I didn't know that. Maybe he wasn't even Mormon. Do you happen to remember his farewell speeches? I was amazed and I wondered why he gave them. He could only lose out on getting those seats on corporate boards. Of course he may have wanted to change and do good for somebody. It could be, I think.
Mitt Romney is about as good of a US Senator as you can expect to get from Utah. No way anyone without an “R” after their name is going to get elected there these days. I just wish that he was more like his father, George. Now, there’s a man who had the backbone to say we were being brainwashed by the US Military on Vietnam. The press had a jolly good time ripping into him. Net result - we ended up with Nixon
He showed his tax returns! He wasn't anything like Mitt. Mitt was and is awful. He just seems-- you know. I could say a million things I've been amazed at but it would be so depressing. I just mean-- we have to sort of keep track of things. The presence of Trump has made us lose track. On the other hand, the Democrats in both houses-- ARE EXCELLENT.
Ah, I"m talking about how George Romney seems to have been a really good man. And how, in how Mitt-- in breaking with the MAGA brotherhood, has been celebrated as a fabulous guy-- but in my view it's better to keep in mind his actual creepiness. Trump has made us lose track of what is normal. However, a look at the Democrats in congress can remind us of what intelligent public service is about. It's benevolent, it's comprehensible, it's not frantic, it's not scared of the other side or of its own side. And they make jokes. MAGA people aren't what you'd call playful.
True. I’m old enough to remember governors like George Romney and Bill Milliken of Michigan and Robert Ray of Iowa. Pretty decent people, pretty decent policies.
Understood. I was just opining on how radicalized the GQP party has become over the years. The tilt towards blatant fascism can not be ignored. Eisenhower would be left of most congress-critters, from both party's, these days.
He was a segregationist. But when I think of D-Day I can't fathom how he stood it, how they all stood it. But he carried all of it in his head in advance.
Remember just before Jeff Flake left the Senate? He gave two very awesome speeches. Who wrote those great speeches?? They contained every single thought a man needs to have to become a great Senate Democrat-- I mean it. What was he up to? Had he been a secret Unitarian-Universalist? A secret Quaker? A civil rights activist/organizing Buddhist?
Jeff Flake was in Arizona, but as Utah proved with Romney, if he wanted to run for a position, all he would have to do is show up in Utah, flash his Jesus jammies, & BOOM - he would be elected.
The selection process in this state seems to be predicated on church membership.
The Tim Ballard connection is huge news in the Mormon-o-sphere. The smackdown he got from the church was in-freakin'-sane. It was declared loudly and wonderfully viciously that the "apostle" (yes, the church has 12 apostles because of course they do) Russel M. Ballard (no relation) does NOT endorse nor has anything to do with Tim Ballard, though Tim claims he's like a grandfather to him. The church rarely goes after anyone on the right-wing side of the membership, and this has upset a lot of people.
Any politician in good standing with today's Republican Party is almost certainly mad as a hatter, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a statesperson to take up the soon-to-be-vacant Utah Senate seat.
Don’t you love it when Republicans talk about “getting federal spending under control” or “securing the border” and you just know that there’s nothing on earth that could ever transpire which would cause them to acknowledge that these goals had actually been met. And its all because they aren’t about solving problems they are just about hyping problems.
Or acknowledge the last time the budget was actually balanced was under Clinton, and when Democrats are in the White House the deficit goes down and when Republicans are, it goes way up because in no way do they "get spending under control" and also they like to hand out tax breaks at the same time to their wealthy donors.
And, it's Congress's job to pass immigration reform legislation. They could fix the "crisis at the border" any time they wanted to create a sane, humane, orderly system for migrants. No one wants to walk from Venezuela and risk sexual assault or dying of thirst in the desert.
A person who is MORE conservative than Romney would be MORE respectful of tradition, precedent, and institutions and MORE inclined to thoughtful, incremental change-- i.e., more centrist and less MAGA theofascist.
Everyone remember back in 2012 when Romney ran against Obama and all the fun we had here? His dumbness ("The trees are the right height"), his uncanny ability to piss off everyone who met him, his infamous "47%" remark, and on and on. Since 2016, I've thought of him as Trump-lite, racist, Richie Rich arrogance, etc.
But of course there's always someone who's even worse.
I'm fond of remembering when he visited UK to get to know the place, and he came out saying "I visited MI5, and they showed me around." When you're not supposed to say "MI5" or anything of the kind. Remember when he approached two young Black women and put his arms on their shoulders and said, "Who let the dogs out?" OMG
The only difference between Trump and the rank-and-file 'normal' Republicans is that Trump said the quiet part loud. There is no measurable difference in terms of actual policy. Which is why they ultimately didn't really care as the reactionary fascist wing became ascendant in the party.
Well, that and Trump pushed the party into the warm embrace of Putin, he's also quite insane, and he tried to usurp the peaceful transfer of power because he couldn't stand to lose an election.
I get that Republicans were bad for a long time, but we really have to accept that Trump is far worse, and in many ways a new type of bad. Otherwise, we are normalizing him.
