Romney Hood, Romney Hyde, Romney Hide

I like President Obama’s clever reference to Mitt Romney as Romney Hood. It’s surely bound to stick because it so obviously fits him.

But if Romney Hood nicely links Mitt Romney with serving rich interests, where are the apt monikers to match his flip-flopping and secrecy? For these I offer Romney Hyde and Romney Hide. If someone in the Obama campaign stumbles on this blog, I send them forward. Take them. They are yours.

About Santi Tafarella

I teach writing and literature at Antelope Valley College in California.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Romney Hood, Romney Hyde, Romney Hide

  1. Staffan says:

    Who financed Obama? Goldman Sachs. Isn’t it obvious that Wall Street is running things? It doesn’t matter who you vote for when everyone is in their pocket. They want you to obsess about Romney like this.

    • Santi Tafarella says:

      That’s a smug and easy way for you not to make an existential choice. That’s how George Bush became president in 2000 (when enough Nadar fans gave their votes to Nadar and not Al Gore in Florida).

      If you are liberal, libertarian, or progressive, President Obama will do things on key issues of concern to you that Romney will not. This election matters even if, on some issues, the candidates are likely not to push against certain monied interests.

      I would add, by the way, that Obama, since he won’t be running for reelection again, has a real chance of pushing agendas against lobbying interests in his second term that many of us will applaud (such as the legalization of marijuana, additional bank reform, military spending cuts, etc.).

      Santi

  2. Staffan says:

    It’s not smugness, it’s resignation. Seeing how little has changed. It’s like the French say, the more something changes, the more it stays the same. Real change requires changing the political system itself.

    • Santi Tafarella says:

      I don’t agree that little has changed. A lot in the world is changing for the better. Here are a couple of things:

      –Political support for NASA means we’ve got a 2.5 billion dollar rover on Mars right now.
      –The Chinese now have average annual incomes that are the same as Italians had in 1960. That’s a billion human beings lifted from poverty.
      –Amidst the current unemployment statistics, average American household income actually ticked UP over the past year. You can Google that to get the exact statistic. What this means is that economic efficiency in America actually is increasing.
      –Gay equality, a black president, and women’s equality are all signs that things are getting better, historically, on the cultural front.
      –Crime in the United States is at 1950s levels.
      –Tens of thousands of Americans every year obtain PhD’s in specialties that will help other human beings the world over. And in the rest of the world, think of how many newly minted PhDs are made each year. And think in general of the vast number of college graduates there are each year. Human beings, with each tick of the clock, become more educated, not less. The mind matters, and the human mind and innovation are expanding.
      –People are urbanizing; that is, they are moving into cities and out of suburbs and rural areas all over the world. This is good for the environment and for education and for mutual understanding. It’s hard to hate and demonize diverse groups of people if you have to live and work around them every day.
      –Think of how the internet, as a technology, links the world together, and makes life for humans better.

      The world we live in, in other words, needs mature and calm leaders like President Obama. They don’t need narcissistists or right wing reactionaries. I think the intuition of most Americans is to recognize that Obama is a good leader in a fast-changing world. Obama keeps his head about him. He has stopped the Bush torture regime, he’s gotten us out of Iraq and is getting us out of Afghanistan in another year and a half. I’m sorry, but that is progress. You’ve obviously forgotten how dispiriting Bush’s presidency was and how dispiriting it will be to return to his foreign and domestic policies.

      –Santi

  3. Staffan says:

    Sure things have changed but I was talking about the changes that depend on who is president.

    And those changes are not as good as you assume. The Mars rover, remains to be seen what comes out of it and if it’s worth the money. I’m pretty sure that money could be used more effeciently on less sexy projects.

    China is a major carbon emitter and when they get a big middle class the environment is in even bigger trouble.

    As for the economy, can anyone really tell if it’s getting better or worse in a longer perspective? I know Morgan Sachs is part of the problem and they are apparently very eager to have Obama as president.

    Equal rights yes, but the major work was already done in the 1960s.

    Crime is down because the population is getting older. And Obama is not Father Time ; )

    America has a good level of higher education, yes. But is that a recent development?

    Urbanizing is good for the environment. But it want make ethnic groups like each other. It only means that they will clash in cities resulting in more victims. Living in a big city is not going to change human nature.

    The internet is a great thing, but the web originated in conservative Switzerland.

    And whether the foreign policy is going to be a success remains to be seen. Besides, the reason he can pull out now is because a lot of the terrorist organizations have been crushed already by that dispiriting policy of Bush.

    But again, I’m not making a case for Romney. I’m just saying the difference is largely an illusion created by the oligarchs who are the real rulers. They put all that money in to making the election look like it’s actually a big deal. I for one am not buying it.

    • Santi Tafarella says:

      Your argument is strongest with regard to key financial and economic issues (how regulated banks will be after the election, etc.). Capitalism, free trade, and “banksters” will all be going along their merry way after the election. Maybe you think this fact makes the rest largely fluff. I don’t. If nothing else, an Obama win will signal to Republicans in the future that going hard right culturally is not as easy a route to power as they imagine, especially as the demographic landscape of the country shifts. One of the key messages that will be taken from this election (I predict) is that attention must be paid to women voters.

      –Santi

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s