Romney Remains Firm On ‘Right’ Of Gays To Adopt For Almost Entire Day

  taking the olympic flip-flop gold

It's a right! It's a privilege! It's a ... oh hell we don't knowMitt Romney has a thing (one) he has stood firm on, and that is that he is against gay marriage. Sure, there was a time as governor of Massachusetts when he managed to be on both sides of the issue simultaneously, both directing his administration to comply with state judges’ “Goodridge” ruling allowing gays to marry while at the very same time working to get backing for an amendment to repeal it. (While he’d run for Senate saying he would be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy, he also almost managed to abolish an anti-bullying commission for the state’s students, because he thought their pride parade was tacky. This excellent LA Times story has the head-scratching tick-tock.) But he has always said ick, nast to gay marriage while saying gays had a right to adopt. (So just not to have a legal, stable family framework for the children they raise.) That avowal, last espoused on Thursday, was operative for what might be a Romney Consistency Record: almost a full day!

Take it away, National Journal!

He said on Thursday: “And if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child — in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do. But to call that ‘marriage’ is something that, in my view, is a departure from the real meaning of that word.”

Was that the very same interview where he said, “You don’t change your positions to try and win the states or certain subgroups of Americans, you have the positions you have“? In fact, it was!

We have all read the aforegoing paragraphs, and are all clear? Great! Tell us, Gov. Firm Stance, how did you feel on Friday?

“Well, actually I think all states but one allow gay adoption, so that’s a position which has been decided by most of the state legislatures, including the one in my state some time ago. So I simply acknowledge the fact that gay adoption is legal in all states but one.”

Well, sure, except for the whole host of states where “cohabiting” couples are automatically precluded from adopting (although single gays may) and you know in all those states judges are just rushing to let a single gay man adopt, for instance, a little boy and aren’t being weird about it AT ALL.

Anyway, Mitt Romney isn’t FOR gay adoption, and doesn’t think it is a RIGHT, he was just recognizing reality, dudes! Maybe you all could try doing the same!

Related

 
Related video

About the author

Rebecca is the editor and publisher of Wonkette. She is the author of Commie Girl in the O.C., a collection of her OC Weekly columns, and the former editor of LA CityBeat. Go visit her Commie Girl Collective, and follow her on the Twitter!

View all articles by Rebecca Schoenkopf

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

221 comments

  1. Mittens Howell, III

    Things Gay couples are not entitled to: Adoption, Marriage.

    Things Gay couples are entitled to: Haircut.

    1. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

      Things Gay couples are entitled to: Haircut ^^ (Forcible)^^ .

      Fixed it for ya. It's no good if them faggits can go get their hair styled at the local salon any old way they wish, with no tears, screams for help, and holding down of the victim.

    2. mwittier

      Things Co-habiting Straight couples are not entitled to: Haircut, Adoption.
      Even more forlorn than their gay brethren and sistren: childless and unkempt, they must trudge ever forward. Or go to Cost Cutters, and kidnap. But either way, what a pain.

    1. Lascauxcaveman

      I'm sorry Mitt, what did you say? Those angels dancing on the the head of that pin over there were making such a racket I didn't hear you.

    2. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

      Other than THAT, the only things Mitt Romney believes in are:

      (1) Mitt Romney has a right to huge amounts of money;
      (2) Mitt Romney has a right not to pay taxes on huge amounts of money;
      (3) Mitt Romney has the right to be the President of the country.

      He's not very strong on anyone ELSE's rights, though.

  2. SayItWithWookies

    Mitt has the right to be a hypocritical asshole. I'm not saying that's something he ought to do or that I think it's right — I'm just acknowledging what's true in all fifty states.

  3. dyedwool

    He tosses a word salad almost as well as what'shername…that unemployed housewife from Alaska.

          1. BerkeleyBear

            One of the few truly awesome things still built in Indiana. And its plant has been eco-friendly for years.

          2. SudsMcKenzie

            I saw that comercial they did a few years ago, and I respect that, … but I'm trying to goad Chet into a Packers-Bears thing here, . . whens fall again?

          3. Lascauxcaveman

            My Subaru escaped from Lafayette, IN sometime in its infancy around mid1992. It's gotten 190,000 miles away since then. (Not all in the same direction.) And despite the abuse and neglect thrown at it over the years, it refuses to step aside so I can get a newer car.

      1. Fare la Volpe

        Papa Bear, I was so upset yesterday when I learned my new apartment doesn't allow pets: that means no fluffy kitty tails flicking up my nose when I'm trying to work, no grateful purrs after a warm meal and a good petting, and no fuzzeh kitteh bellehs ka-flumping on my face when I'm trying to sleep!

