Mitt Happens

After the New Hampshire Primaries, Mitt Romney Stoops to Collect the Republican Crown

  • comments (37)
  • Print
+ Enlarge this Image
Danny Schwartz

Tuesday night, minutes after he was declared the winner of the New Hampshire primary, Mitt Romney took the stage to wild chants of “Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!” and promptly covered himself in shit. Romney took only a minute to praise his attractive, wealthy followers for blessing him with what would become a massive, 16.4-percent lead over his closest opponent. “Tonight, we made history,” he announced, and that was technically true, because no other non-incumbent Republican has won both Iowa and New Hampshire since Iowa took its place at the front of the line in 1976. But it was the smallest kind of history that Romney supporters made, a technical win in one of those unloved categories in Guinness World Records, like being acknowledged as the man with the widest mouth in the world.* The real numbers told a different story: While Romney bested John McCain’s New Hampshire win back in 2008, actual Republican attendance at the polls, when you subtract independents, was 16 percent lower than during the last New Hampshire primary. That’s a problem we’ll get back to in a minute.

But first, the shit. I don’t think the anonymous Republican meant his seemingly spontaneous shout of “Mitt happens!” in the middle of Romney’s speech to be an insult. But it hung in the air for a fraction of a second, putting off cartoon smell lines in every direction—a joyous celebrant who blurted out a vivid reminder that his preferred candidate’s name can be used as a handy substitute for shit, making Romney the second Republican candidate this year to become synonymous with poo. (We’ll get to Old Frothy Mix of Lube and Fecal Matter in a minute, too.)

On Tuesday, Romney earned the rhymes-with-shit comparison for sure. His speech was a smear on the consciousness of the electorate, beginning with his claim that Barack Obama’s is a “failed presidency.” In his strange, stilted delivery, he announced that the president is happy to wake up in the morning, “look out across America,” and say, “it could be worse.” That’s not American, Mitt tut-tutted. Romney mentioned “hope” several times, along with the obligatory mention of Reagan’s “shining city on a hill.” But he harped on “the worst recovery since the Great Depression”—an awkward charge, but probably one that’s fitting, since the economic collapse of 2008 was the worst since the Great Depression—and he played with the giddy crowd’s expectations: “The president has run out of ideas. Now he’s running out of excuses.” The crowd capered for their punch line and Romney gave it to them: “Let’s make 2012 the year he runs out of time.”

The worst was yet to come: Romney accused Obama of wanting to turn the United States into a “European-style welfare state,” saying the president looks to the “capitals of Europe” for inspiration. Romney batted Europe about, saying Obama wants us to be “the worst of what Europe has become.” It’s probably no mistake that he segued from talk about Europe into a hawkish tirade, announcing that he will make our military so strong that “nobody will question us.”

There’s risk for Romney in this Republicans-versus-Europe game: During the Vietnam War draft, Romney fulfilled his Mormon mission while living in a French castle. And as Andrew Sullivan pointed out minutes after Romney’s attacks, Germany enjoys a 5.5 percent unemployment rate. And anyone who has spent time in Europe, as Romney has, can refute his depiction of the continent as a hellish nightmare realm. It’s easy to name European qualities that America should want to emulate: lower infant mortality rates, lower crime rates, better elder care, and—ahem—the universal health care that many European countries have decided should be a right for all citizens.

But whatever. You can spend days arguing with the contents of a Republican speech. Let’s talk form. Anyone who’s ever heard a political speech would have recognized that Romney was setting up the part where he would launch into soaring rhetoric, explaining to his followers and the nation why he is the candidate they should choose. In this final third of the speech, Romney would lay out his plans, explain his policies in broad terms, and define what Mitt Romney’s America would look like. His followers would leave floating on a cloud of excitement, and people who had never seen Romney speak before would find themselves intrigued by what he has to offer.

Except he didn’t do that. There was no final third of the speech. Mitt Romney spewed rage and disgust against Obama and Europe over hundreds of thousands of people, painting our nation as a doomed enterprise, teetering on the brink of a socialist cesspool, and then he failed to offer that most American of concepts, a happy ending. What happens next?

Mitt happens.

And then? That’s it. That’s the end. Go home. See you in November, suckers.

