Mitticisms: "Effectively"

John McCain's campaign just produced a new internet ad called "A Tale of Two Mitts." (Get it? It's a pun. Because "Mitt" and "City" are both words. Must be old people humor.)

The ad features Mitt Romney running for senator in 1994 and saying:

"I believe abortion should be safe and legal in this country."

And then, when he was running for governor:

"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose."

But then, in a debate this year:

"You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice but my position was effectively pro-choice and I've said that time and time again."

Now, of course a person is allowed to change their mind, that's the whole point of abortion. What's reprehensible is to say one thing, then say another, then claim when you said the first thing you didn't actually say it. Because, when you said the first thing, what you meant to say was something that sounded like that, but didn't mean it.

"I didn't say 'pro-choice.' I said, 'effectively pro-choice.' Except on those occasions when I flat out said I supported a woman's right to choose. But cut me some slack. Remember, when I said that, I was trying to lie. The words just came out wrong. And by wrong, I mean right."

What kind of idiot lies, and in his defense claims that he was trying to split hairs?

Mitt Romney is George Bush trying to be Bill Clinton.

But let's pretend Mitt Romney always remembered to call himself "effectively pro-choice." Is there a difference between that and plain old "pro-choice?"

What Mitt means is that he never did anything, in government (and presumably, Staples and the Olympics) to limit a woman's access to an abortion. He wanted to be pro-life; he just never got around to it.

("Sorry, Juno, you're on your own. Go use your cheeseburger phone to call someone who gives a shit.")

Mitt's not bragging about this. He's apologizing. But he's also trying to make a distinction between endorsing an act and not preventing it; between a sin and a sin of omission.

Thomas Aquinas, of course, says there's no useful distinction at all. A sin of omission follows from a sin of commission -- the act of deciding not to do what's right. This is why Aquinas tells us that the material difference between a sin of omission and a sin of commission is the same as the material difference between stabbing someone and strangling them. Which is to say, not fucking much.

But what did he know.

When Mitt Romney says "effectively" what he means is "the thing and its opposite." The way, in the Michigan primary, he could claim his business experience -- downsizing companies -- gave him the expertise to create jobs.

--

Saturday, in Lakeland, Florida, Mitt Romney "effectively" ate some Kentucky Fried Chicken. ("Yeeee-haaaa! See, Clem! He is one'a us after all!") The problem with this brilliant photo opportunity was a lack of advance planning. No one phoned ahead to make sure there was broiled chicken available. So when the Governor got to the counter he had to eat fried. Which, as you might guess, was about as appealing to him as human contact with poor people.

He peeled the skin off with a plastic knife and fork, and threw it away.

Which reminded me of something Norman Mailer wrote in 1962:

"The worst story I ever heard about Jack Kennedy was that he sat on his boat one day eating chicken and threw the half-chewed bones into the sea.

"So few people understand what I mean it forces me to explain that you don't give the carcass of an animal to the water. It was meant to seep back into the earth...

"Throwing a chicken bone into the sea is bad because it shows no feeling for the root of death, which is burial. Of course Kennedy might have muttered, "Sorry, old man," as he tossed the bone. That is the difficulty with anecdotes. One cannot determine the nuance. I have the conceit that if I had been there I might have sensed whether Kennedy was genuinely rueful, oblivious to the fact, or acting like a dick."

That's the difficulty with anecdotes, all right. Nuance. But we know exactly what Mitt Romney said over his bird:

"This is healthy," he announced to the press. "I take the skin off. I'm taking off the fried and the skin. Underneath it is plain old chicken."

Why did the candidate think this was worth explaining? (I'm obsessed with the guy, and even I don't care.) So why?

Because he was proudly performing the ultimate Mitt Romney act: He was eating fried chicken while not eating fried chicken.

He was taking two sides of a biological function.

WHAT MITT MEANT:
I was effectively pro-choice, but that's only because I don't care about human life, one way or the other. As a general rule, I ask the same hard moral questions a lobster does.