        It's heartwrenching.

        1. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

          Oh, NOES!! However will you sleep without those Guaranteed Nightly Feline Interruptions? (Pushes kitteh away from computer)

          Looks like you'll just HAVE to find a few hot boyfriends with kittehs? Poor you! What a terrible fate! (Snicker) I can just see you auditioning them.

    1. Chichikovovich

      I hereby introduce "supportoppose" and "opposesupport" into the English language, for Romney's use on any occasion where he wants to switch positions in mid-word.

      There have been many occasions where Romney has wanted to do that, but the inadequacy of the spoken word held him back. Until now.

      1. Lascauxcaveman

        Linguistic pioneers like yourself are what the make English language so rich and satisfying. And politics ever more squishier.

      1. WhatTheHeck

        One thing you will never hear Mitt say to his wife: “Honey, I’ve had a hard day. I think I’m going to have a stiff one.”

        1. not that Radio

          You notice that Ann has been rather quiet lately, at least since "Stay-at-home-mom-gate" blew over?

          1. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

            I thought it was all the gaffes, with assuring us Mitt wasn't stiff and offering to unzip him so the rest of us could revel in the not-stiffness that is Mitt.

            I sure as hell wouldn't want her on my team. I can denigrate my own dick just FINE without YOUR help, Missy. Personally, I think it's her revenge for when Mitt threw stones at her horse.

  4. ThankYouJeebus

    He can take a page from Newt's book:
    "Anyone who quotes what I said on Thursday is lying."

  5. Mittens Howell, III

    I'm pretty sure most gay couples wouldn't strap their adopted baby onto the roof of the car.

      1. Dashboard Buddha

        Can you blame him? Who wants to ride around in a car with a couple of homosexuals? He might become gay. After all, isn't it a fact that if you ride around with a couple of mechanics, you suddenly have urges to fix cars? Or if you ride with doctors, you want to take out kidneys? Of course, if a baby rides with priest, he may find himself with the urge to clench and run. Too bad for him that priests can run faster than a baby. Because he's a baby and babies can't really run.

        1. Fare la Volpe

          And everyone knows teachers influence children: that's why there's so many nuns running around everywhere.

        2. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

          As a rule, you'll find most priests can outrun most children, and besides, they're smart enough to only interact with the poor kids in situations where screaming and running away might be viewed with an unappreciative eye by onlookers. So, the deck is pretty much stacked in favour of priestly pedophiles, I'm afraid.

          1. Dashboard Buddha

            Good point…maybe it will be more palatable to think of them as crazed beasts just thinning out the herd.

            No…that doesn't make it palatable at all.

      2. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

        But how would you KNOW if the babby enjoyed it? Just because it tries to climb into the carrier doesn't mean it wants to go racing down the freeway at 60 mph and poop its nappies, yaknow.

    1. Ann_ObeyMe_Money

      Not even if it was crying, probably.

      Srsly, though — because adopting has historically been so difficult for gay folks, they tend to treat their children very very well indeed, in my personal experience.

    1. Serolf_Divad

      Don't be surprised: the way he flip and flops about he could easily be mistaken for a fish out of water.

  6. V572 Is this him?

    (1) Isn't the elephant in the gay-marriage room the fact that married couples can leave each other their estates tax-free*, and isn't that a federal law? So isn't it bullshit to say it's a state issue? (This is also true of SS, which pays a "survivor benefit" to spouses.) And shouldn't con-law expert Barry Obama know this?

    (2) Won't this all be decided when CA Prop 8 gets to the SCOTUS, where all the Catholics can slap gay marriage down once and for all? Barry probably knows this too, so can avoid taking the heat for introducing gay-marriage legislation. He always plays the long game. We hope.

    (3) Also, what blog-readers really want to talk about is jobs and the economy. When we get into office and get rid of job-killing Obamacre and reduce regulations, the economy will come back.
    ____________________
    *Plus the heir receives all the estate holdings such as real estate and stocks at a "stepped up" basis to the date of the decedent's demise, wiping out all the cap gains tax that would otherwise be due in such a transfer. One of the sweetest deals in all of taxation.

    1. flamingpdog

      Also, what blog-readers really want to talk about is jobs and the economy.

      Pfffft, I remember when all blog-readers really wanted to talk about was mildly overweight, closeted, locally-elected Rethugliklan politicians caught in city park men's rooms inquiring of other men's room occupants about the current status of their pocket rockets. Are we suffering from a shortage of local officials going "undercover" in public places these days, or is this part of a kinder, gentler Wonkministration?