Romney only once deigned to mention the existence of other Republican candidates, when he defended his career as a layoff baron at Bain Capital. He accused Obama “and a few desperate Republicans” of “putting the free market on trial.” That’s just more bullshit, of course. You can’t run as Romney has for the last five years—as a Businessman, in that same weird, adoring Republican language that thrust George W. Bush (“our first CEO president,” remember?) into the White House—without having your Business wind up in the spotlight, and Romney’s Business (Bain) was ripping companies to shreds and laying people off for the sake of hilariously outsize profits.

But the “few desperate Republicans” bit is absolutely true. Tying Bain Capital to the engine of capitalism that powers America is a weak defense for what Romney knows he’s got coming. South Carolina, traditionally the meanest state in Republican politics, is going to be the last stand for a whole lot of candidates who have nothing to lose. In their speeches, neither Rick Santorum—his pinched face paler than usual from the bloody collision that killed his Iowa momentum—nor Newt Gingrich could muster any of the emotional heft or pissy outrage, respectively, of their speeches from a week ago.

Gingrich still referred to himself incessantly, but he couldn’t whine about Romney’s dirty tricks this time; Romney had ignored Gingrich in New Hampshire. Without the indignant puffiness of a diner who was wronged in some small way by his uppity waiter, Gingrich was strangely deflated, cheering only momentarily when he mentioned his own greatness before slinking back behind the podium.

And Santorum—the original shit in this shitty, shitty shit sandwich, before Romney supporters tried to take even that, his own family name, from him earlier in the evening—looked again like the tiny, bigoted goon everyone but Iowans know him to be. The difference a week can make in American politics was something ghastly to behold during his speech; once an equal, Santorum was again reduced to a simpering toady, fearful to anger the once and future frontrunner lest he be denied access to favors in the future.

That’s not going to stop Santorum and Gingrich and the absent Rick Perry from taking their swings at Romney in South Carolina, of course. They’ve got their pride to consider, and pride, in a presidential candidate, is an endlessly renewable resource. But it’s doubtful that any of those swings will connect. In their efforts to win the longest of long shots at the Republican candidacy, they’ll wind up doing some of Barack Obama’s dirty work for him, and horrified mainstream Republicans are starting to realize that this is a bad thing.

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have already chastised Gingrich and Perry for being no better than a pack of craven liberals with their assaults on Romney’s Bain Capital. (A pro-Gingrich superPAC, on the delightfully named www.kingofbain.com, has just released what Gingrich identifies as a “twenty-seven-and-a-half-minute” documentary about the lives Romney has destroyed, titled When Mitt Romney Came to Town. Perry accused Romney of committing “vulture capitalism,” and one can imagine the Perry staffer in the back room sighing with relief when Perry got that bon mot out of his mouth without gaffe-ing it.) The party is falling in line, and soon Fox News, Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, and all the other hypocrites who maligned Mitt for being too moderate will begin the difficult, distasteful work of pretending they have always been proud citizens of Romney country. There are just a few loose ends to tie up first.

Will anyone ever be able to figure out what the fuck Jon Huntsman was thinking, for instance? Challenging Romney in what has become Romney’s home state—in a disingenuous (but successful!) bit of real estate sleight of hand—was a fool’s errand from the very start. Was Huntsman hoping against hope that someone would be able to slaughter Romney before the race began? Even so, that plan would require the teabag-happy Republican base to suddenly go moderate in order to embrace Huntsman. Is Huntsman gambling that President Obama will win the 2012 election, allowing Huntsman to sweep in as a frontrunner in the wide-open and ideologically aimless 2016 Republican field? Will we ever know? Huntsman claims to be continuing on after his disappointing third-place result in New Hampshire, but it’s got to come down to ego, a refusal to admit that he was ultimately just a one-state candidate who couldn’t even place second after giving it his all.

No, the dubious honor of coming in second came to Ron Paul, who, with his uncontrollable giggling and bizarre, rambling election-night monologues, is starting to resemble a Batman villain. He proudly proclaimed that he and his followers are “dangerous”; he pities the poor, dumb “bleeding hearts” for not knowing any better, he warns of his campaign “nibbling at [Romney’s] heels.” (He did offer a few words of praise to Romney, in what must be a Ron Paul first; is it possible that even the Great White-Supremacist Hope is kissing ass in the hopes of a favor or two from a Romney administration? What a maverick he is! What an outsider!)

