Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Does this mean Mitt has to occupy himself?

Does this mean Mitt has to occupy himself?

Anyone who has had even a cursory interaction with this blog knows that I have had some harsh criticisms for the way the Romney campaign has been run.

But, um, even I didn’t accuse Mitt of acting like Occupy Wall Street:

“It’s absolutely laughable to have a liberal governor of Massachusetts say that I am not a conservative,” Santorum said, attacking Romney’s tax plan. “We have a candidate for president who is campaigning as an Occupy Wall Street adherent.”

Just a reminder.

This is Occupy Wall Street.  This is Mitt.

Got it?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I think Santorum got his terms a little confused. Good pictorial differences.

Mittens is seldom correct or even honest in his criticisms of competing candidates, but I think he nailed it when he said Santorum is not a conservative. Funny how Ricky forgot to deny Ron Paul’s accusation that he is a “fake.”

    StrangernFiction in reply to gad-fly. | February 26, 2012 at 12:25 am

    Do you think Jeff Sessions is a fiscal conservative? How about Jim Inhofe? Inhofe and Sessions both have lifetime NTU ratings of 80 (Inhofe’s rating is for data going back to 1992 as NTU does not have data available for prior years).

    Rick Santorum has a lifetime NTU rating of 76. Only four points shy of Inhofe and Sessions despite the fact that he was representing a much more liberal state. Willard has lied about this as well. Shamelessly so.

      Well Gingrich has a lifetime NTU rating of 90 so I guess Santorum is not the most conservative of the bunch as he claims.

      Not sure why Jeff Sessions and Jim Imhofe suddenly appear in this discussion. Out here in flyover country, we do not need to look at NTC ratings, which is rebuffed by PolitiJim; instead we judge the candidate’s actions on important issues. All I need to know is that Santorum voted for big government programs (NCLB, Medicare Part D), favored unions (prevailing wage law, protection for striking unionists, opposed National Right To Work law, voted for Minimum Wage) and he used donations a charity and to a leadership political action committee to pad his own bank account.

Well, as Weirddave pointed out* Mitt’s surrogates like Jason Chaffetz did engage in “occupy Gingrich” tactics by dogging Gingrich on the campaign trail in Florida.

So, maybe Santorum is right in a backhanded way.

*https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/why-is-jason-chaffetz-stalking-newt-rallies-for-romney/comment-page-1/#comment-307289

StrangernFiction | February 26, 2012 at 12:06 am

“For high-income folks, we’re going to cut back on that, so that we ensure that the top 1 percent keeps paying the current share they’re paying and more.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/decoding-mitt-romneys-1-percent-rhetoric/2012/02/22/gIQAHZwmTR_blog.html

Subotai Bahadur | February 26, 2012 at 12:13 am

I suspect that Santorum’s comment had something to do with this speech by Romney where he promised that the “1%” would pay as much or more under Romney’s plan.

http://www.breitbart.tv/romney-employs-occupy-1-fair-share-rhetoric/

I don’t think that the speech was extemporaneous or unscripted; and thus that particular use of the #Occupy turn of phrase had to have been approved before being given. If nothing else, at the very least it shows that the speechwriter and the approving chain of command in Romney’s campaign is oblivious to the nature of #Occupy as demonstrated in the Professor’s video. Not to mention how they refer to anyone with a job.

I count it as at least a semi-fair shot. Which for this primary campaign would be considered a paragon of ethics.

Subotai Bahadur

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Subotai Bahadur. | February 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

    The Romney campaign’s knowing use of the OWS term “1%” is likely a bone thrown for the Romney/GOP establishment targeted independents. This is consistent with the way Romney hangs at the same level of support no matter what he does, because too often what he does is please the independents at the expense of his base. Romney cannot and will not energize both.

