Romney Shaking That Etch-a-Sketch Like A Wall Street Snake

Hannity gets the "exclusive" right to enable and record Mitt Romney lying some more, as Romney's deep-doubling-down on dissemblance reaches escape velocity. Disavowing his mind and mouth's actions back in Boca, Romney now claims the 47% remark was "completely wrong" and not simply "inelegantly" put. That claim raises a bunch of questions of course, as Mitt's lies twist and turn like a well-crafted ad campaign for a scumbaggy rich-boy pol.
So now Mitt Romney's claim about the 47% is that, when he said they were all deadbeats, whom it wasn't his job to care about, he made a mistake.

Well, duh!

But, what Mitt now means is that he never meant it. Not that he said it inelegantly—but Mitt claims he just had the"completely wrong" words come out of his mouth—while he's begging the Bocas for millions of dollars.

That's Mitts story, that while closing a bunch of rich donors in Boca Raton on helping his campaign with much-needed mega-donations, he just came up with some wild, crazy, thing he doesn't really believe at all, so he would—what? Sound simpatico with the other rich people? So, he was lying to them to get their money?

Or, is it Mitt's story now that he and other rich people don't think that about working-class and poor Americans. Oh no! Never! No way the rich people that tribe with Mitt would think something like:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-­name­ job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
How does that represent "completely wrong", except in the obvious sense of being completely amoral and hateful shit somebody shouldn't say—unless they think it's true and righteous?

Does Romney really think the American people are dumb enough to buy that this obviously well-considered policy statement by Romney concerning what he sees as the worthless half of America just came out of his mouth as a colossal brain-fart and that he does not believe any of it?

This most recent lie of Romney's is consistent with his other Etch-a-Sketchiness-on-Steroids, "I never said that, or meant that, or built that" backtracking and flipflopping, which so caught Barack Obama off guard on Wednesday night.

It was a brilliant tactic (if his opponent played along)—Romney would just disavow completely all the dumbass, heinous, things he has said, or, if you're kind, been forced to say to align with Tea Party lunacy. And that way, all of Barack Obama's fancy-pants lawyer tricks, where he points out how Mitt Romney's positions and policy proposals are based on bogus math and right-wing pandering, wouldn't work.

And of course, since Mitt knew he wouldn't have to actually defend anything, but instead just deny it, he could stand there, smiling about how silly the President was, actually trying to debate something that Romney would just reject as Obama's distortion. Unfortunately, Obama was so stunned by the boldness of the scorched-earth policy Romney was adopting, the President let Mitt get away with it.

For about twelve hours anyway.

Then the President realized what Romney's decision actually meant. Mitt had taken up his shining, shivering Etch-a-Sketch in full view of everybody, and was shaking it like any good snake-oil salesman. Dumb old American people, Romney thought. They swallow anything.

Well, we'll see about that. But if Mitt's wrong on that basic assumption, his "debate" tactic—maybe the only one which could have rendered a victory for him in any debate with Barack Obama—is already revealing its potentially devastating downside for the Romney campaign.

Will it be long before we see Obama ads or campaign arguments that include an analysis of Romney's statements, such as what follows here?

First, here is Mitt's latest statement on his 47% policy:
"Well, clearly, in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches, and question and answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right. In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong. And I absolutely believe however that my life has shown that I care about 100%...As I pointed out last night in the debate, the rich in this country, are actually doing better under President Obama. The gap between the rich and the poor has gotten larger. The rich will probably do fine, even if he's reelected. It's the middle class that's in real trouble if President Obama's reelected. And the poor. I want the poor to get into the middle class."
Well, great, but is that really consistent with Mitt's other policy stand on this question:
"I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there...You can choose where to focus, you can focus on the rich. That's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus in on middle income Americans. Retirees living on Social Security, people who can't find work."
Well, except a lot of those people, that Mitt claims to be focused on, are in the 47%, about whom he says:
"My job is not to worry about those people."
So, Mitt's focused on some, not all, cares about some, not all, considers it his job to worry about 53%, but not the 47%—OR—that's all just some crazy things that slipped out of Mitt's stupid mouth and he doesn't think that at all and he really cares about 100% of the people. Just look, Mitt says, at how he treats people in his real life.

Yeah good point:
"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me."
Just what you want to hear from the guy claiming to be focused on getting Americans jobs.

Mitt may think his newest makeover will con a few independent undecideds, but when they really think about how little regard Romney has for their intelligence, that could be the final nail in the coffin of an extraordinarily awful presidential campaign.