The most interesting thing about Paul’s off-the-cuff remarks is that he appeared to reveal the motivation behind one of his most popular policies. It was almost lost in the chants of “Bring! Them! Home!” but Paul assured the audience that he will draw the American military down in Afghanistan and around the world without causing an “economic crisis.” He referred, several times, to the economic value of the military to the United States, and couched the terms of his militaristic drawdown the same way he discusses weaning old and unemployed people off the government teat. Paul thinks the military is an economic issue, not a human issue, though he does a fairly good job of framing his goals as a human concern in order to rope in the pacifist kids.

But think about it: When, in all 15 debates and countless campaign appearances, has Paul ever expressed concern for another human life? He gruffly admitted a few months back that hospitals in Ron Paul’s America might not save an uninsured man’s life, and he’s always quick to turn personal stories of human beings who need help from other human beings into broad lectures about how the Austrian school of economics will save America, as the founding fathers somehow intended. To edit Kanye West: Ron Paul doesn’t care about people.

But then, neither does the Republican Party, unless those people are ridiculously wealthy, or not born yet. Romney won New Hampshire because wealthy white people were the only ones who cared enough to vote. They were the only ones who cared enough to vote because they want to protect their interests, and Romney, the preferred candidate of Goldman Sachs, is their only hope. Their vote for Romney is not a decision born of zealotry. This is pragmatism at the voting booth, and it’s difficult to win an election with a pragmatic candidate; just ask John Kerry.

What we’re facing as spectators is a few more weeks of turbulence before the Coronation of Willard Romney begins. Paul will continue to manipulate the youth vote into relatively strong showings, but his meandering speeches lack the fire of 2008 Ron Paul; it feels as though mainstream Republican fears that Paul will run as a third-party candidate are probably unfounded. Gingrich can only commit so much violence before Karl Rove’s thugs start to impugn the man’s reputation and his place in conservative history. Santorum is already starting to fade back to the Fox News punditry that birthed his campaign.

And then, from February on, we’re facing months of Romney sniping at President Obama’s policies and talking shit about America before the race really kicks off next summer. The fact is, when fewer people turn out at elections, Republicans win. And the best way to turn people off is to make the race as dirty as possible, throwing shit until the only rational response is to shut down your attentions and stop bothering with the whole ugly affair. Democratic hopes that the shit-slinging will remain inside the Republican Party through June are pretty much unfounded. Hold on tight: Things are about to get really ugly. recommended

* The widest human mouth in the known world right this moment is “17 cm (6.69 in) and belongs to Francisco Domingo Joaquim ‘Chiquinho’” of Angola. The widest human mouth in the Republican race belongs to Newt Gingrich.


Comments (37) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
I'd love it if people would start crediting the Mayflower Compact, rather than Ronald Reagan, for the "shining city upon a hill" line.
Posted by Chicago Fan on January 12, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
my my Slog loves it's fecal humor.......
Posted by to be expected from the Shit for Brains crowd.... on January 12, 2012 at 10:42 AM · Report this
@1 The original "city upon a hill" line comes from Matthew 5:14 ("You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden.").

So, uh, I guess my Jesuit education finally paid off. In the Slog comments section...
Posted by Ruke on January 12, 2012 at 11:05 AM · Report this
CripKev 4
Hey Stranger editors ...
It's high time you stopped using those godawful Danny Schwartz illustrations whenever there's an article on Republican candidates.
Posted by CripKev on January 12, 2012 at 11:18 AM · Report this
zombie eyes 5
As a presidential candidate, Obama was unbelievably resolute at staying out of the mud. Sometime around September of '08, his supporters were wondering if he'd ever get mad and throw a punch (foreshadowing his presidential style). So he'll probably play that part again. Romney will let the Karl Rove set do the dirty work so he can claim, hypocritically, the highroad.