    Obama 52% Romney 48%. Bank on it.

oh yes, follow the bouncing ball as Santorum and Romney poke each other —

or — become the biggest oil-producing country in the world in the next decade.

what to do, what to do …. (thinking, thinking)

“USA BIGGEST PRODUCER OF OIL IN THE WORLD WITHIN THE NEXT DECADE”
https://legalinsurrection.com/2012/02/going-back-to-the-pre-obama-world/
Newt Talks to Mark Levin = Radio Interview – February 24, 2012 – 15:09

ok. that was probably off topic. this was about Santorum and Romney. sorry!

Is Romney an anti capitalist plant intended to undermine American’s faith in Swiss Bank Account Republicans? Details at ten.

There are no more liberals. There are no more conservatives. There are only ME’s [politicians, the permanent class]. And screw everybody else. This will continue until there is no more Constitution or United States of America. And we are all guilty, because we let it happen.

Isn’t Romney using Occupy rhetoric with his 99% class warfare talk?

It’s more like a Symbiotic Relationship:

Crony capitalists give big money to liberal politicians to buy influence and reap hugh rewards …

Liberal politicians use that money to fund radicals and drive the country further down the Socialist super highway.

Whether they wear a suit or rags matters not … whether they relieve themselves on police cars or in gold fixtured bathrooms matters not … each furthers and encourages the others goals.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Say_What. | February 26, 2012 at 8:52 am

    That’s why Newt and his endorsers [Perry, Cain, Palin (Todd and hopefuly Sarah), Fred Thompson, Trent Franks, Thomas Sowell, Chuck Norris, Michael Reagan, Michael Youseff, Tim LaHaye, Adelson, 100 Tea Party Leaders group, SC House Speaker, Bobby Harrell, SC House Majority Leader Kent Bingham, Maj. General James E. Livingston SC] make more sense. Despite Perry’s mistakes: allowing Islam-propaganda, STD immunizations and tuition for illegals; Cains’s tenure at the Kansas FED and Newt’s errors, they have a more credible conservative foundation.

    Newt talks about getting to the core: dealing with the FED and US currency instability, and manipulations (think Sorry Soros and the UK) hard currency backed by precious metals, paying off the deficit, mandated balanced budgets.

    Someone wrote this week, ‘The three pillars of socialism/communism are control of 1. Education, 2. Healthcare and 3. Energy.’ I would add other equal danger – economic jihad. 4. Destruction of national banks and currency (possibly to install Sharia banking system). 5. Control of the workforce and jobs. 6. Control of farming and food production and distribution. 7. Control of Military, Law enforcement. 8. Control of transportation, travel and relocation.

    With these, totalitarian regimes keep power and control their citizens.

    Santorum’s past voting record is less conservative than Newt’s on these.

    Questions to ask about Santorum’s intentions:

    1. Will Rick Santorum deal with the serious issue of the FED, Big Money and currency instability/manipulations (Soros, et al) of our economy? No wonder they want to attack/destroy conservatives like the Koch brothers and Adelson who could offset their nasty plans. (http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/)

    2. Will Rick Santorum buck the political establishment and deal with term limits, insider trading, greed, corruption, reduce the power an control of central government, etc? He’s a small bit part actor compared with Newt. Neither are well-liked but for far different reasons. (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/PhillyMagSantorum.pdf)

    3. Will Rick Santorum deal with Labor’s steel-fisted, corrupt, malevolent hold on our economy and politics? Margaret Thatcher had to regulate and overpower the unions to save the UK from socialism. Santorum has been a union supporter.

    What is Mitt’s plan and intention?

    We pretty much know Obama’s. Don’t discount or poo-poo (intentional verb) destruction, sabotage of sewer treatment plants and power plants, biological warfare, and martial law. He’s a destroyer, not a builder. A taker, looter, thief, not an earner, giver. A usurper of power, not a respecter of law.

Windy City Commentary | February 26, 2012 at 2:16 pm

Adherent means that Romney is adhering to Occupy Wall St. When Romney talks about making the 1% pay more, he is adhering to the OWS message. I think Rick is right on with this one. Just because Mitt calls himself a one percenter, doesn’t mean he is exempt from buying into the OWS lingo.

Romney’s OWS rhetoric is poor camouflage for his crony capitalist image.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend