Compassion Is The Problem For Mitt ‘I Like To Fire People’ Romney

On the heels of his “I like to fire people” Mitt slip, Romney is facing some trouble in New Hampshire. And since New Hampshire mirrors his what we could call his home state of Massachusetts this is bad news for Willard.

The problem for Mitt is that he lives in a millionaire’s bubble and unlike the wealthy Kennedys, for example, Romney just doesn’t have the compassion gene. He is quite simply unable to fathom a world in which it’s not funny to talk about how you like to fire people over Dom Pérignon.

Even as Mitt fights back against the “I like to fire people” debacle of yesterday, he’s drowning in the reality of who he is and how he grew up.

Even as Occupy Wall Street protests the candidates, raising the voice of the 99% and their concerns about jobs, Romney is catering to the 1%.

What you see is what you get with Mitt. Even his name tells the story of his prep school upbringing, though Mitt wasn’t a popular kid in school and never excelled at much. Still. When your dad is a CEO of an auto company and then governor of the state, it doesn’t matter much if anyone thinks you’re cool. You’re going to have an entourage of sorts just because power and money do that.

At a time when Americans are losing their savings, their pensions, their homes, and even their lives for lack of money but no lack of hard work, the Millionaire Mitt is quite simply the wrong candidate to sell the Republican Party’s policies for the 1% to the 99%.

Mitt is talking about gutting the social safety net, getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and almost every other social safety program Americans depend upon. How is he going to sell economic and social Darwinism when in contrast we have Barack Obama who has shown the Republicans a thing or two about fiscal responsibility but still champions the middle class, the social safety net, and unions (Obama just made several appointments to the Labor Board that may be a larger impact on the daily lives of the American people than even the financial protection board. Union leaders and working Americans are salivating.)

A Rick Santorum or Rick Perry could sell taxing the poor for the benefit of the rich better than slick Mitt with his prep school smarminess and condescending privilege. Of course, Rick Santorum couldn’t even get elected in his home state and Rick Perry can’t be allowed to speak in public, so they face their own challenges. Such are the problems for a party that elevates being uneducated, misinformed and stepped on by the man as cool on one hand and is stuck with the results of 40 years of their Southern strategy – the only voters they can get to support them are the voters who still believe the Republican Party is on board with the social values the evangelicals are told to care about for the sake of the Republican Party. What a web we weave when at first we do deceive. But the piper is a callin’.

The Republicans have a problem. With Obama having stolen Republican’s usual “we’ll keep you safe” foreign policy and national security meme, it’s all about the economy – or rather, it should be. And Obama has been talking about working people and an unfair economy since long before the Bush stock market crash of 2008.

Mitt is the only electable Republican candidate in a national election and yet he is also the only person who can’t sell catering to the rich and make it seem folksy. Sarah Palin or George W Bush he ain’t.

If I were Mitt Romney’s strategy team, I’d bring in a stylist and a speech coach for Mittens. I’d teach him how the rest of America talks and then I’d dress him in something that didn’t make it appear as if he was buttoned up and ironed down. Something earthy. And I’d do something to fix that hair.

But Mitt has had the money to fix his image problem for a long time and he hasn’t been able to manage it. No matter what they do to the guy he ends up looking like a button downed spoiled son of the elite. And when Americans are broke, suffering, starving and finally getting pissed off about the lack of the 40 year trickle down, do you really think they’re going to buy meaner policies than Reagan’s without the Ronnie charm?

The GOP only manages to peddle their crap to the uneducated because they package it well as something other than it is; they take a bumbling clown like Dubya I-want-to-have-a-beer-with-you Bush, wrap him in the flag and hang a cross around him and then photograph him pretending to cut brush, ride horses, and sporting flight jackets. They spin a fantasy, a narrative, of the big daddy or in Palin’s case the mean Mama, whom the base can relate to but who also makes them feel safe.

Not many people can relate to Mitt Romney and he simply doesn’t engender even an appearance or semblance of a sense of safety that even Bush managed to pull off, however contrary that appearance was to the reality that was George W Bush.

I’m left wondering if Cracker had a point. Can we take our guns up to heaven? If so, maybe this is the next sell for the GOP. After all, they’ve messed up earth pretty good. Time to move on, rebrand, etc. Heaven is ripe for the pickins’ and I hear Jesus loves the guns.

32 Replies to “Compassion Is The Problem For Mitt ‘I Like To Fire People’ Romney”

  1. Even if Mitt’s handlers could change his image, Bain Capital will do in Romney. He’s a Job Creamator, a Vulture Capitalist, and in these tough times no amount of “Aw shucks!” is going to cover that. Most likely Romney won’t be able to act of look like “one of the folks” anyway. And the “I like to fire people” remark will not only doom the Romney campaign, but haunt all of the gop candidates down ticket should he be the nominee, as seems likely.

