SLICK MITT ROMNEY anoints himself the GOP Nominee w/o a single vote being cast.....REALLY ???? Hey MITT ! Get over yourself.

Without a single vote cast or counted, SLICK MITT ROMNEY has already anointed himself the Republican Nominee and has started to act like the White House is his for the taking.

Don't get me wrong, I admire "ego strength" in a capable and well disciplined candidate but are you F&%king kidding me? DUDE, catch a clue, you can't just decide for yourself that based on polls more than 5 months out that you can appoint yourself the nominee.....This is one more in a long line of bizarre behaviors that shows why we don't need this feckless POL anymore than we need the empty suit that is in the White House.

The PRESIDENCY of the UNITED STATES requires the best person, the most qualified, the soundest of judgments, and someone who makes others feel like they are being listened to. Mitt Romney only hears the sound of his own voice, just like the delusional fool we have as President right now. WHY in God's sake would we elect a Republican version of the same thing we have now ??

We have to let the process work itself through the primaries and let the PEOPLE have a say on who they want to run against Obama, not decide it based on who has the most $$$$ and can get an early lead established by pandering to well heeled lobbyists.

We should reject the stupidity of anyone who acts like SLICK MITT as it is not the sign of leadership but of self delusion. We have one delusional lightweight in the White House - The last thing we need is Slick Mitt and Mrs. Slick Mitt for 4 years after we kick out the "Lecturer in Chief" and his Cow of a wife. Really, I am begging you....Let's return the decision power to the people where it belongs.


Mitt Romney's Measuring His White House Drapes
Elspeth Reeve Jul 27, 2011 - The Atlantic

Mitt Romney told donors in Virginia Beach Tuesday night that three guys are on his short list for vice president: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Bearing Drift reports. Aside from the amusing thought of the Tea Partying Rubio being No. 2 for Romney--whose state's overhaul was a model for President Obama's--the list feels like one more instance of Romney counting his chickens before they're hatched, NBC News' First Read observes--"he’s acting like someone who’s already wrapped up the GOP nomination, or even the White House."

Romney told New Hampshire voters that he'd be back in four years--with Secret Service in tow. As he did Tuesday night, he's visiting swing states that don't have early primary elections--Pennsylvania, California, and Virginia. Politico's Alexander Burns reports he'll be hitting Obama on jobs in Ohio on Wednesday, after securing the endorsement of former Sen. George Voinovich and more than a dozen state Republicans. First Read writes, "Romney is starting to resemble a gambler who's up $500 at the blackjack table and is already counting the ways he's going to spend his earnings--but before he walks away from the table."

.... The New York Times' Nate Silver should give him pause. When poll numbers are adjusted for name recognition--how many of the respondents have actually heard of the guy--Romney is merely a co-frontrunner with still-undeclared Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

An average of the seven most recent polls of Republican voters ... finds Mr. Romney with the lead, with an average of 22 percent of the vote. After that, there's essentially a four-way tie between Ms. Bachmann (13 percent), Sarah Palin (13 percent), Mr. Perry (12 percent) and Rudolph W. Giuliani (11 percent in the polls in which he is included). ...

The results tighten up a bit, however, once we adjust for name recognition based on the latest Gallup numbers. (Dividing a candidate's polling average by his name recognition can somewhat improve the predictive power of early-stage polls.) In particular, Mr. Perry is recognized by only slightly more than half of Republican voters. Of those who recognize his name, 21 percent list him as their first choice, just slightly behind Mr. Romney at 25 percent.

Perry hasn't yet had to endure the scrutiny that comes after a politician officially declares his candidacy--look at what happened to Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman, for example. Still, Silver writes, if Perry's "roll-out goes well... the Republican campaign could well develop into a heavyweight battle between the two rather than the Lord-of-the-Flies scenario that had seemed more likely before."

POV from the International Business Times - " Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney is Creepy"

One of the biggest issues with our present President is that he has acted like a class "A" Chump overseas....His world apology tour and a weak-kneed approach to issues only emboldened our rivals. He and his shrew of a wife mucked up the protocol when meeting the Royals in England and don't even start me with his going to Ireland to claim he is "going home" - What horseshite. If he is " Irish ", then I'm Jack Kennedy.

Now, we get to see that the International Business Times has published their POV on SLICK MITT Romney, the serial flip-flopper. Romney comes off as "say anything to get elected" to voters and will only further damage the image of American Leadership overseas. His dodginess about why he didn't serve in the military while all others his age went to Vietnam smacks of being a Chicken Hawk....We need a LEADER, not a desperate, say-anything-to-get-elected POL.