      1. weejee

        Well it is a long time 'til Cocktober and Blowvember so perhaps not surprising the eds are giving us political flashing lite.

    2. Chichikovovich

      In re 1: Immigration law too. Spouses can more or less automatically get permanent residence, with only three years to apply for citizenship. (At least, that's how long the wait was when I was going through the process, though in fact it took me 25 years to actually get around to applying.)

      Also Federal Law, of course.

      And in Federal Criminal Procedure (and every other Anglo-American jurisdiction too, of course) spouses cannot be compelled to testify against one another. I assume (haven't actually checked) that gay partners married in Massachusetts or New York or Canada or Europe… can be so compelled.

      Also Federal.

      All these things could (and should) be changed at the Federal level. And many more like them.

      1. V572 Is this him?

        Those are all important issues, but pale in comparison to $$$, which everybody understands and can sympathize with, except maybe Scalito and Thomas. An Italian friend of mine only got around to applying for citizenship when her husband was diagnosed with lung cancer.

        1. Chichikovovich

          I would guess that one of the reasons she applied was also one of the reasons I applied (though there were a bunch) is a limitation on the "married couples can leave each other their estates tax-free" rule. If the surviving spouse is not a citizen, the estate tax is something like 50% of the estate.

      2. poorgradstudent

        I'll have to keep this in mind the next time one of my Libertarian and/or conservative friends skirts the entire gay rights issue by harrumphing, "But why is the government in the marriage business in the first place?!?!"

      1. Fare la Volpe

        Why do you think Obama passed healthcare reform?

        Obamacare created all those death panels TO KILL OFF THE OLDS all so that the Marxist president could set the ground work for implementing gay marriage 15 years from now! WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!!

    3. Blueb4sunrise

      Vaguely related to what the electorate wants…… Was gonna post this to the whacky NC vs. MS. thread, but of course, Her Editrixness knew that and put up a new one. It's kinda weak sauce in the race to the bottom anyway. Jan the Mummy signed the latest RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, NOT SLUTS!!! bill

      "In its final form, this bill is about nothing more than preserving religious freedom to which were all constitutionally entitled," Brewer said in a prepared statement. "Mandating that a religious institution provide a service in direct contradiction with its faith would represent an obvious encroachment upon the First Amendment."

      http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics

      1. V572 Is this him?

        If religious freedom doesn't include the freedom to control what other people, even those who don't share your set of mythologies, do in the privacy of their own pharmacies, then does it have any meaning at all?

        PS: That woman is scary. Don't know why Hopey didn't bitch-slap her when she shook her scrawny finger in his face on the ramp.

          1. Dudleydidwrong

            You probably meant "eating hummus" in Gitmo, but I sorta like the idea of that dingbag Jan Brewer eating dirt– plain ordinary garden soil, especially if it has been well mixed with rotted cattle manure from those feed lots south of Phoenix. Try some, Jan, you probably don't know what humus is, living in that desert. Goes well with prickly pear cactus jam.

            If you had the double entendre in mind from the git-go, my compliments.

      2. Doktor StrangeZoom

        In a separate development, the governor signed legislation designed to ensure the state cannot take away the license of a professional because of that person's religious belief.

        Arizona law already protects pharmacists and doctors who refuse to prescribe or dispense contraceptives. This measure extends to all state licenses.

        Proponents could not cite any example where this has occurred

        Gotta love those "limited govamint" conservatives!

        1. not that Radio

          "Limited to what we want you to do"

          We can't have those abortion-loving Gays walking around practicing professions, now, can we? btw does this legislation extend to driver's licenses?

          PZ Meyers linked to this yesterday, which is pretty darned (a) accurate, and (b) funny.

    4. not that Radio

      My father, the tax accountant, recently did a survey of states vis-a-vis whether they permitted same-sex marriage, and if so, whether they allowed these couples to file joint tax returns. Turns out, as you predicted, that states that discriminate against same-sex couples are losing tax revenue out the yin-yang. There is a well-defined gradient between Massachusetts and Alabama (as there is with all other metrics), with a deterministic slope.

    5. James Michael Curley

      1. There is a lot of your statement which is wrong. See http://wills.about.com/od/understandingestatetaxe… for one of many easily accessible summaries of what spouses have to pay as "Estate Tax" Going forward the spousal exemption drops down to $1,000,000 after 12/31/2012 unless Congress acts and there is no bill before Congress which will change that now.

