When Trump Brought Romney To Heel, or Further Adventures in the Cabinet of Deplorables

trump-romney-carKarma is a bitch, or so it is said. I think it is currently. Back in the day, Mittens was famous for being such a cheapskate cheeseball (yeah, despite the car elevator, which seems quaint now compared to Trump’s ostentatiousness) that he loaded the family dog into a small box coffin mounted to the top of the family station wagon to go on family vacations.

The dog was named Seamus, Mittens was an anus, and the incident became famous. But the long ago incident dogged Romney in the 2012 election. Sometimes, things come back to bite you in the ass.

Welp, here we are deep in 2016 and that dog bites Mitten man story is back. Romney, who seems a decent chap in relation to the current Cabinet of Deplorables under consideration by Team Transition Trump, is suddenly – supposedly – under consideration for a Cabinet post. Reportedly the Secretary of State slot, but possibly others as well.

But, wait, is Mitt Romney on the Trump Christmas Card List, much less cabinet appointment list?

Seems hard to square since Mittens was there ripping the Donald a new anus as recently as last March. But that was then, and this is now. And…..now…..the major media is all agog that the Trumpeter could be soooo rational and awesome as to be assembling the vaunted “Team of Rivals”. Here is everybody’s favorite Mark Halperin replacement stooge, Chris Cillizza of WaPo’s “The Fix”, milking the mad cow for every drop he can:

Again, this would, largely, run counter to how Trump ran his presidential campaign. But that would also make picking Romney all the more powerful a symbol. Campaigns are one thing, Trump would be saying, but being president is another. I want to be surrounded by the best people for the job — no matter what we said about each other in the past.

This is, of course, the whole “Team of Rivals” concept that garnered President Obama so much good press in his own transition period back in late 2008. Trump has further to go — a lot further to go — than Obama did to heal the rifts within his own party and answer doubts about his readiness to do the job to which he was elected. But the Romney meeting is a step in the right direction. Getting Romney to sign on would be an even bigger one.

This is, of course, a boatload of steaming shit. Hey, it is the Cillizza Fix, what did you expect? There are a plethora of others in the major media, including cable, deep diving into the same ridiculous bunk.

Take a look at who Trump has signed on to officially so far for his chosen team: Mike Flynn, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Steve Bannon. Notice anything in common there? Perhaps near insane levels of bigotry, hatred and ostracization of others? Gannon may seem the most inert, but that is wrong, he is just the least known outside of the annals of white neo-Nazi Breitbart nationalism. But they are all of a core.

So, let us be honest, will the Senate Judiciary Committee put up any real roadblock to a dyed in the wool unreconstructed racist like Jeff Sessions? Hahahaha, no, of course not. Republicans own the SJC, and even the Dems will ultimately give in to Sessions’ nomination. They will put up a nominal “stern questioning” as DiFi has already so gallantly promised, and then they will cave completely.

Will discerning Republicans with morals object to Sessions’ nomination? Hell no. The single most quirky and sometimes actually moral GOP member of SJC, Jeff Flake, has already strongly and early come out in favor of Beauregard’s nomination. If you know SJC, this is over, and welcome to unreconstructed racist Jeffrey Beauregard Sessions as AG.

The point is that Trump is the racist bigot he has always promised to be. Do NOT buy in to the cloying clickbait rationalizing and normalizing pablum of the main and cable media. They already know they are under siege from Trump, and are already cowering in the midst. The media we ought be able to count on are already “asking questions” about what they will do, while they do nothing to stop the nonsense. It is already a stunning abdication, as if the performance during the election were not proof enough.

So, what does Trump’s meeting with Mitt Romney Saturday really mean?

That Trump is reasonable and might let Mittens, who insulted the hell out of Trump not long ago, be one of his key Cabinet members?

cxla1tsveaap5kiHahahaha, no. Don’t be foolish. This is a staged clownshow for the idiot media who, of course, are lapping it up. Secretary of State for Mittens? Hahahahaha, not likely, Trump is not that gracious, forgiving or intelligent. Heck, Mittens had to carry his own shoes through TSA, all by himself. If the Trumpalo wants you, that is not how it happens.

No, what is going on here is that Trump is bringing Romney, who insulted him and disrespected him, to heel. Like a dog. Chris Christie, who supplicated and humiliated himself over the better part of a year to support Trump, was sent packing like he had the plague. That was only because Christie had slighted the son-in-law’s father in the past.

Romney fired all his guns in anger in a direct broadside against Trump himself. Sure, yep, totally, Trump will now make Mittens Secretary of State.

