Rigged games

Romney won in Nevada, the state that sends Harry Reid to the US Senate. With that victory it looks like the media is going to get their guy nominated. AGAIN! I was pretty sure he would get the nomination all along. No matter. I was not going to vote for him, or Gingrich, or Santorum. The enclosed commentary by Daniel Larison touched on one of my objections to all three —— they can’t be trusted —— Romney specifically:

Unfortunately, this argument requires us to believe that Romney will be loyal an agenda that includes major controversial and unpopular policies. That isn’t going to happen, because Romney cannot be trusted to follow through on what he says he will do. Romney has a history of defending corporate interests. He is a pro-bailout corporatist. If there is one thing we can reasonably expect more of from him, it is corporatist policies.​

Romney and his kind only play in rigged games. You can be sure he will continue to rig the game for his pals. They call it investing. I call gambling. Don’t get me wrong. I’ve no objections to gambling. I do object to guys like Romney running the casino.

To me, the best form of gambling is betting on the gee-gees. Even if a race is fixed horse degenerates have as much chance of cashing a ticket on a boat race as they have when they bet on a race that is on the up and up. It doesn't matter to the true gambler. What does matter is that you get paid when you do win. Private sector working people pay for the privilege of never winning in Romney’s game.

To best understand the difference between gambling and "investing" let me tell you about a guy who used to go to the track and bet on cloud formations. Like the Peanuts gang he would make pictures of cloud formations in his imagination, then find a horse in the program that had something to with his interpretation. On cloudless days he could always be found sunning himself on a bench out by the paddock; ever vigilant should a tiny wisp of a cloud appear. He always got paid when he won, and he won as often, and more, than did knowledgeable handicappers.

My point: If you want to take a flyer on Wall Street look out of your window and make pictures out of cloud formations; then find a company whose name matches your cloud. You’ll do a lot better in the long-run than you’ll ever do by trusting Romney.

I’ve got a system

Every system works. The worst betting system ever invented will payoff once in awhile. The best system in the world won't payoff enough times to beat the percentages. This is true with horses, roulette, and speculating on Wall Street.

It is the jerks who read the Daily Racing Form and the Wall Street Journal trying to predict the future who holler "Rape" the loudest when it comes out the insiders rigged the game.

Gambling is gambling. Poker or pinochle — golf or tennis — are GAMES. Every game requires precise skills; hence, the most skilled player on any given day will always win. Good game players are notoriously poor gamblers. The best poker player in the world can’t predict the winner in a walkover.

Betting on horses or the galloping dominoes or buying stocks is gambling —— so don't holler cop when you lose because Romney rigged the game.

One final observation:

Republicans will need 60 votes in the Senate to ensure passage of health care repeal or Ryan-style Medicare reform. ​

Right from the start I said Romney would find a way to weasel out of repealing Hillarycare II. I can see it coming. The media will make a lot of noise over the “fight” to repeal. Romney will pontificate and act like he is leading his party in the fight. Bipartisanship and compromises will dominate the airwaves. Even if Republicans get the 60 votes, bet on this if you want a sure thing: The Affordable Care will not be repealed, nor will Romney sign it if repeal legislation does come to his desk.

Romney Is Not the “Stealth Tea Party Candidate”
Daniel Larison
February 4, 2012

Theda Skocpol believes that Romney is the “stealth Tea Party candidate”:

In Romney, the tea party has found the ultimate prize: a candidate loyal to the movement’s agenda, but able to fool enough pundits and moderate voters to win the White House at a time when the tea party has lost broad appeal.

If I didn’t know anything else about Romney, I’d say that this almost sounds plausible. Unfortunately, this argument requires us to believe that Romney will be loyal an agenda that includes major controversial and unpopular policies. That isn’t going to happen, because Romney cannot be trusted to follow through on what he says he will do. Romney has a history of defending corporate interests. He is a pro-bailout corporatist. If there is one thing we can reasonably expect more of from him, it is corporatist policies. To the extent that Tea Partiers have a distinctive quasi-populist agenda, Romney’s policies will rarely line up with the policy preferences of Tea Party activists. To the extent that activists mistake Romney’s corporatism for support for free-market principles, they will enable policies that are antithetical to what they claim to want. Nothing would be more useful for Romney than to camouflage his corporatism as a form of conservatism populism.

Skocpol’s argument also takes for granted that Romney will have enough allies in Congress to push this agenda through, but barring a huge Republican wave I don’t see how Republicans are going to have the numbers in the Senate to make this happen. Republicans need to win 13 seats to reach a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That doesn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t be defections on certain votes, but without 60 votes many of the items on the agenda Skocpol mentions have virtually no chance of passing.

Let’s be generous and assume that Republicans sweep all seven of the seats listed as toss-ups, and let’s also assume that Republicans win all four of the seats currently rated as “lean Democratic.” Even if everything broke the Republicans’ way, there simply aren’t enough pick-up opportunities in this election. Republicans will need 60 votes in the Senate to ensure passage of health care repeal or Ryan-style Medicare reform. It is unlikely that the Republicans are going to win all seven toss-ups, and it is quite possible that Brown will lose the Massachusetts seat.

http://www.theamericanconservative....omney-is-not-the-stealth-tea-party-candidate/