      2. Although grounded in the Prop that overruled the California Assembly on same sex marriage, the issue before the US Supreme Court is not gay marriage per se it is whether a state referendum can over rule the constitutional actions of a state. This has actually been decided many times over the course of 100 years which a little research into the rise and fall of some 'Jim Crow' laws.

      3. Blog readers are free to go where ever they want and are not required by anyone to read any post, including yours. As for the knee jerk reaction that the reduction of regulations will have a positive effect on the economy, it always was and always will be a knee jerk reaction. A regulation when repealed may have a beneficial effect on a micro economic entity, such as removing the regulation which requires Kentucky coal mines to reduce the amount of arsenic in the water which runs off their mining property. BUT do you really want to drink the Jack Daniels from their distillery down stream from that coal mine. A regulation may contribute to the cost of A business, but removing that regulation does not even come close to whether there would be a beneficial effect on the macro economy, unless you can show a regulation which had the same effect across every micro economic entity that contributes to the macro economy.

      Even your * is not correct. Simply, real estate no, stock holdings some time. My stocks in my IRA do not loos their capitals gain status when my IRA is transferred to my spouse on my death. Both the long term capital gains evaluation and the status of the qualified dividends.

      1. V572 Is this him?

        I stand corrected! And never purported to give tax advice. One would be not be wise to get tax advice from a political blog to be sure. But even a $1M exemption is nothing to sneeze at.Didn’t Callyfornia have an initiative to the effect that you could refuse to sell or rent your property to anyone you chose, and didn’t it get thrown out in court? So isn’t that settled?

        1. James Michael Curley

          I haven't paid that much attention to how the status of the CA legislative act stood when Prop 8 was passed and voted down. The basic theory is that if CA had granted same sex marriage rites as a constitutional right, the actions of even the majority of the voters should not be able to change it without a constitutional amendment.

          Brain storming the issue you mentioned, the Court would be strongly compelled to throw out a state referendum which ran counter to a federal judicial decision as in the numerous interpretations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. On the other hand, what was the underlying issues of the particular case was (if the Court challenge was occasioned by an actual event)? I can refuse to sell my house to anyone I choose as long as I represent something like, "I was not provided sufficient documentation that a title transfer would guarantee my rights." On the other hand, "I don't sell to Californians" would not be happy time in the resulting law suit by a Californian.

          All of this is not legal advice and I only play lawyer for a few days a month on my job. Since the other duties are quite extensive what I have forgotten probably exceeds what I learned.

          1. James Michael Curley

            I have to delve more into Perry the case decided by Judge Walker which resulted in the challenger to Proposition 8 being ruled against but off the top of my head it has an interesting element regarding whether a state referendum can overrule constitutional jurisprudence or even an attempt by a populous to create new constitutional law.  Judge Walker framed some of his argument in Griswold v. Connecticut which decided that Connecticut could not bar the use of condoms and other forms of birth control.  This was determined by a 7-2 majority with the majority opinion being written by William O’Douglas finding an inherent right of privacy in the Constitution.  Other opinions concurred citing fourteenth amendment due process and equality clause protected that right to privacy.  Griswold, of course, has its place in history having never been over ruled and was the key element in deciding Roe v Wade and Lawrence v Texas.  In the latter case the Supreme Court nullified  a Texas law which declared specific sexual acts illegal being mostly those committed by same sex couples saying in part that the Texas “statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual” This, if a controlling factor in the Prop 8 case going to the US Supreme Court runs up against the ‘finding of fact’ in Judge Walker’s trial which found that gays are discriminated against.  The US Supreme Court will have to address this issue one way or the other before it can decide the Prop 8 case and it is very difficult for the US Supreme Court to overturn a ‘finding of fact’ by a trial court.

          2. V572 Is this him?

            Marriage is a public act, addressed by laws at every level of government. You obviously know more about the law than I, but it seems clear that the 1967 Supreme Court said the people of CA can’t amend their constitution to take away a right. That was the most different court imaginable, of course.

            The supporters of Prop 8 made only a humorously half-assed attempt to argue the state’s purported interest in “protecting” opposite-sex marriage before the 9th Circuit. Either they were saving their best arguments for SCOTUS or they just, as most rational people think, have no valid argument.