No, that's not what normalizing means. It also isn't true. He did all of that because they *let* him. The Republican Party, on the whole, decided that Trump's numerous failings and habits were worth it because they ultimately were still going to get what they wanted.
Pretending that Trump is worse is the easy way out. "Trump was an aberration! We don't need to deeply re-examine ourselves as a country! We just get rid of the Trump and everything's fine!" Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Trump is the natural result of half a century of Republican policy of trying to forge a coalition out of racists, zealots, and oligarchs.
Saying that Trump is far worse than previous Republicans does not absolve those Republicans, or the current GOP that enabled him. But it does acknowledge that we are dealing with something far more dangerous than ever before.
Yes, we could go on all day about Romney's faults, but when he lost a race to Obama--one which polling had fairly close--he conceded and wished Obama well. Now you can say "well that's he least he could do!" but Trump just showed us that we cannot take that for granted anymore. They are more dangerous now.
"Conservative" vs. "RINO" has no meaning anymore, except by the scale of "how good are they with Trump". There was a time when it might have meant something--if you favored liberal policy (higher taxes, more social spending, less abortion restriction) you were a RINO! To call Romney (or Cheney, or Bush, or McConnell...) a RINO says much more about what the GOP has become than anything else. It's not that the party is more "conservative", it's that they measure "conservative" based solely on fealty to one deranged man.
Nice party you guys got, shame what happened to it.
I like to think there are some sane conservatives out there. David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol come to mind. Notice that none of them are elected officials. The elected ones aren't really conservatives.They're just nuts.
I didn't know that. Maybe he wasn't even Mormon. Do you happen to remember his farewell speeches? I was amazed and I wondered why he gave them. He could only lose out on getting those seats on corporate boards. Of course he may have wanted to change and do good for somebody. It could be, I think.
Mitt Romney is about as good of a US Senator as you can expect to get from Utah. No way anyone without an “R” after their name is going to get elected there these days. I just wish that he was more like his father, George. Now, there’s a man who had the backbone to say we were being brainwashed by the US Military on Vietnam. The press had a jolly good time ripping into him. Net result - we ended up with Nixon
He showed his tax returns! He wasn't anything like Mitt. Mitt was and is awful. He just seems-- you know. I could say a million things I've been amazed at but it would be so depressing. I just mean-- we have to sort of keep track of things. The presence of Trump has made us lose track. On the other hand, the Democrats in both houses-- ARE EXCELLENT.
What are you talking about?
Ah, I"m talking about how George Romney seems to have been a really good man. And how, in how Mitt-- in breaking with the MAGA brotherhood, has been celebrated as a fabulous guy-- but in my view it's better to keep in mind his actual creepiness. Trump has made us lose track of what is normal. However, a look at the Democrats in congress can remind us of what intelligent public service is about. It's benevolent, it's comprehensible, it's not frantic, it's not scared of the other side or of its own side. And they make jokes. MAGA people aren't what you'd call playful.
George Romney would be considered a center/left Democrat today......
True. I’m old enough to remember governors like George Romney and Bill Milliken of Michigan and Robert Ray of Iowa. Pretty decent people, pretty decent policies.
Hell......Nixon would be a center/right Dem these days. He was NOT a pretty decent person. with decent policies.
Never said that Nixon was. I mentioned George Romney, Bill Milliken and Robert Ray.
Understood. I was just opining on how radicalized the GQP party has become over the years. The tilt towards blatant fascism can not be ignored. Eisenhower would be left of most congress-critters, from both party's, these days.
He was a segregationist. But when I think of D-Day I can't fathom how he stood it, how they all stood it. But he carried all of it in his head in advance.
pre Dobbs right?
While Mittens "Binders full of women" Romney is truly awful whoever fills his eight hundred dollar Italian leather shoes will be even worse.
Remember just before Jeff Flake left the Senate? He gave two very awesome speeches. Who wrote those great speeches?? They contained every single thought a man needs to have to become a great Senate Democrat-- I mean it. What was he up to? Had he been a secret Unitarian-Universalist? A secret Quaker? A civil rights activist/organizing Buddhist?
Democrats need to contest this seat vigorously.
Waste of money. Give to Brown in Ohio, Baldwin in Minnesota, and Rosen in Nevada.
In Utah? Good luck. Mitt won by two to one last time.
Utah voter here - and let me tell you, we are fucked. All of these men are nutjobs who wear the state-sponsored underwear (garments).
This is going to be some outright lunacy.
What about Jeff Flake? I just wrote about him above. Was he hiding himself and not really wearing the underwear?
Jeff Flake was in Arizona, but as Utah proved with Romney, if he wanted to run for a position, all he would have to do is show up in Utah, flash his Jesus jammies, & BOOM - he would be elected.
The selection process in this state seems to be predicated on church membership.
The Tim Ballard connection is huge news in the Mormon-o-sphere. The smackdown he got from the church was in-freakin'-sane. It was declared loudly and wonderfully viciously that the "apostle" (yes, the church has 12 apostles because of course they do) Russel M. Ballard (no relation) does NOT endorse nor has anything to do with Tim Ballard, though Tim claims he's like a grandfather to him. The church rarely goes after anyone on the right-wing side of the membership, and this has upset a lot of people.