HOW TO USE "EFFECTIVELY" AT HOME:
"No, Dad, I did not have a party. I effectively let my friends come over and drink all your booze."

Comments

[speakingout]

Why do the very people that support wars criticize anyone that might be pro-choice yesterday, today or tomorrow? This is so hypocritical!! What do you so-called "pro-lifers" think happens in a war? Surprise! People die! Get killed! End their lives! If you're going to criticize someone about being pro-choice, (which is really none of the governments business in the first place, which is the real issue here) then start criticizing the wars and those that want to take us there, McCain, Bush, Cheney, etc!! Don't EVEN call yourselves "pro-life" if you advocate war! So all you so-called cristians and jews, etc. that profess to believe in the "thou shalt not kill" commandment, shame on all of you!!!!!!! God is watching!!

[porpoise88]

Thank you, Chris, for such a funny post. Thank you also to the people who commented ebfore me- some of your thoughts had me laughing out loud.

The image of Mitt Romney effectively eating fried chicken reminds me of Bush almost effectively winning the Iraq War. Tee hee!

[gopindrag]

Does anybody know where to find those wonderful old Moron Tabernacle Choir recordings?

[blueshift]

Points out my feeling about all the Normal mailer hype:'what was THAT all about?' Why was Mailer in this blogpost? Didi it say something?

[wwakeuup]

I'm off to KFC. Thanks for the brightening my morning Chris!

[Sidewhispers]

Mitt Romney is effectively going to lose.

[ibsteve2u]

"Mitt Romney is George Bush trying to be Bill Clinton."

Great line. Now can I say:

"Hillary Clinton has done Bill Clinton and now wants to be George Bush."?

[Donald Wolberg]

Mr. Romney brings to mind one of my favorite Groucho Marks comments to a questioner: "These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." And so it is with the "peculiar" Mr. Romney. He is very much Clintonesque and has been on all sides (sometimes more than two) of many issues at one time or another, each position determined by the audience and the urge to get elected. Far from sophisticated, Mr. Romney is a cardboard character, slipping and sliding. Mr. Huckabee is an intelelctual Neanderthal while Mr. Romney is an intellectual opportunist.

[KarenZipdrive]

Mitt lied his ass off to get elected in liberal Massachusetts. Now he's lying his ass off to get elected president.
The man is a gazillionaire who as president would definitely advocate to make his fortune grow. That excludes the little people, folks.
We don't need him or McCain adding to the pile of shit Bush has amassed.
Just say no to Republicans. It's that simple.

[Looplinker]

Mitt is the most dishonest politician in this year's bunch. This guy is a closet liberal who underwent a conservative revelation when he decided to run for president. Oh yes he was a hunter all his life!!! Oh yes and he supports the war but his five sons have not served in the army since they are serving the country by helping Dad run for president!!! He reeks of sleaze and opportunism and is the most unprincipled of all who are running this year.
The only reason he is still in the race is because he is using his own money to try and buy it.

[Galt907]

It is a sad state of affairs when we are reduced to discussing a candidate's position on issues rather than his haircut or the clothes he wears?

[janmB]

It is said he looks "presidential" but then there is the opinion he's "FRANKENSTEIN" with a face-lift.
Is he better than GWB the most dangerous we ever had in power, better than McCain turned war-monger, or better than Huckleberry who wants to turn the USA into a christianity religious state similiar to IRAN that is run by clergy and islam.

[bigfated]

Hey, Mitt! You are "effectively" through! Please! Go home!

[BigMitch]

"Now, of course a person is allowed to change their mind, that's the whole point of abortion."

As I read that, I thought to myself, "Now, that's one of the greatest sentences ever written."

Now I am not so sure. That's because I read this:

"Because he was proudly performing the ultimate Mitt Romney act: He was eating fried chicken while not eating fried chicken.

"He was taking two sides of a biological function. "

[Ratel]

Chris,
the thing I'm going to miss most about Mitt when he's loses resoundingly to McCain on Tuesday if you're hilarious articles about him. Ok, maybe thats the only thing I'll miss about him, or hopefully even remember about him.

Great work again, side-splitting.