If reading this doesn't cause you to have an involuntary shiver of revulsion, I would be surprised.....The word the author uses is " creepy "...looks like he nailed it.

Thursday, June 9, 2011

Mitt “Flip-Flop” Romney is Creepy
By Joe Romaine - International Business Times.

Mitt Romney is the king of flip-flops. He does it so much that it’s almost pathological.

He not only flip-flops on political positions, but he also manages to do it on a personal level.

For Romney, the usual excuses of “times change,” “gotcha” moments, and “you’re taking it out of context” just don’t cut it.

Some people think Romney flip-flops all the time to curry political favor. They think that behind his George Clooney smile, perfect family, and impressive business record hides his raw and naked political ambition.

Indeed, Romney is the “résumé president” (except for his Mormon faith). He’s got everything you want in a candidate but something just seems off and voters sense it. He goes through the motions, does everything right, but can’t seem to connect with people.

And why is he running anyway? The love of his country? To right social wrongs he saw in his childhood? A sense of destiny from God? Or just raw political ambition, as many suspect.

Of course, we’ll know for sure if Romney is really just a ball of naked ambition masked with a perfect façade. If he is, he’ll never admit it.

Still, Romney’s robotic awkwardness and serial flip-flopping is just creepy, regardless of why he is that way.

Below are 10 classic Romney flip-flops. The list was chosen from mittromneyflipflops.com

(which also contains the sources for the quotes).


'I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.'

'I did not see it with my own eyes.'


'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose.'

'I never really called myself pro-choice.'


'I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero.'

'It's a tax cut for fat cats.'


'I like mandates. The mandates work.'

'I think it's unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.'


'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.'

'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'


'I would like to have campaign spending limits.'

'The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.'


'I don't line up with the NRA.'

'I'm a member of the [NRA].'

(Romney also claimed NRA endorsement he never received)


'I'm not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.'

'Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account.'


'Roe v. Wade has gone too far.'

'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.'


'I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.'

'I changed my position.'

" The White House is flying without a strategy ....we have a reactive presidency.... not a strategic one."

As a HR professional, one of the key things I coach Business leaders in is to be " Proactive " not " Reactive " when dealing with issues and/or problems.

Proactive leaders anticipate issues before they become larger problems...they delve into the issues to find the key parts of it and solve the problem. Reactive leaders are like a wind vane - they go wherever the fickle winds of crisis blow without any real direction for others to follow.....

Here's a great example - Let’s take two swimmers on the choppy seas. The difference between them is that the proactive swimmer anticipates that there will be waves, whereas the reactive one is painfully surprised by each wave.

The difference is one of perspective. The proactive swimmer sees the big picture: each wave is not an isolated incident, but is part of a pattern. While there is stress in dealing with difficult circumstances, there is a consistency and a logic to the environment. There’s a degree of predictability.

With this bigger picture in mind, the proactive swimmer is able to adapt to the ups and downs. As he does so, he “learns” the patterns of the waves from inside out, so that his reactions become more and more spontaneous, more and more in tune with the rhythm of the waves.

So, being proactive means being able to anticipate what the future will be, and to react accordingly before it actually happens.

What is it that prevents the reactive swimmer (our President) from doing so? It could be lack of information. There are plenty of events in life that we simply cannot predict. It could also be lack of intelligence: some people are better than others at thinking in terms of patterns.

But let’s assume, for the moment, that our two swimmers have both the same levels of information and intelligence. Then, the difference between them would simply be that the proactive swimmer has enough energy to take in the available information and adapt to it. In contrast, the reactive swimmer is exhausted and overwhelmed (“Somebody get me out of here, please!”).

Gee - the "reactive" swimmer paints a pretty accurate description of the knucklehead that we elected in 2008, doesn't it?? Lurching from crisis to crisis with no clear idea or plan on how to deal with an issue before it becomes out-of-control.....NOT what we need.

I think this country needs to be careful as this bumbling fool will likely be tossed out on his arse in 2012 BUT the last thing we need is for the opposition to hand us a new President who will be just as unable to act decisively when we need a Leader and not a windvane....


How Obama turned on a dime toward war
Posted By Josh Rogin Friday, March 18, 2011 - Foriegnpolicy.com

At the start of this week, the consensus around Washington was that military action against Libya was not in the cards. However, in the last several days, the White House completely altered its stance and successfully pushed for the authorization for military intervention against Libyan leader Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi. What changed?