            Then again, when I read about Reitman v Mulkey, it was close and narrowly defined to racial discrimination, and had to reach pretty far to show that the seemingly-innocuous language of the proposition was about race.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reitman_v._Mulkey

          3. James Michael Curley

            It is a very strange world these days as legal speculation (and there is an enormous amount of that) is becoming more befuddled by various decisions by the “Nine Dancing Bears” which most people look to be contradictory.  I tend to discount theories based on ‘judge X was chosen by president A because he would rule MMMM when given the opportunity regardless of precedent or the law” but then there was Gore v Bush and Citizens United v FEC and all I can say is WTF!  Now both Olsen and Boies are bringing the Perry case to the Supremes and maybe trying to redeem themselves for Gore v Bush.One of the philosophical issues on the process by which a federal constitution and a state constitution is amended goes right to the basis of the US Constitution.  It gave the right to amend the constitution to the people but only after extreme review; a super majority of Congress and a super majority of states ratifying it.  It was always considered that a simple majority of the population should not have the right to deny or delete the rights of a group of its citizens.  Yet it took the 14th Amendment, and a tortuous route of US Supreme Court decisions from the mid 1930’s to the mid 1960’s to embody it into US Federal jurisprudence.  It was the so-called reform period in the 1880’s to the early 1920’s which brought the major change allowing simple majorities in states to amend their constitutions.  And at that time, the US Supreme Court did not follow a very strong doctrine that certain ‘unalienable rights’ as enumerated in the US Constitution had to be rights which were fully vested in state constitutions.  I put forward for this problem blame on the same body of historical Republican oligarchs and hereditary power brokers which continues to this day.  Check out Leland Stanford who was instrumental in rewriting the California Constitution which incorporates almost the same amendment provisions as the current constitution.

          4. Boojum

            But if DOMA is repealed and the States define marriage, "spouse" will include same sex spice (the plural of spouse). Further, if a State grants marital status to a couple, other States will have to recognize it under the Full Faith and Credit clause, so leaving it a State issue is tantamount to granting a federal right to gay marriage.

          5. James Michael Curley

            I haven’t gone into DOMA much past the ‘news veneer’ but it strikes me that some LGBT groups supporting same sex marriage are advocating the repeal of DOMA and others who are against same sex marriage are supporting the repeal of DOMA. Your statement serves as a two sided sword. If a state can use DOMA to restrict same sex marriage, the heavy handed method by which DOMA was written can be used to argue that Massachusetts same sex law HAS to be recognized in other states. I need to pay more attention to this. However, the Full Faith and Credit Clause issue is, I believe, a non starter, especially in more current times when the US Supreme Court is requiring a stronger federal recognition of the issue of a state’s law before the Full Faith and Credit Clause issue kicks in. For example, merely because NJ has a law restricting speed limits to 55 does not require Wyoming to have 55 mph speed limits under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However when the federal government was still exercising federal authority over national speed limits linked to federal Department of Transportation funding and Congress pushed for eliminating the 55 mph limit, the Full Faith and Credit Clause argument did not save it. Here there was no federal connection that state A had to recognize state B’s punitive regulation of traffic law infractions. A similar argument is starting to play out over voting rights bans for convicted felons where state A restores a convicted felon’s rights after his sentence is served and state B makes all convicted felon’s voting right bans permanent.

    6. Negropolis

      As counterintuitive as it may seen, I am not at all convinced that Supreme Court is going to strike down gay marriage, even indirectly, which is what the case that might meet them is. Maybe 10 years ago, but, today? I'm not sure.

      1. V572 Is this him?

        Hope you're right. Upholding or establishing (depending on your POV) same-sex marriage would have near Brown-v-Board-level legal implications, and would also arouse the same passionate opposition Brown did. People don't like gays for the same reason they don't like other races: it's not rational, it's emotional, like any prejudice, and entirely reason-proof.

  7. KennyFuckingPowers

    Fuckin' Mitt has no scrotum ball sack. Fucking empty mass of subhuman flesh. Cant piss standin'. Who is Mitt's Edgar Bergen? Bad deal when the dummy talks before the ventriloquist. Results in a flip flop.

  8. Mittens Howell, III

    It's becoming pretty clear that the Mitt-bot 3000 circuit boards are running Internet Explorer.

  9. ManchuCandidate

    Way to show your leadershit, Mittens being whigged out by two gheys with a baby. You'll probably shit yourself if you get that 3am call everyone sez the preznit gets.

    1. Designer_Rants

      Secretary of State John Bolton: "Sir?"
      President Mittens: "It's 3 A.M. in the Gol Darn mornin'! Why are you calling me on the red phone?"
      John Bolton: "There's a queer on your roof, looks like he's installing solar panels."
      Mittens "Aieeeeeeeeeeeee! Get 'im offame! Get 'im off me! Gay! Gay! Aaaarrgggggh!!!"