Probably ought roll with that meme media members. Uh huh. Trump is taking you, and Mittens, on a ride if you think Romney is getting any significant policy post like SOS. Nope. Oh, but the way, Ted Cruz isn’t either. Give it a rest.

[The graphic at the top, which is totally awesome, is by the one and only TWolf, our friend for a long time. Follow Tom at @twolf10]

24 replies
    • bloopie2 says:

      Bing says that a quisling is “a traitor who collaborates with an enemy force occupying their country”.  Are you saying that the msm are quislings because they aren’t calling Trumpalos bigots (traitors to “the American way”) but are instead noting the actual policy issues involved?  If so, that’s bull.  First headline on Google News as I’m typing this comment is from The Hill and says “Latinos Condemn Sessions as AG Pick”. Huh.  And I’ll wait to see your comments two years from now—will you still then refuse to address actual policy issues, and instead simply call them bigots?  Somehow I doubt you will be able to hold back your “I’m teaching you economics today” impulses.  And if you do in the future write such an article, an article that does not also call the Administration bigots and assholes, can we call you on that?

  1. bloopie2 says:

    Aye, you’re too pessimistic. Here’s what’s going to happen. Mitt’s going to meet with Don and then walk out and give a press conference before Don has a chance to say anything, and Mitt will himself say, “Don is still and truly the greedy bigoted authoritarian slime he portrayed himself as during the campaign. Go f**k yourself, you horrible person.” Why not? Romney has the ## and the strength to do that, while Republican legislators don’t. I think it’ll be great. Or at least Romney will turn him down. Every smart businessman knows that you at least take the first meeting with your evil rival.

    PS: And enough with the trite “the press says nothing about these horrible picks” meme. That just isn’t true; I read lots of msm news daily, and there’s plenty of it out there. Your bias may be giving you all some very convenient blinders.

  2. Bay State Librul says:

    DJT loves drama.

    This is drama.

    My gut says it depends on what his wife says and what has he told his kids.

    Drama causes anxiety. Anxiety is not good.


  3. Bay State Librul says:

    The Fraudster-in-Chief   In Re: Let me teach you the Art of the Deal

    “Trump will not admit to any wrongdoing in the final agreement. The settlement comes just a few weeks before the trial was scheduled to begin on November 28”

    You know I’m not a lawyer. But can someone tell me why the legal mind allows him “to not admit any wrongdoing” yet pay $25 Million. These words are self contradictory and bullshit!

    I know, I know, to avoid the time and effort of a prolonged legal battle?

    I object your honor


    • wayoutwest says:

      The ambulance-chasers seem to be satisfied by this deal and they will get a nice fat payoff while the poor losers they represent will get chickenfeed. They may have had the judge on their side but the jury could easily have been full of deplorables and the outcome of the trial was uncertain so there is no guilt/wrongdoing without a conviction.

      Trump has risen above the plane of existence where these bottom feeders can annoy him and will soon be sworn in as the new Hegemon.



      • bmaz says:

        First off there was no “conviction” to be had, it was (technically still is) a civil class action case. Secondly, it is not over until the class is notified and has an opportunity to object and/or opt out. Several plaintiffs have already indicated an intent to opt out and proceed individually.

        Secondly, the case remaining for the plaintiff class looked pretty strong and there is a very good chance they would succeed if properly instructed by the court on the law in jury instructions.

        Third, these are not “bottom feeder” attorneys, that is the statement of an uninformed bigot. In fact, the attorneys have indicated they will take no money whatsoever from any settlement. But, hey, it is really easy and common for you to just make up ignorant crap and spew it, it seems to be your standard MO.

        • wayoutwest says:

          You are claiming that these lawyers worked pro bono  taking no money to cover their considerable expenses or that someone else paid them to put on this show?

          If this law group covered their own expenses or were paid for their services this begins to look like a political show trial and this group of lawyers gets demoted to a lower level than bottom feeder.

          I may be prejudiced towards a certain type of lawyer but the Law Priesthood has produced many good people that I admire so I’m not bigoted.  I admire people such as Erin Brokovitich and Ralph Nader and others like them who actually work pro bono publico.


        • bmaz says:

          Listen, that is exactly what I am saying, along with saying you are an ignorant jerk. Screw you and your “Law Priesthood”. Shove it. And, really, try to be a little more informed if you want to comment here.

          For the record, yes, the class plaintiffs attorneys agreed to waive fees and consider their work pro bono. Secondly, while they may, eventually, waive cost reimbursement, no, it is ethically impermissible for attorneys to “politically” flat out sponsor costs underwriting as you have so spuriously alleged.