Posted by zombie eyes on January 12, 2012 at 11:31 AM · Report this
So who do you think Mitten's will choose as his running mate? I'm curious if it will be one of the also-rans or someone else.
Posted by Schweighsr on January 12, 2012 at 11:33 AM · Report this
SiSiSodaPop in Vegas 7
I second CripKev's motion to dismiss the eye sore comics..... These Republican candidates are ugly enough, do you have to make them even uglier???
Posted by SiSiSodaPop in Vegas on January 12, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 8
the recovery from the crash of 29 took over 10 years till ww2 started and ramped up industrial production.

obama's been at it for 3 and he's "failed"? the S&P's up 500 points & unemployment has declined by 3 million since he was inaugurated!
Posted by Max Solomon on January 12, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
Actually, I believe the "City on a Hill" phrase is from John Winthrop's "Model of Christian Charity," a decade after Plymouth, not the Mayflower Compact (or Reagan, for that matter).
Posted by camhead on January 12, 2012 at 11:59 AM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 10
The reason to run for president, even when there is no hope of grabbing 15% of the delegates, is that it positions you in the party. Huntsman could be angling for an appointment, or a seat at the table when they discuss GOP strategy, or even laying the groundwork for '16 or '20. Or he could be upping his speaker or lobbyist fees. Winning the election is not the real goal here, folks.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 12, 2012 at 12:01 PM · Report this
slade 11
11CS would refer it as the high ground as Stevie Wonder would say it as higher ground.
Not by the river means up a hill.

the wild card indeed as Mitt dodges and ducks and explains his stance views beliefs with yack from a camel?

I find him similar to the president of Iran and if in the small chance he gets in the white house would expect the same yack from a camel.

A delusional republican ejaculating his money wad onto the face of the grossest part of American history he seems to be a total "yes man" and more of the male part in a Charmane Star movie.

His running mate will reflect Dick Cheney as the evil brain needed to dress the clown and make sure that colonialism still keeps Britain as Americas shining example of the city on a hill as that is what an island is.


who wants John McCain as vice president or President defacto?
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on January 12, 2012 at 12:10 PM · Report this
Fnarf 12
His running mate will be a hard-right Tea Party favorite, and not any of the other candidates. The other candidates are irreparably tainted by their performances here, unless they are one of the ones who were irreparably tainted already (Santorum, Gingrich). You don't win by picking a loser.

Remember too, he's anointing a successor, unless he picks someone ancient. I'm thinking "current or recent Governor, rising star", like Palin was four years ago, only not a complete fuckhead like she turned out to be.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on January 12, 2012 at 12:33 PM · Report this
treefort 13
I don't think the Bain thing will hurt him with Republicans. They love the free market too much. Like when he said he likes to be able to fire people, anti-union = win.
Posted by treefort on January 12, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
Lose-Lose 14
To expand on Fnarf's (right on target) ponderings: there are several (???) "decent" (as in, their loony ideas aren't well known to the entire nation) Republicans who would make a strong running mate for Mittens (Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, etc), but that brings me back to my initial theory all along: why did all the serious, strong Republicans take a pass on this election, even though the tide appears (or appeared) to be the their favor. Is it cause the country is in such a shitbag mess of fucked up trouble that they KNOW they can't fix it and no one wants to be known as "one of three presidents who caused the dissolution of the USA"?
Just a thought.
A rambling thought.
Posted by Lose-Lose on January 12, 2012 at 12:56 PM · Report this
So Shitt Ram-me took a santorum bath and now we're all going to get flushed down?
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 12, 2012 at 1:22 PM · Report this
Xenos 16
@13, 14 To continue this thread, I am pretty confident Romney will be looking to do some good old fashioned ticket balancing, i.e.: northern, non-evangelical, wishy-washy conservative meets southern, evangelical, dyed in the wool Republican. Regardless of the eventual running mate's attributes, I am definitely confident that he will be picking someone that the GOP base finds reassuring and personable, again, the opposite of Romney.

Or not, Mittens and his handlers could maintain their vulcan-like strategy and say, "let them eat cake!" and pick the politician they want because they're "the smartest guys in the room," etc.
Posted by Xenos on January 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM · Report this
Xenos 17
To comment upon the article as a whole, here are my predictions for November:

Obama wins re-election if:
A.) Turnout is high (credit: Paul Constant)
B.) The economy continues its current trajectory
C.) He keeps the same basic campaign strategy as 2008 (doesn't jump in the gutter, rocks the student vote, small donations, lots of shoe leather, etc)
D.) He convinces at least a portion of the public that congressional Republicans are the problem. (Polls show this could be done)

Romney wins if:
A.) Turnout is low, especially the youth vote
B.) The economy sours (although this could paradoxically spur turnout, though probably of a less Obama-friendly sort)
C.) His running mate becomes a cause celebre and nets him swing states (yeah, I don't know who this fabled person is either.)
D.) His businessman persona finds traction.

