, a psychopath, pathological LIAR engaged now in a deception to rebrand himself as 'Moderate Mitt', instead of the severly conservative plutocratic racketeer he is. The 'Most Fraudulent Presidential Candidate & Campaign in American History' since Joseph Smith, the founder of Romney’s LDS Mormon Cult may think he is 'Rico Suave' camouflaging a ’Sociopathic’ - personality disorder but the evidence suggests otherwise.

    The Romney Con is not an earnest man with an honest plan but one whose 'budget meth' exposes 'an economic sham'. He is so deeply and fundamentally dishonest: criminally dishonest in fact, that he should be prepping for a stint in the 'Big House', not "measuring the drapes" in the White House.

    The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital outlined by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone is that the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm, during a period of increasing globalization, staged an epic wealth grab or wealth extraction. Via the process of creative destruction, he preyed on America's industrial heartland. With the rogue indifference of an unprincipled vulture capitalist, he 'harvested' vulnerable companies for quick profits, destroyed jobs – and commenced the massive outsourcing of our country's value, vitality & economic soul, and finally stuck others with the bill. The Great Deformer was thus not a 'job creator' but rather made his fortune as a 'master financial speculator', "not a higher form of capitalist endeavor or training school for presidential aspirants", according to ex-Reagan Budget Director, David Stockman. http://tinyurl.com/8rqvp8o

  • In reply to Christopher London:

    Others of offensive tone and devoid of facts have had their say in reply to this post. Your comment, questionable in tone to some degree, none-the-less speaks to a lot of (and offers citation thank you very much!) documented reality.

    You pass muster . . .

  • From your lips, to God's ears.
    This country and all it's people deserve much better.

  • In reply to Ninnafaye:

    . . . and from yours as well.

Leave a comment