Mitt-tastic

Mitt Romney's concession speech is actually pretty good, except for when he starts talking about the Federal government teaching girls to get married before they have babies. Let me channel P.J. O'Rourke for a moment: they can't even deliver my mail, and it's got my name right on it and everything. I misdoubt that the Department of Education has the mojo to keep impulsive 15 year olds on the straight and narrow.

Nonetheless, this is a better effort than I've so far seen. For the first time, Romney seems to be more dynamic than his hair. This is probably a little late to break out the dynamism, though.

Favorite line: "the source of America's greatness is the American people." One can only imagine what a campaign issue this would be for the Democrats if we'd already shifted the production of American greatness to China . . .

Comments

Mitt-toated is more like it. McCain is the nominee.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 29, 2008 9:56 PM

Mitt-toasted would make more sense, I suppose.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 29, 2008 9:58 PM

Let me channel P.J. O'Rourke for a moment: they can't even deliver my mail, and it's got my name right on it and everything.

Not to be pedantic, but the US Post Office does a remarkably good job, given the logistical realities of what it does.

Posted by Freddie | January 29, 2008 10:09 PM

Yeah, I was gonna say, I've had much, much better experiences with the Post Office than with, say, UPS. Both in terms of service provided and pleasant customer relations. Price, too, at least for overnight delivery -- though I'm not clear on the extent to which that may or may not be subsidized.

I can't remember ever having anything actually get "lost in the mail."

Posted by Christopher M | January 29, 2008 10:16 PM

I can't remember the last time I had a problem with my mail.

You want to cite a few examples? C'mon - you can do it!

Posted by dave™© | January 29, 2008 10:51 PM

I have lost my mail several times, unfortunately my neighbors keep finding it in their boxes and returning it to me.

Seriously, I would like to get off the mail train-99% of it is worthless to me.

Posted by Yancey Ward | January 29, 2008 11:18 PM

Let me channel P.J. O'Rourke for a moment: they can't even deliver my mail, and it's got my name right on it and everything

Megan_McArdle: please, PLEASE stop using that ridiculous one-liner. I know, it's just supposed to be funny, but it's *not* funny, and on top of that is ridiculously unfair:

1) Delivering a container, *even with the destination's address on it*, times a billion, is not a trivial problem.

2) The post office actually *can* deliver your mail, with a high success rate in absolute terms.

And I support postal privatization!

Posted by Person | January 30, 2008 12:13 AM

they can't even deliver my mail, and it's got my name right on it and everything.

You should try also putting the name of who you want it sent to.

Posted by Bo | January 30, 2008 12:33 AM

I haven't even bothered to look into it myself, since I can't believe voters will buy into Mitt's sick Plastic Man persona, but I wonder what the human wreckage of his "business success" has been. The guy's been a vulture, picking at vulnerable companies - there must be huge numbers of layoffs in his wake.

If he does somehow make it to the finals, I hope those job losses are all shoved up his secret underwear sideways.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 2:03 AM

Well, the federal government is remarkably effective at requiring landlords to rent to unmarried couples, requiring private religious schools to hire pregnant unmarried teachers, etc. Why the sudden faux skepticism? It's pretty clear that this is a snow job, and McArdle in fact thinks that the federal government should favor unmarried parenthood, since you'll note that she never complains about the sorts of behaviors I mention.

Posted by y81 | January 30, 2008 8:35 AM

Why did you use the word "misdoubt" instead of "doubt?"

Posted by Christopher Monnier | January 30, 2008 10:10 AM

Well, the federal government is remarkably effective at requiring landlords to rent to unmarried couples, requiring private religious schools to hire pregnant unmarried teachers, etc. ...McArdle in fact thinks that the federal government should favor unmarried parenthood....

MM is talking about education and you're talking about punishment. Two different things.

Posted by BP Beckley | January 30, 2008 10:43 AM

BP Beckley, I think y81 is talking about incentives. Maybe 15-year-olds will have fewer babies when it becomes harder to bring them up, but with school systems instituting "maternity leave" for high school teachers, that seems very far off.

Posted by Mrs. H. | January 30, 2008 10:56 AM

You should try also putting the name of who you want it sent to.

Ba-da-BUM-cha!

Carping about Postal Service efficacy is soooo 1980s. The modern one works remarkably well.

Posted by anony-mouse | January 30, 2008 1:27 PM

Maybe 15-year-olds will have fewer babies when it becomes harder to bring them up, but with school systems instituting "maternity leave" for high school teachers, that seems very far off.

I think you mean maternity leave for high school students. I for one don't think that's such a bad idea. Should a girl really fail a grade because the days taken to recover after giving birth are counted as unexcused absences? That just incentivizes girls to drop out, which is definitely not a good idea for teen moms.

Posted by Christina | January 30, 2008 1:35 PM

Carping about Postal Service efficacy is soooo 1980s. The modern one works remarkably well.

I'll let you in on a little secret. That's because the USPS has spent millions upon millions of dollars for help over the past 15 years from Price Waterhouse Coopers cum IBM consulting. You know those nice postage ATMs in post offices? That's an IBM innovation. And trust me, they have had plenty of additional suggestions on how to improve delivery and services, but they really would just rather hear reports saying how great they are.

Posted by Christina | January 30, 2008 1:43 PM

Mrs. H:
BP Beckley, I think y81 is talking about incentives. Maybe 15-year-olds will have fewer babies when it becomes harder to bring them up...

y81's main interest appears to have been MM's perceived hypocrisy.

I'm not saying removal of incentives or outright punishment (and the line between those two isn't really all that clear) won't work or isn't desirable, I'm saying that it isn't the same as attempting to get results through education.

Posted by BP Beckley | January 30, 2008 3:22 PM

I can't remember ever having anything actually get "lost in the mail."

I can. Twice, back when I had to pay the utility bills by mailing out checks. One whole stack of payments sat somewhere in the postal system for six months before suddenly they all started arriving. (And what a mess that makes of the checkbook!) Another stack disappeared into the system and has never reappeared. There was also the missing passport, but I suspect that came up missing after it was delivered to my mailbox.

Neither UPS nor Fedex has never lost anything I was involved in that was sent to or from my employer, where there is someone there to sign for it at delivery. Stuff allegedly left on the doorstep at home is another story, but that's not a UPS problem, that's (1) a problem with certain neighbors, (2) aggravated by the USPS's insistence that the mailbox I paid for is theirs and no one else can leave anything for me in it. Not that it's perfectly secure (missing passport???), but it's a heck of a lot better than leaving stuff out in plain sight - and only a government-supported monopoly could get a law passed that something I paid for belongs to them!

Posted by markm | February 1, 2008 4:51 PM