    1. James Michael Curley

      And he is against straight eagle bullies bullying straight female victims so after the show he tore off that shirt, threw her down and kissed her nips until she felt better.

      1. Boojum

        I'm not seeing that.

        No, really, I would poke out my eyeballs and wash my brain with bleach before I would see that.

        1. James Michael Curley

          I’m sure with Romney the ‘missing tape’ segment is only 18 seconds long.

    1. Butch_Wagstaff

      I'm almost willing to forgive Mittens for the bullying incident because I know that teenagers can be horrible monsters to each other.
      However, I don't really think he has changed/matured that much since he was a teenager. I think he's still a bully at heart.

  10. lochnessmonster

    I didn't know there were so many positions one could have…did I miss something in Sex Ed class?

  11. SudsMcKenzie

    He will build the first "I once ran for President for 8 years library", I'm guessing somewhere in Utah, it will have two wings, one for each policy.

          1. C_R_Eature

            Rumor has it that the original French pronunciation of ROMNEY was Le sphincter énorme.

          2. Butch_Wagstaff

            Never learned that fancy commie French but I translated that as "Big Asshole".
            Google translate says: "The huge sphincter".
            Close enough.

          3. C_R_Eature

            Precisely. Now it should be obvious that, upon arrival into this country, "Le sphincter énorme" was Anglicised by the authorities in two steps: removal of the decidedly Un-Anglic "Le sphincter" prefix and, later, transforming "énorme" into "Romney".

          4. not that Radio

            But blog-readers don't really want to talk about that. What blog-readers really want to talk about is jobs and the economy.

    1. Negropolis

      A man marrying a bicycle ain't right, I tells ya'; it's unnatural! Not in my America! Not on my watch!

  12. Chichikovovich

    Mitt has obviously thoroughly immersed himself in the political version of the Kama Sutra.

  13. mavenmaven

    "Reality" and "acknowledging facts" is not really a concept for an elder in a group that believes that Jesus showed up in Indian America to lead a losing battle between white indians and black indians.

  14. weejee

    There are so many facets to Mittens flipfloppery that it appears he is morphing into a whore diamond and just reflecting back whatever comes his way. Given his snit yesterday, it doesn't appear that Rmoney is sufficiently cute by half to keep this up until November without losing all control and pulling out his magic Fiskers and stabbing a reporter instead of giving them a prankish haircut.

    1. V572 Is this him?

      Nobody's been able to ask him insolent, pointed, gotcha questions in a long time. He seems like the kind of CEO, Olympics czar and goobernor who'd be well defended behind a perimeter set up by his chief of staff, calendar, pre-briefings, etc. Thus the statement about how income inequality and tax policy should be decided in "quiet rooms," preferably mahogany paneled.

      Here's hoping for more character-revealing melt-downs!

      1. weejee

        Maybe Rebecca could do an interview and ask about Bain trying to corner the Temple Garment market put their junk out there to create greenmail opportunities for LBOs when Mittens was CEO. See if that gets a rise.

        1. Chichikovovich

          Weeeelllll…. I have a hunch that all the Wonkette editors have their photos posted at head level above the desks of every one of Mitt's handlers, and assistant handlers, and special assistant to the assistant handlers. Rather as cashiers in seedy liquor stores have a "accept no checks from these people" gallery. Except this one says "Accept no questions from these people", and there are several arrows drawn in red sharpie to a circled picture of Rebecca, accompanied by "Especially not this one!!!!"

          1. weejee

            Yer probly right on that one. We do need to get someone to put a burr under Mittens thong though with some gotcha about his Bainful days in the tranches. Maybe what special purpose vehicle he liked to ride? Was it a rat like Ganesha or moar likley a "ring fenced" slimey slug?

            Mmmm we need an undercover Wonkadero with a notepad. Hey Barb has Jeff ever worked as a reporter?

          2. V572 Is this him?

            I want to know how Mittens managed to get an IRA with $100M in it when the max contribution annually is $15K. Is he older than he "looks"?

          3. Designer_Rants

            I was asking that same question on the story about it here a month ago or whenever… I get the feeling there was a Safe Harbor/profit sharing component involved where he could shovel shares of Bain or buyout companies' stock into it?

            It's been a while since I was a financial advisor, and it's amazing how much of that knowledge is quickly evaporating. I used to know the 401(k) rules pretty well.