The following memes need to be addressed by Obama, if he wants to win:

A.) America is weaker abroad. (Seriously? Libya, bin Laden, the withraw from Iraq (Afghanistan coming soon!), and the Drone program aren't enough?)
B.) Mitt is going to get any more likable the more he is forced to have unscripted, videotaped moments on the campaign trail. (see: "Corporations are people, my friend.")
C.) Obama is a weak-kneed apologizing machine (see: A)
D.) The stimulus failed. (No, it did in fact create jobs. It could have created more jobs at less $/job if it had been comprised of more funds and less tax cuts)
E.) Stimuli do not work at all/Suck it, Keynes. (see: D)
Posted by Xenos on January 12, 2012 at 2:11 PM · Report this
Geni 18
Anyone wanna lay odds on whether Willard will pick Jeb Bush as his running mate?
Posted by Geni on January 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM · Report this
I say SHIT, SHIT, SHIT on both democrats and republicans. Democrats --- as a whole --- do a great job of trying to appear compassionate. The reality is --- they are almost identical to Republicans. Democrats lie, cheat and steal a little better than Republicans --- I think. You can make and edit a movie to show just how both Democrats and Republicans both destroyed jobs in this country.

When you vote for Obama Bin Banker Bernanke --- make no bones about it ---- you are voting for a darker skinned Mitt Shit Romney.

Yes, under a Ron Paul leadership -- the whole country would go through severe birthing pains. The United States could very well split up into smaller countries. Direct Democracy would be much easier to obtain under a Ron Paul leadership and/or several or many smaller countries on the land mass called the United States. We would all burn and rise again like a Phoenix from the Ashes. Real change is unlikely under Obama or Romney.

Radical Reform and/or an all out revolution is possible, but very unlikely with the para-militarized police in place and military martial law that would probably ensue. Unless real change happens, I see a fascist, socialist, technocratic regime. Maybe, the people really don't mind whatever the outcome is if everyone has housing, clothing, medical care and food.

I tend to follow the stars though. Pluto in Capricorn wants real change. The mystery of how to acquire positive real change might unfold soon. Maybe we will all just muddle through the whole mess as well for the next decade or two or three...
Posted by Full Moon with cellulite on January 12, 2012 at 3:18 PM · Report this
slade 20
2012 is another blue wave and the Republicans go back to being the Phillip and Terrance show.

Much in tune with The Cat church of Gawd and hell bent to prove a man cant love a man like he can love a woman.
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on January 12, 2012 at 3:21 PM · Report this
slade 21
what would you expect from Canadians?
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on January 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM · Report this
@19 That is an awesome crazy rant! If I saw you screaming on a street corner I would stop and listen for several minutes unless you smelled too strongly of your own poo. Keep 'me coming!
Posted by Spike1382 on January 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM · Report this
@22 I am gay, white and borderline upper middle-class (in an unstable economy). I am not crazy, although I would admit ---- half crazy. I love animals and helping old people. I have no children. However, I've been in the same relationship for 22 years (mixed-race) and have several small animal companions. There is a great deal more to my demographic than I have just written.

I really just wanted to let you know that I shower daily and my blood tests are that of someone half my age. I wash my hands with soap and hot water every-time I use the bathroom. I even cancel massage appointments if I have a cold, so I don't give my therapist a cold.

Often, I have powerful and quite eerily accurate psychic moments. Sometimes, its just an overactive imagination. Finally, I don't have the nerve to preach on a street corner and I would never smell if I had the guts to do it. I even rinse my mouth out with mouth wash so I don't have stale coffee breath.
Posted by full moon with cellulite on January 12, 2012 at 4:01 PM · Report this
crymsonclovur 24
Republican voter turn out was low because of their terrible candidates. As much as people are frustrated with Obama right now, it's better to give him another four years to get us back on track than have someone else make it worse.
Posted by crymsonclovur http://crymsonandclovur.tumblr.com/ on January 12, 2012 at 4:37 PM · Report this
@18: I wouldn't be surprised.