Any politician in good standing with today's Republican Party is almost certainly mad as a hatter, so I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for a statesperson to take up the soon-to-be-vacant Utah Senate seat.
Romney gets my highest honor for a Republican - least awful.
Don’t you love it when Republicans talk about “getting federal spending under control” or “securing the border” and you just know that there’s nothing on earth that could ever transpire which would cause them to acknowledge that these goals had actually been met. And its all because they aren’t about solving problems they are just about hyping problems.
Or acknowledge the last time the budget was actually balanced was under Clinton, and when Democrats are in the White House the deficit goes down and when Republicans are, it goes way up because in no way do they "get spending under control" and also they like to hand out tax breaks at the same time to their wealthy donors.
And, it's Congress's job to pass immigration reform legislation. They could fix the "crisis at the border" any time they wanted to create a sane, humane, orderly system for migrants. No one wants to walk from Venezuela and risk sexual assault or dying of thirst in the desert.
They always talk about a balanced budget, and it's all talk, because they never achieve that. But the rubes fall for it, and that's all that counts.
Rs only care about a balanced budget when we have a Democratic President
They always talk about "open borders" which, in fact , we do not have.
And they always get an assist from the Liberal Media.
That someone right of Romney could get treated like a centrist is a testament to how stunningly fucked the US's overton window is.
Just.. my god.
A person who is MORE conservative than Romney would be MORE respectful of tradition, precedent, and institutions and MORE inclined to thoughtful, incremental change-- i.e., more centrist and less MAGA theofascist.
Everyone remember back in 2012 when Romney ran against Obama and all the fun we had here? His dumbness ("The trees are the right height"), his uncanny ability to piss off everyone who met him, his infamous "47%" remark, and on and on. Since 2016, I've thought of him as Trump-lite, racist, Richie Rich arrogance, etc.
But of course there's always someone who's even worse.
I'm fond of remembering when he visited UK to get to know the place, and he came out saying "I visited MI5, and they showed me around." When you're not supposed to say "MI5" or anything of the kind. Remember when he approached two young Black women and put his arms on their shoulders and said, "Who let the dogs out?" OMG
The only difference between Trump and the rank-and-file 'normal' Republicans is that Trump said the quiet part loud. There is no measurable difference in terms of actual policy. Which is why they ultimately didn't really care as the reactionary fascist wing became ascendant in the party.
Well, that and Trump pushed the party into the warm embrace of Putin, he's also quite insane, and he tried to usurp the peaceful transfer of power because he couldn't stand to lose an election.
I get that Republicans were bad for a long time, but we really have to accept that Trump is far worse, and in many ways a new type of bad. Otherwise, we are normalizing him.
No, that's not what normalizing means. It also isn't true. He did all of that because they *let* him. The Republican Party, on the whole, decided that Trump's numerous failings and habits were worth it because they ultimately were still going to get what they wanted.
Pretending that Trump is worse is the easy way out. "Trump was an aberration! We don't need to deeply re-examine ourselves as a country! We just get rid of the Trump and everything's fine!" Trump is a symptom, not the disease. Trump is the natural result of half a century of Republican policy of trying to forge a coalition out of racists, zealots, and oligarchs.
Saying that Trump is far worse than previous Republicans does not absolve those Republicans, or the current GOP that enabled him. But it does acknowledge that we are dealing with something far more dangerous than ever before.
Yes, we could go on all day about Romney's faults, but when he lost a race to Obama--one which polling had fairly close--he conceded and wished Obama well. Now you can say "well that's he least he could do!" but Trump just showed us that we cannot take that for granted anymore. They are more dangerous now.
"Conservative" vs. "RINO" has no meaning anymore, except by the scale of "how good are they with Trump". There was a time when it might have meant something--if you favored liberal policy (higher taxes, more social spending, less abortion restriction) you were a RINO! To call Romney (or Cheney, or Bush, or McConnell...) a RINO says much more about what the GOP has become than anything else. It's not that the party is more "conservative", it's that they measure "conservative" based solely on fealty to one deranged man.
Nice party you guys got, shame what happened to it.
I like to think there are some sane conservatives out there. David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Max Boot, and Bill Kristol come to mind. Notice that none of them are elected officials. The elected ones aren't really conservatives.They're just nuts.
"Notice that none of them are elected officials."
Follow-up: notice that elected Republicans always seem to magically grow spines once they're out of office.
Sane conservatives--which do exist--are simply no longer Republicans. Right now they don't really have any party.
Utah is such a backwater that the leading politicians in this race are from cities I've never heard of...
"Wilson is 54 and could serve in the Senate another six decades or so"
Given how long Mormons (at least the rich and powerful white men Mormons) tend to live, this is almost not an exaggeration.
"get spending under control" is what they say when they don't have the power to pass tax giveaways to rich fuckwads and REALLY screw the budget