Mere Presence: Mitt's Empty-Suit Posturing that Our Merely Electing Him Will Bring Economic Magic

by: KathyinBlacksburg

Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 15:36:33 PM EDT

Business Insider posted a story about the emptiness of Mitt Romney's claim that his mere election will "turn this country around." I urge you to read it because I will not repeat all the evidence here.  

First the article explores the uncertainty myth. And the article shows foreign investment has begun to improve.  So, perhaps it's only US employers who are uncertain. Why would that be? Is it because they plan to invest only in foreign companies themselves?  Do they never intend to bring back US jobs.  And what about the total obliteration of that myth by the trillions US companies are sitting on?  Perhaps the problem is demand?  The article explores this with evidence that that is a factor.  

The analysis goes on to explore whether other factors impact demand. The data show that private investment isn't the problem. Besides, otherwise how would companies be sitting on their stockpiles of cash?  Also, GDP is doing well, as even AEI found. The claim that a regulatory environment is causing this uncertainty doesn't wash either (see the graph in the article).  And, besides:

It is a fact that complaints about regulation are creeping up (per another chart from the same survey) but for the vast majority of this President's term, it's an issue that's been far below sales.

He seems so sure that companies will hire "after he is elected," (I don't concede that he is going to be). Here's my hypothesis: That, perhaps US companies through The National Chamber of Commerce (the national Chamber is a notoriously Republican institution), ALEC and other entities, are conspiring with Mitt Romney to oust our President in hopes of greater salaries for their execs and better golden parachutes for when they bail out as well? Does Mitt think they will unfetter hiring in the US the minute of his hypothetical election? How crazy is that?  Or, if not crazy, how desperately manipulative and how unAmerican would that be?  

Is there any precedence for such maneuvering?  The answer is, hell, yeh, the original October Surprise. Recently, some commentators have asked whether or not the fomenting of violence in the Middle East right before American elections might be a 2012 version of the October Surprise. Perhaps, but I believe the real October Surprise is the promulgation of the Uncertainty Myth and the effort to undermine the economy for political gain by Congressional Republicans, the national GOP, and numerous other related entities. It is demonstrably true that numerous members of the GOP, including the House Speaker and Senate Minority Leader have said their number one job is to "make President Obama fail." Their willingness to sign a pledge to Grover Norquist, but not to thoroughly fulfill their Consitutional responsibilities to do the people's business, and numerous actions during the past three-plus years chronicles how not to be congresspersons. I hope that isn't the case. But, given Mitt's posturing and confidence, you gotta wonder.  And if true, this hypotheses would be all the more reason not to elect the man (not that folks need any more reason to run from creating a Romney presidency).

Let's hope we never find out what a Romney presidency would look like. He is so demonstrably incompetent, muddle-headed, contemptuous of half of this country, manipulative, and truth-challenged that it's clear Romney is unfit to sit in the Oval Office. And his wife thinks it's their "turn"!?!