  2. Stop your whining, Libtards!! There’s nothing wrong with enjoying the firing of people.

    If you’re not rich, BLAME YOURSELVES!

    If you get fired, BLAME YOURSELF!

    If you’re jobless, BLAME YOURSELF!

    Romney 2012!!

  3. No – that was Herman Cain, not Romney. He may THINK that, but even HE has enough sense not to say it.

    Sarah – be fair now, Mitt NEVER would fire people while drinking champagne. He’s Mormon. It’d be Ginger Ale. Let’s not get carried away here… (Snark).

    ALL of these guys (and Michelle who’s no longer fodder for our laughs) are exemplars of the quest for material gain. Not one of them cares a fig for ordinary people, ESPECIALLY working people. What fascinates me is that they are more honest about it than I’ve ever heard. Mitt’s disgust with the auto loans is that it preserved the union, and THAT he has to cover up with some wacko assessment that private money is better than government money even if the outcome is BETTER for working people the way Obama did it. But the contempt for working people is laid bare in how “expensive” they are. Each of these candidates has made clear that the GOP wet dream – beyond Norquist’s and Paul’s desire to eliminate government entirely – is to rid the world of the scourge of employees. Not seeing basic Econ. 101 – consumption can occur if and only if employees are paid well enough to purchase things – is their collective blind spot. So they resort to the Supply Side drivel once again. But they’re fine with “trickle down” being the smallest thread of drool they can conjure up.

    Mitt is the one who gives the game away most frequently now Cain is gone, but Mr. Dominionist Cain DID let the cat out of the bag with his “blame yourself” sneer. The rest just cannot go beyond that meme since they all believe it – people are irrelevant. They should just shut up and go away.

    Of course, that’s pretty much what we think of these candidates, too.

  4. You’re absolutely right. Never in the history of elections has every single candidate been so BLUNT about their mission to destroy. I’m actually thankful we still have 10 months to election; more time for some of these conservatives, who are very slow to come around to the realities of a republican president, to get a clue. There are still tons of older and elderly out there buying their bs, despite the fact that these candidates have made it abundantly clear their Medicare and SS will be gone gone gone. There are millions of conservatives out there, barely making it now, and absolutely dependent on the meager $130 a month they get in food stamps, who still buy their bs too, knowing if they elect a republican, it’s gone! And yet they can’t seem to give it up. It’s truly an amazing cognitive dissonance! Yanno, I can comprehend the pro-life issue on a religious basis, even tho I’m pro-choice, and still there are millions of republicans who are just completely ignoring the fact that these candidates want to deprive them of contraception, prevent them from abortions even if it results in the mother’s death, or if they are cases of rape or incest. It truly boggles the brain how they can justify this in their minds.

  5. Do any of you even know the context of the “I like to fire people” comment? He was referring to insurance companies.

  6. “consumption can occur if and only if employees are paid well enough to purchase things”

    I would agree with you on the above point if globalization of our corporations had not been pushed to the max. As it stands now, the mega corps do not need American consumers as much and can easily sell their goods world wide. The more people who can buy your stuff away from home, the less you have to sell at home and the less you have to bother keeping jobs at home. They are sending the jobs where the people who will work for peanuts live.

  7. Even as Occupy Wall Street protests the candidates, raising the voice of the 99% and their concerns about jobs, Romney is catering to the 1%.

    And are we surprised?

    Repubes or democraps, our politicians are equipped with the morals of gutter cats.

    The problem with republics is the same as with monarchies. After a while, the noble intentions at the start are as dead as the noble individuals which founded the kingdom or the republic. (The methods of creation for either are equally bloody.)

    If we want a representative government, we’ll have to RE-create it. (There were no parties in 1776.)

    If we want smaller government, we’ll have to take out the incentives for its growth too.

    We’ve become a government
    • OF the thousandaires (the 99%, that would be me and thee,)
    • BY the millionaires (the 1%, that would be the extremely insular privileged overlords and bosses,)
    • FOR the billionaires (the 12,400 individuals identified by the IRS as the people who count (though they don’t really count as they hire some thousandaires to run machines to do that.)

    The first thing we do is change from an ELECTED to a SELECTED form of government.

    Pick names at random out an eligible citizen pool and they’re stuck with doing the job for one, and only one, four year term.

    There could/should/would be no such thing as a career in politics. (The only thing worse than getting stuck with somebody who didn’t want the job is getting stuck with some idiot who did, figuring it was going to lift him a few rungs up the social/economic ladder.)

