Richard Milhous Romney Gets Specific, Says He’ll Cut Out All Programs That Aren’t Worth Borrowing From China For
Yup. All those farmers in Iowa and Nebraska who’ve been waiting for the Farm Bill to pass are as nervous tonight as Richard Nixo … er … Mitt Romney was this evening during the debate, but their problem is different than his was. Instead of babbling incoherently while wearing a frozen, glassy-eyed smile, the farmers are spending the night tossing and turning while trying to figure out whether the program that they rely on so much is much is worth borrowing from China for.
Maybe tomorrow they can put in a call about that to Ohio senator and Romney “surrogate” Rob Portman, and ask him. Portman, according to a very serious-faced CBS reporter Jan Crawford (of Clarence-Thomas-is-an-intellectual-leader book fame), told her immediately after the debate ended that Romney we’ll be “repeating” the “specifics” of his economic plan throughout the next five weeks. Just as he did tonight! Oh, and be just as confident in his manner as he was tonight!
As a Democrat, I surely hope so. And once those farmers find out, specifically, whether the Farm Bill subsidies are worth our borrowing from China for them, the can call Portman back and verify that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are worth borrowing from China for.
Seriously … do these folks really think that if they call this stuff “specifics,” people will think that Romney’s incoherent gibberish included specifics and they (the viewers) just sorta missed them?
And seriously … at least Richard Nixon was coherent. I’ve seen the black-and-white clips of parts of that first 1960 debate. Yes, he was obviously nervous. But he was coherent. And specific. As the dictionary defines that word, not as Sen. Portman defines it.
China’s borrowing? Like we need that. Just would be replaced with domestic demand.
Yawn.
with the caveat that i didnt watch the spectacle, as long as we are running a trade deficit with them, china ends up with a surplus of our dollars, which they typically invest in treasuries…we’re not “borrowing” from them to run our farm programs or anything else…
bev, rjs
yep. now explain it to the voters. frankly, i think the press is just as dumb, but since they are lying it’s hard to tell.
the brave npr reporters reported the debate as “wonky,” they used (gasp) numbers.
or words that claimed to be numbers.
explain it to voters?
hell, its hard enough to explain it to economists…
the trouble is with the language; we use the same words for treasury issue as households use (borrowing, debt), when they are actually entirely different altogether…
rjs
and of course the politicians and economists never deliberately use the language to mislead..
but speaking of nixon, i am beginning to miss the old guy. compared to what we have today in both parties he was honest and competent.
what most folks don’t know is that it wasn’t watergate that brought nixon down. it was detente. the neo-cons didn’t like that.
Please don’t bother Mitty Mitt with your tedious fact checking. He’s above all that pitiful objective reality stuff.