          4. V572 Is this him?

            Snark aside, the presumed answer of op-ed and business page wise men is that assets were put in that IRA at low value and grew…a lot. Profit sharing or other incentive contributions are limited to 15% of salary or $40K, something like that.

          5. Designer_Rants

            Appreciation goes without saying, I mean, it's a hundred million dollars! I'm pretty sure that this is a case of Bain taking over companies, valuing them at zero dollars, shoving tons of their shares into a 401k (it takes a lot of shares valued at $0.00 to add up to whatever dollar amount the annual cap is for the year), and then after Bain did their fancy consulting, they let the shares be revalued.

            i.e., if you shoved a million shares of Staples into an IRA 20 years ago at $0.00/share, then list them on a public exchange and they start trading a $10.00 per, there's a tenth of the portfolio right there.

            But now my curiosity has been piqued enough to get to the bottom of this, and here's some information: http://reut.rs/JAZvCa

            Also, gotta say I'm very happy (schadenfreude-wise) that Mittens will have to pay regular RichGuy income taxes (not Cap Gains' piddly 15%) on anything that comes out of the 401(k), including anyone who inherits it, and at some point in the not-so-distant future (since he's already 65), he or an heir is going to have to START taking a certain percentage of money out of it (RMD: Required Minimum Distribution) each year. Even his kids will have to amortize and take the distributions each year based on a gov't table of their life expectancies, if I remember correctly.

    1. Veritas78

      And it's only May. Imagine the contortions by November!

      Can't wait for the book: Mitt's Political Kama Sutra: My Own Story (with pictures of Ann, Tagg, Sean, Squirter, Spurter, Runt, and the one we killed at birth because he was obviously gay)

          1. BarackMyWorld

            We joke, but I am pretty sure that I'll be watching "Hardball" Monday to see him lose his shit over this latest bit of Romney silliness.

  15. owhatever

    I am firmly in favor of (insert issue) and always have been, and I have made that opposition clear from the start, although the liberal media spins it the other way around to benefit President Obama during my time as governor.

    1. Negropolis

      Imagine having to run agains the president of the United States and yourself, simutaneously. How incredibly tiring must that be? I mean, most presidential candidates have to run against pieces of their former selves, but I've never seen anything quite like the Romney model.

  16. valthemus

    When Romney says non-hostile things about gays, the ghost of Brigham Young floats into one of his houses and hides all of Mitt's Grecian Formula.

  17. sbj1964

    Mittens has taken more positions on gay rights than anyone.He is like the Karma Sutra of gay rights.

    1. unclejeems

      Wouldn't say that it's his strongest sutra, though. That would be a stuffed, pin-striped sutra with pockets stuffed with cash.

  18. pinkocommi

    Of course Mittens supports the right of gays to marry. He thinks it is great that Marcus Bachmann has married Michelle. Marcus is living proof that gay men have a god-given right to marry their beard and even adopt children. Lots and lots of female children.

  19. Lionel[redacted]Esq

    Normal Wonkette libel. It is so unfair to hold Romney to anything he says before his latest software upgrade.

    1. poorgradstudent

      I think someone on the 30 Rock writing team *must* read Wonkette. I can't find the exact quote now, but they had a joke where Jack mentions that the new upgraded Romney is no longer going out at night and killing homeless people.

      1. Butch_Wagstaff

        "I think someone on the 30 Rock writing team *must* read Wonkette."

        I would hope that it be the lovely Fey herself.

  20. Mumbletypeg

    This flip-flopitude is why Romney can't seem to retain a full stable of wikipedia-fact-scrubbers. Unlike She1ey's or Palin's stalwarts, the attrition rate of Mitt's damage-control team continues unabated because they tire of the bottom line always bottoming out.

    ETA: in this case more like "opinion-scrubbing"; but it doesn't have the same ring to it when singing along to the Smiths' "Do you have a vacancy/ for a fact-scrubber"

  21. mrblifil

    But where does he stand on the issue of blowing strangers at high way rest stops? I'm gonna assume his silence is a form of assent.

      1. C_R_Eature

        Really! That does explain a lot. Here I was, assuming it was a classic Three Laws Conflict Loop causing the odd switching frequency but it is, in fact a structural weakness. The more you know!

        Silly me – The General Robotics Romney Android 2.1.0 was never programmed with the Three Laws.

        1. not that Radio

          I know, right? Who designs with JKs anymore? They're unstable, and if you really need the functionality, you can easily synthesize one out of DFFs. He probably uses something quaint like PALs. That would explain a lot. He's trying to do modern computation on an unreconfigurable platform.

