We’re All Losers

According to John Boehner, the gaping chasm that separates Mitt Romney from the average American isn’t going to hurt him because being worth $250 million makes you a winner and Americans hate losers.

CROWLEY: You know, he comes from a privileged background. You did not come from a privileged background. This is a time — an economic time when people are hurting and have been hurting for quite some time.

Do you think that someone who is as wealthy as he is, who has had as much privilege as he is, has a hill to climb to overcome that?

BOEHNER: No. The American people don’t want to vote for a loser. They don’t want to vote for someone that hasn’t been successful. I think Mitt Romney has an opportunity to show the American people that they, too, can succeed.

I’m genuinely curious about the implications of this, because if being worth a lot of money is all it takes to shed the chains of loserdom that would mean 9 out of 10 people reading this are losers by John Boehner’s standards.

From my perspective, which is quite the opposite of Boehner’s, Mitt Romney is a loser. Just a very wealthy one.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Ethics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • GrafZeppelin127

    9 out of 10 people reading this are losers by John Boehner’s standards.

    More like 99 out of 100. Or even 999 out of 1,000.

    It’s no secret that the GOP is, and has been for some time, the party of the “haves and the have-mores.” So they’ve engaged in a persistent campaign of, shall we say, rhetorical rehabilitation, using words like “successful” and “winners” and “job creators” to describe the filthystinking rich, and “economic freedom” to gloss over their sins. If nothing else, it keeps a good portion of the GOP’s political base from turning against them, i.e., it somehow convinces poor and middle-class people that supporting, promoting and protecting the interests of the filthystinking rich is actually in their own best interests. It’s a simple, easy-to-understand principle that relieves the observer of any obligation to think any more deeply than this: If you’re rich, you deserve it; if you’re poor, you deserve it.

    Boehner may be right that the public won’t hold Romney’s grotesque, albeit not really ill-gotten, wealth against him because in general they like, and idolize, filthystinking rich people and view them as “successful” and as “winners.” I don’t think Romney’s being filthystinking rich, in and of itself and by itself, makes him a bad candidate for president any more than it makes him a good candidate. There are plenty of reasons to vote or not vote for Romney that have nothing to do with how filthystinking rich he is.

  • http://twitter.com/KQuark KQµårk™

    Romney lost his first Senate bid against Kennedy.

    Romney did not seek reelection as MA Gov because he knew he would lose with approval ratings in the 30′s.

    Romney lost his first bid at GOP nominee.

    Romney IS a loser when it’s not a fixed game like his time at Bain and his ‘next in line’ GOP nomination win.

  • Victor_the_Crab

    By that definition, Americans should love Barack Obama because he became a huge success overcoming a difficult childhood to attend Harvard and become President of the United States of America.

    What’s that you say? Obama doesn’t count because he’s an America hatin’, terrorist sympathizin’, community organizin’, wealth distributin’ secret Muslim n*gg*r? Who’d ever say something like that?

    Republicans like John Boehner and the right wing noise machine like Fox News? Oh well, then it must be true… on Bizzaro World!

  • Nefercat

    Boehner and his ilk need to be called out on their definition of success (= $$$$$).

    In their eyes, a person of modest means who serves in the military, then is gainfully employed and proud of it, who lives a long contented life with a dearly loved life companion, who has a wide circle of friends, family, and loved ones, who contributes time and effort to his or her community, schools, churches, etc., and who eventually retires on an adequate, but shoestring budget, is NOT a success.

    In the GOP’s eyes, this person “has no skin in the game” (has not contributed to the success of this country in any meaningful way) and therefore should reasonably contribute more to reward those those who are successful (i.e., at the top of the money heap already).

    No matter how much money Boehner has, he will always be a loser.

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    His definition of success is very narrow.

    And as KQµårk™ pointed out, Romney is himself a loser by almost anyone’s accepted definition.

  • pgeorge

    Way to go, Boehner, referring to the majority of the American electorate as “losers”! By your standards, I guess Christ was also a “loser” and hung out with other “losers.”

  • mrbrink

    That’s quite a motivational message. Mitt Romney is beloved by losers everywhere.

    Everyone knows George Bailey was the richest man in town.

  • D_C_Wilson

    I wonder if he considers his unemployed brothers to be losers.

  • Brutlyhonest

    These guys keep telling the party faithful, “Libs/dems think you’re stupid.” While their internal voices say, “We KNOW you are!”