  8. The next POTUS did not say “I like to fire people”. He said “I like to be able to fire people”.

  9. It doesn’t matter how he worded it, especially since he has said things in the recent past that show his elitist contempt for everyday Americans. He has been no different from the other GOP candidates who have jumped through hoops in their efforts to outdo each other in terms of who can be the most empathy-challenged. He is no different in pandering to the most reactionary elements of the GOP in his quest to win the GOP nomination. Besides, with a record of outsourcing American jobs to other countries and having the unenviable distinction of governing over a state that rated 47th out of all 50 in job creation, only someone who wants Obama out at any cost would vote for this fool.

  10. No, Louis, the cool aid has destroyed their ability to discern, think or stick to the effort of reading a paragraph, apparently.

  11. I heard that his comment was taken out of context. Can anybody fill me in on what he said leading up to the defamed comment? Correct me if I’m wrong, but the conversation was about being able to walk away from a type of service and choose another. His comment-and I unfortunately cannot even paraphrase it properly here-was something to the effect that we should be able to fire them. It seems to me he then used the word people as a generic description of a group or entity. I’ll agree it was a poor choice of words, but I will maintain that both liberals and conservatives need to get your fingers out of your ears at least occasionally and LISTEN.
    Oh, yeah….I’m often accused of being a liberal. I am neither; I am a bigot. I hate everyone.

  12. Obama put his dog on a Christmas card, Romney put Seamus through a CARWASH (Seamus was in the CRATE on TOP of the CAR)
    http://bit.ly/wBFZg6
    Yes he is lacking in Compassion and is totally heartless! (and should of been arrested for animal abuse)

  13. Your dream is my nightmare.

    I’ve already explained why the idea of a selected government is a total fail. Why do you keep pushing it?

  14. This is off topic, but PLEASE, let’s stop denigrating one of the greater thinkers of modern time (Darwin).

    “How is he going to sell economic and social Darwinism when in contrast we have Barack Obama…”

    Let’s find a new term to replace “Social Darwinism”. I suggest Social Spencerism, because it’s accurate and puts the blame for that failed and incorrect thinking on the person who first came up with it.

    Otherwise, another fine article.

  15. Tell me something: is “conservative heart” for real (means what he or she says), or is that person doing parody? (I haven’t been on this blog long enough to get a sense of where he or she is coming from.)

    It says much for how bad the Republican party and conservatives have gotten, when you cannot tell if someone is doing parody or not.

  16. Interesting that you bring up Calvinism. I’ve read some interesting things showing the parallels of thought and how old-school Calvinism lent itself to greater stratification and pursuit of wealth.

  17. The quote:

    “I want individuals to have their own insurance,” Romney said. “That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn’t give me a good service that I need, I want to say I’m going to go get someone else to provide that service to me.”

    He was referring to having a choice in insurance providers, and being able to find a new provider if you want. Yes, he said “people” — I was on hold with Comcast last night for 30 minutes, and I said, “I can’t stand dealing with these people!” Does that mean I think Comcast is a person (Romney does, but that’s neither here nor there)? No, it’s just something people say.

    Even though Romney *is* a heartless robot, this one just needs to die — the context will make the person trying to use it as a weapon look foolish.

  18. And even though he has no problem paying for health care and might be lucky enough to HAVE someone to fire.

  19. I think you look foolish when you think someone who could afford any form of insurance available to him or if elected, he’d have insurance for life regardless of his multi millionaire status has some integrity in talking to the average working or non working person who does not have any choice. Or what does that say about the child who is ill and can’t get health insurance on Willard’s plan? And what does that say about the elderly or those approaching that age who will only have a coupon under the Ryan plan to get coverage? Do you have kids? Do you have parents? Do you have a job? Do you have health insurance now? Is your job so safe that if you lose it, you’ll be able to get health insurance with a pre existing condition? In terms of the llives of people who live in these categories, you look pretty foolish for thinking Romney doesn’t mean exactly what he said. He has a lot of experience in firing people and services. Because when you have over 200 million dollars in income, gained from firing people, you can pretty much do anything that you want. Last time around he spent nearly 50 million on his own campaign. This time he has the super pacs and anonymous donors to do the work for him.

  20. “You’re absolutely right. Never in the history of elections has every single candidate been so BLUNT about their mission to destroy.”

    Welllll? When Obama was the ONLY candidate: “”I promise you. We won’t just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.”

    Though “destroy” and “change” are both in the mind of the beholder–or, as my friend Mr. Gump said (more or less): “destroy is as destroy does.”

    And then there’s the other one, the one that didn’t come out quite right: “America is the greatest country on earth! Help me change it.” oops.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.