          1. C_R_Eature

            Those Yoyodyne Systems Positronic Brains are notorious for not being forward-compatible and known to reject flash firmware updates. The Heuristic learning routine was a hash of nightmarish proportions and really never made it beyond Beta.
            What can you expect from a bunch of aliens in New Jersey?

  22. ttommyunger

    We are through the Looking-Glass here, Pilgrims; consider this: Barry approves of gay marriage but is willing to leave it up to each state to decide. Mittens does not want to allow gay marriage in America and in fact wants a Constitutional Amendment to ban it Nation-Wide. I am gobsmacked at this total reversal of platform planks between D & R;s, no snark.

  23. Callyson

    Slightly O/T, from the National Journal article:

    On another topic, Romney said that he thinks the Occupy Wall Street protesters who targeted the Bank of America in Charlotte this week are too young to understand the economy or what banks do.

    Yeah, WTF would a bunch of kids with student debt and without jobs possibly know about the economy or banks? And who the hell else other than young people were OWS supporters?

    Asshole.

    1. C_R_Eature

      Ah, yes. Working hard to alienate the College Educated youth vote, because who needs to build a loyal voter base for the future anyway. Let's just stick with the 50 to 80 year old white Evangelical Conservatives because that's the real growing demographic.

      I can't wait until Mitt endorses Debtor's Prisons. That'll be fun.

      1. flamingpdog

        Oh, I'm sure Mitt didn't understand the economy when he was that young either. If he did, he wouldn't have interfered in the natural evolution of the tonsorial economy like he did at Cranbrook.

        1. C_R_Eature

          Upfisted for proper usage of "Tonsorial", although I first read it as "Tonsil", as in "Tonsil-Hockey", which would be an economy of an entirely different nature.

      2. Butch_Wagstaff

        Listening to NPR interview evangelicals in TX who say they will support Romney, I thought: couldn't they find anyone under the age of 50 who's going to vote for Mr. Roboto?

  24. rickmaci

    Romoney would say he was straight before he was gay before he was straight, if he thought that would get him votes.

  25. So Tired

    Now quit picking on poor Romney. He has his pants put on him one leg at a time just like we do.

  26. rickmaci

    You know who else lived at home until he was in his thirties, worked in the family business and had TWO fathers?

    1. Butch_Wagstaff

      Does his name begin with a "J"?
      And were a shitload of books written about him and the group of single guys who used to follow him around?

      1. Veritas78

        Josip Broz Tito? Jackie Mason? Jim Thorpe? Jackson Brown?

        Jeez, I'm outa guesses.

    2. Wile E. Quixote

      Kal-El of Krypton, a.k.a Superman, a.k.a "Clark Kent"? No wait, that's not right, he moved to the big city in his early 20s and went to work for the Daily Planet instead of being a farmer like his adoptive father Jonathan Kent or a scientist like his biological father, Jor-El of Krypton.

  27. labman57

    MItt “the human flapjack” Romney’s tendency to flip-flop on his policy positions is somewhat akin to coherent superposition in the field of quantum mechanics. In much the same way that light is both a particle and a wave, Mitt Romney is both a moderate and a conservative, depending on the situation. It is not that he is one or the other; it is not that he is one and then the other. He is both at the same time.

    However, what type of political ideology Romney displays at any given moment will depend on the audience’s expectations — what he thinks you want to see is what you’ll get.

      1. C_R_Eature

        The Coveted Wonkadero Status! High Praise Indeed. Thanks! I love this version.

        Great album. I had it on Vinyl, it was out of print for the longest time and now Amazon's got it on MP3.

          1. Blueb4sunrise

            Hmphh. Shoulda told me that yesterday.
            I'm getting to where instead of actually helping people move, I should be a Moving Consultant or something.

    1. Doktor StrangeZoom

      So Werner Heisenberg is driving down the freeway, and gets pulled over by a cop, and the cop sez, "Sir, do you know how fast you were going?" And Heisenberg sez, "No, but I know exactly where I am."

      EDIT: To stay on-topic, I shoulda said that Mitt had Schrodinger's Dog strapped to the roof of his car.

    2. not that Radio

      Fig. 2: A Feynman diagram of an encounter between a Romney and an anti-Romney. The resulting collision annihilates both, leaving behind a single electron and a $20 bill.

      HA!

  28. Wile E. Quixote

    In the rare event that Mitt Romney holds a position longer than four hours call a physician.

  29. Negropolis

    Seriously? He keeps surprising me. Just when I think I can't like him any less, he manages to do just that.

Comments are closed.