Mitt Romney Bashes Massachusetts, Will He Bash America Post-Presidency?

May 23, 2007 at 3:10 pm | Posted in American politics, Massachusetts, Mit Romney, Mitt Romney | 10 Comments

Mitt Romney revealed a new ad where he bashes his former state, well not so former, he still lives there, and his HQ is based there. Here is the ad:

So, one wonders, will Romney be bashing America in his post-presidency days? Seriously, he seems to hate the places he’s lived, attacking France and now Massachusetts. One wonders why he still lives in Massachusetts if he hates it so much. I mean, he’s a millionaire, he could live wherever he wants.

And just how does bashing Massachusetts end the divisive politics of the present, Mr. Romney? Just how does bashing liberals and the state you reside in help you bridge the great divide in our nation? Why do you pretend to be someone you are not, Mr. Romney? What does it say about the constituents you seek where bashing the state you live in scores points? What does it say about the constituents you seek when you have to state misleading things about the country where you served your mission? Do you not have problems thinking about these things, or have you hardened your heart enough to not let them bother you?


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

  1. He will only bash America if it continues its downward spiral into Babylon. Someone has to be the voice of warning.

    Seriously, this is weak. It seems to me you are harping on Romney to harp on Romney. Most of the country has a healthy distrust of Massachusetts. Foisting gay marriage on the other 49 states without their sayso is just a tad bit presumptuous and self righteous. He may have a point.

  2. That was no bash

  3. A bash on Liberalism maybe, Massachusetts no.

  4. Doc,

    He didn’t bash Massachusetts whilst governor, even though I’m sure he thought it then a haven for Babylon. He’s denigrating his own state now because that’s what conservative constituents he is courting eat up, that’s their red meat. That’s pretty sad.

  5. a healthy distrust of Massachusetts

    LOL. Wanna get real healthy? Be skeptical of anything those original 13 colonies might try to throw our way. Real wackos, the whole bunch.

  6. Especially Massachusetts: they threatened to secede from the Union as a result of the Louisiana purchase:

    “The principles of our Revolution point to the remedy – a separation. That this can be accomplished, without spilling one drop of blood, I have little doubt. I do not believe in the practicality of a long-continued union. A Northern Confederacy would unite congenial characters and present a fairer prospect of public happiness; while the Southern States, having a similarity of habits, might be left to manage their own affairs in their own way.” (Colonel Timothy Pickering, of Washington’s cabinet and Senator from Mass. , in letter to George Cabot).

    Evil Massachusettians…

  7. secession fever was quite strong and contagious back then, wasn’t it? Good thing we’ve found a cure. 🙂

  8. Yup. According to what I’ve read, the Northern states actually threatened to secede more times than the Southern states did.

    Nothing like bringing about the deaths of 630,000 Union and Conferate soldiers to cure secession fever.

    Found the following the other day:

    Charles Adams’ time bomb of a book, “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2000). In a mere 242 pages, he shows that almost everything we thought we knew about the war between the states is wrong.

    Adams believes that both Northern and Southern leaders were lying when they invoked slavery as a reason for secession and for the war. Northerners were seeking a moral pretext for an aggressive war, while Southern leaders were seeking a threat more concrete than the Northern tariff to justify a drive to political independence. This was rhetoric designed for mass consumption. Adams amasses an amazing amount of evidence — including remarkable editorial cartoons and political speeches — to support his thesis that the war was really about government revenue.

    Consider this little tidbit from the pro-Lincoln New York Evening Post,
    March 2, 1861 edition:>

    “That either the revenue from duties must be collected in the ports of the rebel states, or the port must be closed to importations from abroad, is generally admitted. If neither of these things be done, our revenue laws are substantially repealed; the sources which supply our treasury will be dried up; we shall have no money to carry on the government; the nation will become bankrupt before the next crop of corn is ripe. There will be nothing to furnish means of subsistence to the army; nothing to keep our navy afloat; nothing to pay the salaries of public officers; the present order of things must come to a dead stop.

    “What, then, is left for our government? Shall we let the seceding states repeal the revenue laws for the whole Union in this manner? Or will the government choose to consider all foreign commerce destined for those ports where we have no custom-houses and no collectors as contraband, and stop it, when offering to enter the collection districts from which our authorities have been expelled?”

    This is not an isolated case. British newspapers, whether favoring the North or South, said the same thing: the feds invaded the South to collect revenue. Indeed, when Karl Marx said the following, he was merely stating what everyone who followed events closely knew: “The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.”

    Marx was only wrong on one point: the war was about principle at one level. It was about the principle of self-determination and the right not to be taxed to support an alien regime. Another way of putting this is that the war was about freedom, and the South was on the same side as the original American revolutionaries.


    Reminds me of one of those Murphy’s Laws: No matter what they’re talking about, they’re talking about money.

  9. Apparently it’s pretty easy to find one’s self on the same side as the original American revolutionaries. All you have to do is think you’re right.

  10. All you have to do is think you’re right.

    Well, that would be a good description of the human condition. Rarely do advocates for something think they’re wrong. Even those that we tend to classify as the “bad guys” of the world think they’re right.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.

%d bloggers like this: