27 Responses to Mitt, Are You Going To Fire The Baby?

  1. susanthe January 10, 2012 at 11:50 pm #

    he IS a Republican, and once a fetus reaches babydom, they’ve lost all interest. Let that damned baby pull itself up by its bootstraps!  

  2. Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Yes, making fun of Romney is a lot of fun (and extremely easy) but can we all agree that this whole “story” is not a gaffe on Romney’s part but a deliberate distortion by his opponents (both Republican and Democrat)? Seriously, his full quote is:

    “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”

    Everyone who shortens the quote to “I like being able to fire people” is making themselves look like idiots and partisan hacks. Romney is a disaster as a candidate and completely delusional, no one needs to lie and distort in order to discredit him. They only end up discrediting themselves. Come on people, we’re better than that.

    • FrankLloydMike January 11, 2012 at 12:25 am #

      this is a great case of what goes around coming back around. Romney has so distorted the words of Obama, as well as other Democrats and his fellow Republicans, that I really don’t mind people distorting his words. Yes, I agree that distorting quotes like this undermines honest dialogue, and I won’t personally repeat it, but given Romney’s history of distortion, I’m not so ready to jump to his defense.

    • Kathy Sullivan 2 January 11, 2012 at 12:30 am #

      I’m Irish, we find humor in pretty much everything. And I don’t see how you don’t see the humor in the baby comment, given the circumstances.

      But putting that aside, I have had to tell businesses with whom we had a relationship that we were no longer using their services. You know what? It isn’t enjoyable, and if Romney thinks it is enjoyable, he’s got a problem. Including insurance companies, because you do develop a relationship with your representatives at the company. So, go put that into context, Ben.  

      Ane one other thing; isn’t it a little odd to be so critical of those of us having a laugh at Mitt’s expense, while trying to insult us by calling us idiots and partisan hacks?

      I’ve been very proud to be associated with the New Hampshire Democratic Party, and have known a lot of good people who have been party officials or party staffers – in both parties. This notion that people who are affiliated with a party, and who engage in partisanship, are lesser humans (i.e., “partisan hacks”), is not just elitist, it flies in the face of the history of our democratic system. Party politics has played a role in the development of our nation since the Federalists and the anti-Federalists first argued over the Constitution. Countries that have a one party system aren’t fun – like, North Korea, Cuba and China.  

      • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 1:13 am #

        I think you’re falsely equating “liking” to “enjoyable”. He didn’t say he “enjoys” firing people who provide him with services, he said he “likes” it. The context is clear from his full statement. He means he likes that he can “fire” these services providers rather than the alternative of NOT being able to fire them. Whether it’s enjoyable or not is not even touched upon.

        • susaninrindge January 11, 2012 at 1:38 am #

          Do you like anything you don’t enjoy? The two words are, in fact, synonyms. Mitt Romney ENJOYS firing people. Period.

          • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 1:46 am #

            I like taking vitamins because they make me healthier. I like that I can pay taxes so that essential services can be provided to myself and others. I like that I can get my car’s oil changed so my engine doesn’t sieze up.

            Do I enjoy any of those things? They’re all pretty much on a continuum from “meh” to “no”.

            • susaninrindge January 11, 2012 at 2:13 am #
      • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 1:26 am #

        “This notion that people who are affiliated with a party, and who engage in partisanship, are lesser humans (i.e., “partisan hacks”), is not just elitist, it flies in the face of the history of our democratic system. “

        Nice straw man. I never said ALL people who are affiliated with a party are hacks. I said people who distort statements on purpose are hacks. See, you can be partisan (which is not a derogatory statement) without being a hack (which IS a derogatory statement). There are all types of hacks in the world, when they’re affiliated with a political party then the term “partisan” is a qualifier, not a put-down.

        • Kathy Sullivan 2 January 11, 2012 at 1:48 am #

          Okay, now you are making me laugh as much as Mitt Romney! You used the terms “idiots”,
          “partisan hacks”, “discrediting”, “lie and sitrot” and my personal favorite, “we’re better than that.” Now that’s what I call hostility :)

          • Kathy Sullivan 2 January 11, 2012 at 1:49 am #
          • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 1:59 am #

            Let’s just take a step back. Your original post included a quote from someone else, NOT you. In that other person’s quote they used the term gaffe to describe the statement in question.

            I pointed out the lie in that person’s quote and said that people who engage in such tactics are in fact hacks (partisan ones in this case). I never called YOU a hack as I’ve never seen you distort someone’s words like that. You are not the target of this (even though you seem to feel that you are).

            “So, go put that into context, Ben.”

            You also implied that I’m elitist while railing against my use of the term “partisan hacks”. Yes, that sounds like hostility to me. Ok, maybe “mockery” or might be a more fitting description but either way I think it’s misplaced and I’ll call you on it if I see it.

            • Kathy Sullivan 2 January 11, 2012 at 2:11 am #

              But let’s call a truce, otherwise this will turn into one of those long and ridiculous BH arguments that resemble the Cheers episode when they started obsessing over how many tiles there were in the parquet floor of the old Boston Garden.  

              • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 2:20 am #

                I’m all for debating the points of the original post’s content, there’s not a lot to be gained by arguing about who is more insulted by whom.

    • dooper January 11, 2012 at 12:40 am #

      It’s a gaffe. A poor choice of words that feeds into the narrative that Romney can’t connect with the average person.