          Dissenting opinions, while often challenged and discussed, are always welcome here. Patently ignorant and uninformed bullshit is not. Think about that the next time before you grace us with your WOW mental drivel.

        • wayoutwest says:

          I may have made an incorrect assumption about the payout but the link you provided seems to say that the lawyers ‘agreed’ to work pro bono. Could that mean they were forced by the terms of the ‘agreement’ to forgo payment?  This could mean that they did not voluntarily give up their payout but Trump’s lawyers or the judge insisted they didn’t profit from this case.

          I thought  mentioning my admiration of Nader would set you off and the  Law Priesthood was just mild humor to counter your assertion that I’m somehow bigoted.


        • bmaz says:

          No, this could “not” mean they were forced into it. Maybe throwing shit out ignorantly is not a good plan or way to act.

        • wayoutwest says:

          Perhaps required or convinced might be more accurate words to describe what their acceptance of this settlement means. Without seeing the document we’re both speculating and I wonder what the original client agreement stated.

          Public statements are coded for public consumption but the words chosen do sometimes point to more of the story than what is being presented.

          You were right to correct me for using the word forced but you don’t need to be so unpleasant, it seems to be a sign of weakness.



        • bmaz says:

          No, you are just baseline incoherent. I have been here since before your first comment. Ever on this blog.

          You and your “public statements” and “coding for public consumption” are some gigantic asinine  tropes that are factually hollow and full of shit.

          You want to roll in here with impunity and crazy bullshit? No, that is not welcome.

  4. bloopie2 says:

    That is because he has not been charged, by The State, with any criminal wrongdoing. It’s a civil case—that is, one person says “you did” and the other person says “I didn’t” and that happens to be in a courthouse type setting. The other person says “If I pay you will you withdraw your statement and go away” and the one person says “yes”, and that’s it. Over and done with. No one else involved. The one person accepts the money and goes away. The best he could have hoped for otherwise is a jury saying “you did” and getting the money. Going to trial would have risked a “I didn’t’” verdict. With the settlement, he has the money—a sure thing. You don’t get the satisfaction of a verdict, but you do, for sure, get the satisfaction of the money. And the other side’s concession, you can if you want take that as an admission that they didn’t have a good legal position to start with.

    • bloopie2 says:

      Me, I don’t know.  I never talk to such people.  Is that a mistake?  Is that type of mistake a reason why Hillary lost?

  5. Bay State Librul says:

    Donald’s Tweet on Trump U

    The ONLY bad thing about winning the Presidency is that I did not have the time to go through a long but winning trial on Trump U. Too bad!

    Reason: Time

    The real reason — The disgusting lying psychological mind of Trump. Even when he loses, in his demented mind he wins.

    From The Atlantic

    “Who, really, is Donald Trump? What’s behind the actor’s mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.

    If Romney takes the position, he will regret it… I’m putting my money on Romney opting out.



    • lefty665 says:

      That’s the training he got from his mentor, scumbag Roy Cohn.  Always attack, never admit you lost, never apologize. That plus pathological narcissism and sociopathy makes for a rotten package.

      How rotten? Well, not quite as rotten in the judgement of America as corrupt, greedy and blindly ambitious neolib/con bubble girl Hillary and her sidekicks Bill and Huma.


  6. Bitter Angry Drunk says:

    Romney and Trump both want to sell the country for parts. Of course so do the neolibs, but they’re deluded enough to think their handiwork actually benefits us.

    Point is, I wouldn’t be shocked if Mittens and The Fascist forge a working relationship.

  7. Ben says:

    Since Trump has basically said you can pretty much ignore his campaign rhetoric, you have to wonder how the fickle alt/right will respond.  But peppering his team with rivals tempers a little.  What’s the old saying;

    If all parties are slightly dissatisfied, it’s a good deal?

    Truly, if Trump’s ribald caricature of himself was for show; he is a genius.

  8. lefty665 says:

    Wonderful bmaz.  Cillizza may be the biggest twit in a WashPost full of them, although he’s got stiff competition. Thanks to Tom Wolf, his graphic made our refrigerator.

    Looks like our sycophantic and craven media are in for a rough patch.  Will Trump will be any less litigious in office (delegate maybe, like Melania’s current defamation suit against a blogger)? Is the recent Erdley/Rolling Stone award at UVA a harbinger? How will the media herd respond? Will Trump, Sessions and majorities in both houses change libel law?

Comments are closed.