The key decision was made by President Barack Obama himself at a Tuesday evening senior-level meeting at the White House, which was described by two administration officials as "extremely contentious." Inside that meeting, officials presented arguments both for and against attacking Libya. Obama ultimately sided with the interventionists. His overall thinking was described to a group of experts who had been called to the White House to discuss the crisis in Libya only days earlier.

"This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values," a senior administration official said at the meeting, telling the experts this sentence came from Obama himself. The president was referring to the broader change going on in the Middle East and the need to rebalance U.S. foreign policy toward a greater focus on democracy and human rights.

But Obama's stance in Libya differs significantly from his strategy regarding the other Arab revolutions. In Egypt and Tunisia, Obama chose to rebalance the American stance gradually backing away from support for President Hosni Mubarak and Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali and allowing the popular movements to run their course. In Yemen and Bahrain, where the uprisings have turned violent, Obama has not even uttered a word in support of armed intervention - instead pressing those regimes to embrace reform on their own. But in deciding to attack Libya, Obama has charted an entirely new strategy, relying on U.S. hard power and the use of force to influence the outcome of Arab events.

"In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook," said Steve Clemons, the foreign policy chief at the New America Foundation. "The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy and that we have a reactive presidency right now and not a strategic one."

Inside the administration, senior officials were lined up on both sides. Pushing for military intervention was a group of NSC staffers including Samantha Power, NSC senior director for multilateral engagement; Gayle Smith, NSC senior director for global development; and Mike McFaul, NSC senior director for Russia. .

On the other side of the ledger were some Obama administration officials who were reportedly wary of the second- and third-degree effects of committing to a lengthy military mission in Libya. These officials included National Security Advisor Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Denis McDonough. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was also opposed to attacking Libya and had said as much in several public statements.

Not all of these officials were in Tuesday night's meeting.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called into the meeting over the phone, a State Department official confirmed. She was traveling in the region to get a first-hand look at how the new U.S. Middle East strategy is being received across the Arab world. Denied a visit with Egyptian youth leaders on the same day she strolled through Tahir Square, Clinton may have been concerned that the United States was losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab youth at the heart of the revolution.

When Clinton met with the G8 foreign ministers on Monday, she didn't lay out whether the United States had a favored response to the unfolding crisis in Libya, leaving her European counterparts completely puzzled. She met Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril in Paris but declined to respond positively to his request for assistance. This all gave the impression that Clinton was resisting intervention. In fact, she supported intervention, State Department official said, but had to wait until the Tuesday night meeting so that she didn't get out ahead of U.S. policy.

At the end of the Tuesday night meeting, Obama gave U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice instructions to go the U.N. Security Council and push for a resolution that would give the international community authority to use force. Her instructions were to get a resolution that would give the international community broad authority to achieve Qaddafi's removal, including the use of force beyond the imposition of a no-fly zone.

Speaking before the U.N. Security Council following Thursday's 10-0 vote, Rice made the humanitarian argument that force was needed in Libya to prevent civilian suffering.

"Colonel Qaddafi and those who still stand by him continue to grossly and systematically abuse the most fundamental human rights of Libya's people," Rice said. "On March 12, the League of Arab States called on the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone and take other measures to protect civilians. Today's resolution is a powerful response to that call-and to the urgent needs on the ground."

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon also said on Thursday that the justification for the use of force was based on humanitarian grounds, and referred to the principle known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P), "a new international security and human rights norm to address the international community's failure to prevent and stop genocides, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity."

"Resolution 1973 affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community's determination to fulfill its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated upon them by their own government," he said.

Inside the NSC, Power, Smith, and McFaul have been trying to figure out how the administration could implement R2P and what doing so would require of the White House going forward. Donilon and McDonough are charged with keeping America's core national interests more in mind. Obama ultimately sided with Clinton and those pushing R2P -- over the objections of Donilon and Gates.

Congress was not broadly consulted on the decision to intervene in Libya, except in a Thursday afternoon classified briefing where administration officials explained the diplomatic and military plan. Rice was already deep in negotiations in New York.

Obama's Tuesday night decision to push for armed intervention was not only a defining moment in his ever-evolving foreign policy, but also may have marked the end of the alliance between Clinton and Gates -- an alliance that has successfully influenced administration foreign policy decisions dating back to the 2009 Afghanistan strategy review.

"Gates is clearly not on board with what's going on and now the Defense Department may have an entirely another war on its hands that he's not into," said Clemons. "Clinton won the bureaucratic battle to use DOD resources to achieve what's essentially the State Department's objective... and Obama let it happen."