      People like having a choice, a say in the things that effect their lives.

      People do not enjoy being fired, especially by people who enjoy doing the firing.

      Had Romney said something about having choice or opportunities, he might have made a connection that resonated with people — but Romney’s campaign isn’t really about choice or opportunity, is it?

      • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 1:33 am #

        You’re correct that he could have worded it differently but his full statement WAS clear which is why I don’t think it’s a gaffe.

        You can take any clear, well-worded statement and strip it from its context, delete a few words, (which is what people have been doing to Romney’s statement) and make it sound horrible. That doesn’t mean that the original statement was a gaffe, it means that the people doing the quoting are purposely distorting the speaker’s words.

        Can we laugh at the resulting distortion? Sure, if it’s funny, it’s funny but let’s be honest with ourselves and realize it IS a distortion and not a gaffe.

        • The Money Magician January 11, 2012 at 2:26 am #

          Regardless of context, even if talking about a serial-killer, even in Texas, that would be a gaffe.  Same here.  It’s too glib, too clearly spoken by someone who identifies far more with employers than employees – but is so far removed that he hasn’t even ever had to fire someone face-to-face, so he doesn’t even get that right!

          (If you think I’m making an equivalence between firing someone and executing them, you’re missing the point!)

          • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 2:41 am #

            His use of the word “fire” seems to be what sticks in everyone’s craw. For myself, I read his statement, understand what he means (whether I agree or disagree), and don’t get hung up on the wording.

            Sure, the fact that he uses the word “fire” seems to show his bias for business or corporate power but that point can be made without deleting words from his statement. That’s my only point. I see a clear distinction between the phrase:

            “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. “
            and
            “I like being able to fire people.”  

            • RealNRH January 11, 2012 at 10:32 am #

              I think it’s his choice of the word ‘like.’ You put in a single sentence that you like firing people, regardless of which people or why, and you display a degree of utter disconnect with ordinary human empathy. Enjoying the process of firing people is a trait normally reserved for movie caricatures of evil management bastards.

    • William Tucker January 11, 2012 at 2:00 am #

      Romney, who promoted himself as a businessman best equipped to fix the bad economy, has become the businessman who caused it. His use of the phrase, “I like to fire people” in ANY context so perfectly reinforces that narrative that it has become emblematic. As Romney himself explains, “politics ain’t beanbag.”

      • susaninrindge January 11, 2012 at 2:17 am #

        Saying that particular string of words in ANY context makes him the agent of firing and he looks the part and he talks the part and he acts the part. He can’t hide that fact any more. It is now his identity.  

        • Ben Belcourt January 11, 2012 at 2:33 am #

          “makes him the agent of firing”

          Is your implication that firing is never a good thing or just that it’s bad to be viewed as the embodiment or agent of firing? Is it just the word “fire” in his quote that you disagree with or is it the substance of his statement?

          My feeling is that the substance of his statement, that he likes having the choice to change service providers by leaving one and moving on to another, is actually pretty bland and non-remarkable.

          Actually, I take that back. It IS remarkable in how liberal it is (he likes having a choice) even though he would cringe at that. It just goes to show how disingenuous he is (and frankly a lot of conservatives are).

          It just seems like it’s the fact that he used the word “fire” that is getting people riled up.

          • susaninrindge January 11, 2012 at 3:13 am #

            It’s the 2 words together that pin the tail on the donkey for me.

            I actually find the point of his remarks equally objectionable because he is trying to sell us on an approach to health care that keeps all the power in the hands of the insurance companies and tries to appease us with the chance to “fire them” if we’re not happy.  Contrast that with Obama’s health care reform which REQUIRES health insurance companies to provide certain services and precludes them from dropping people with illnesses, etc.  He’s spinning us into thinking he wants us to have the control when, in fact, unregulated insurance companies will be able to charge whatever they want for whatever benefits they want to whomever they want. This is the “free market” solution. We will be able to fire them when? After they refuse to pay for our care?  After they drop us for having an illness?  For dropping coverage for a particular illness?  

            It’s cold comfort and he’s just begun to spin and “market” his private sector solution to health care when he repeals Obama’s HRC on his “first day”. It’s not “bland” at all, Ben. It’s supposed to sound populist!  Yeah!!! Yippee!! We can fire our insurance companies, but wait for the real shoe to drop!  

            • mevansnh January 11, 2012 at 5:26 am #

              of Vulture Capitalism that’s been Mr. Romney’s experience at Bain, as opposed to producing a service or product that people will buy.  It’s the money changers that he represents.  

          • RealNRH January 11, 2012 at 10:35 am #

            Romney might have the choice of changing his health providers. The average American has whoever is their employer’s choice of health provider and gets the choice of ‘shitty coverage’ or ‘no coverage.’ That’s not being free to fire them, that’s being locked in.

            Unless you have a half-billion dollars and ongoing multi-million dollar income taxed at 15% from your years buying up companies with good credit, borrowing every cent they could, then letting them go bankrupt. Then you can afford to shop around and buy anything you like.

            • susaninrindge January 11, 2012 at 6:24 pm #

              that he identifies only with business owners, not workers! Workers will never have the choice.

              • Icicle January 13, 2012 at 9:02 pm #

                with other like-minded people, I bet he has a hard time when he’s face-to-face with us regular folk.
                I can hear his inner voice now…… “DOH!! Did I really say that…. or just think it…..”

Site maintenance and hosting by Hoeferweb