@24: I agree. Let's face it: the Reagans and Bushes fucked the U.S. up the ass so bad it'll take at LEAST two consecutive terms for Barack Obama just to get everything back to before we got fucked over by two illegal wars, bank deregulation, and letting corporations run amok.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 12, 2012 at 8:23 PM · Report this
Love the view of all the candidates! A good laugh!
Posted by bonillaphotography http://www.bonillaphotography.com on January 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM · Report this
The Stranger sucks..Republicans aren't bad..This guy will do a better job than Obama right where this country is hurting the most..The Economy..This town is a vacuum..Think for yourself..Obama had his chance..Lets see if someone can do better.
Posted by Boner Jamus on January 13, 2012 at 7:47 PM · Report this
@27: ...and yet you remain unregistered.
Posted by auntie grizelda on January 13, 2012 at 9:35 PM · Report this
Reagan gets far too much credit for his words. Correctly noted before, "the city on the hill" was used by Kennedy before Reagan, Winthrop long before that, and Winthrop was using it as a reference from the Bible even longer before that.
Posted by people are everywhere on January 15, 2012 at 1:36 AM · Report this
@23... you're either full-on, baying at the moon batsh*t crazy or doing an amazing good parody of somebody who is.

Either way, bravo. And please stop pooping on my begonias.
Posted by dak7e on January 15, 2012 at 3:39 PM · Report this
Can somebody explain the difference between Bush2 and Obama?? Protect the rich, illegal wars, restrictions on civil liberties, unfunded programs leading to exploding deficits and on and on it goes.

Having read Romney's policy book I do not see much difference between him and Obama. He is competent at management, while Obama clearly lacks ANY ability to run a large organization.

However, Obama or Romney?? Not much difference there in policies.

It is way past time for a political revolution in this country.
Posted by tapis on January 15, 2012 at 8:00 PM · Report this
And, if I'm not mistaken, Winthrop's point was not "we're so shiny!", but rather "the whole world is watching, let's not screw up".
Posted by Gerald Fnord on January 15, 2012 at 9:30 PM · Report this
slade 33
why some people cant imagine that Reagan rode the Technology bubble is like light years beyond Me?

Oh Reagan my My ass? what a dry crusty ignorant fart of politics and economics if you cant detect a impact of technology?

its like December 2, 1927 the date the model A went on sale and the lead up to the market crash of 1928. too early for Calvin Coolidge to reap the benefits of Mr. Ford and too late too avoid the Market crash Calvin Coolidge was noted in Wiki=

Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor's administration, and left office with considerable popularity. As a Coolidge biographer put it, "He embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength." Coolidge praised the achievement of widespread prosperity in 1928, saying: "The requirements of existence have passed beyond the standard of necessity into the region of luxury." Some later criticized Coolidge as part of a general criticism of laissez-faire government. His reputation underwent a renaissance during the Ronald Reagan Administration, but the ultimate assessment of his presidency is still divided between those who approve of his reduction of the size of government programs and those who believe the federal government should be more involved in regulating and controlling the economy.

If the economic fruits are spoiling and the government is getting less revenue to feed a bloated budget then it don't take a wizard to summon simple math to realize tax reform and government restructure is in the tarot cards?

McCain on David Letterman said we will pay a trillion dollars for a fighter jet? one fighter jet?

If we return to 1928 its obvious the government is not capable of regulating and controlling the economy. They have not learned anything from history and are just seals barking for fish.
Posted by slade http://www.youtube.com/user/guppygator on January 16, 2012 at 2:22 PM · Report this
ean 34
"bon mot". Yeah whatever dude.
Posted by ean on January 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM · Report this
Raise your hand if you read this article ( beyond the second sentence and '[Mitt] promptly covered himself in shit.'
Posted by gomermcflarp on January 16, 2012 at 8:12 PM · Report this
Slam1263 36
Can you imagine the Mormon lovefest that will occur betwixt this dork and Harry Reid?
Posted by Slam1263 on January 17, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
Dear Paul,

What does Obama's asshole taste like?

I'm guessing pineapple and cocaine.


Genesis Revelations
Posted by Zepol on January 17, 2012 at 4:19 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Most Commented in Features