Scott Adams Explains

The other day Scott Adams announced he was voting for Mitt Romney. As he put it, “Yesterday was a fascinating day for me. I wrote a little blog post earlier in the week in which I said President Obama should be fired for putting resources behind medical marijuana prosecutions in California. And then the Internet puked on my shoes.”

Here is part of his response:

The Lesser Evil Argument

Supporters of President Obama argue that firing the President FOR ANY REASON means accepting a devastating alternative in a Romney presidency. While I applaud the complete dismissal of morality in the interest of practicality, let’s take a minute to see if the practicality argument is so cut and dried.

My observation is that voters often – perhaps usually – don’t get what they think they voted for. Nixon surprised everyone by getting cuddly with China. Bush Junior turned from isolationist to military adventurer. Obama went from weed-friendly to badass destroyer of state-approved dispensaries. Some fiscal conservatives have blown up the budget while some free-spending Democrats balanced it. If you think you can predict how a candidate will act in office, you might need a history lesson, or perhaps a booster shot of humility.

Now consider Mitt Romney, the most famous chameleon of all time. I submit that a hypothetical Romney presidency would be nearly impossible to predict with any accuracy. In each of his past leadership roles he has morphed into whatever the job required. During the primaries, his job required him to be far right. In the general election we see him drift toward the center, or as his advisor famously said, “Shake the Etch-a-Sketch.” It would be naïve to assume Romney wouldn’t shake it again once elected, given that even non-chameleon presidents do so.

Romney knows that the electorate is full of idiots and he needs to be a gigantic liar to win their votes. I totally get that. The funniest part is his budget plan that he promises to describe in detail after he gets elected. Dumb people see this as “He has an awesome fiscal plan!” Democrats see it as “He’s a liar with no plan!” I see it as “You know I’m a brilliant and experienced turnaround guy. I know how to do this sort of thing. And if I give details now it just paints a target on my back. So chill.”

In any event, Congress will be the ones who decide on the next budget. It will probably look similar no matter who gets elected. I don’t believe, for example, that a Romney budget would overfund the military. Congress would moderate that, and Romney probably doesn’t mean it anyway. Remember, his job today is to lie to get elected. His job once elected is quite different.

I also have no faith in my ability – or yours – to compare Obamacare (essentially a Romney plan) to how healthcare might change under a Romney administration. If you think you know the answer to that question, you’re kidding yourself.

Some Democrats say the biggest risk in a Romney presidency involves Supreme Court nominees. But I think we saw after the unexpected opinion from Justice Roberts on the Obamacare ruling that the court has a built-in safety net against being too blatantly partisan and destroying its own credibility in the process. I think the risk of a conservative-heavy Supreme Court ruining the country by adhering too slavishly (irony!) to the Constitution is low. You might not like some of their rulings, but they probably won’t kill you. And if we are being objective, a court with too many lefties would have its own risks.

That’s a very cynical view of politics, but there is a lot of truth in there.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Scott Adams Explains

  1. HELENK says:


    you live near Modesto don’t you?? did you read about this?? how weird

  2. myiq2xu says:

    From Adams’ original post:

    [Update: Congratulations to Politico for being the first to take this post out of context. I’m a little disappointed in Jezebel, Gawker and Salon for being slow to the party. Are all of their context-removers on vacation or something?]

    [Update 2: Nipping on the heels of Politico, weighs in with their own out-of-context outrage. They managed to throw in some charges of racism and something about rape. Well done.]

    [Update 3: Kudos to for doing a good job preserving the context of this post while still quoting from it. Notice their story headline shows they understand the central point of my post. And since their readership probably overlaps a lot with mine, my writing makes sense in their environment too. That rarely happens. — Scott]

    [Update 4: Meanwhile, at Huffington Post, where context goes to die, a key point in my blog post has been summarized as: “. . . cartoonist Scott Adams said he’s under the impression Romney would be softer on marijuana than President Barack Obama.” Is that how you would interpret my sentence “Romney is likely to continue the same drug policies as the Obama administration”? If not, you can’t write for Huffington Post.

    [Update 5: Daily Kos takes the context destruction trophy by proudly quoting from the Politico article’s out-of-context treatment. Daily Kos scored a rare “double” by taking out of context a piece that was already out of context. Their under-informed readers chimed in to point out that they are sure I don’t believe in evolution, which I’ve often publicly said meets the tests to be called a scientific fact. Another commenter points out that I must hate women because the Alice character is getting less time in Dilbert. You can’t get that kind of insight anywhere but Daily Kos.”

    [Update 6: gets an “A” for reporting the story objectively and even mentioning that context is an issue and readers can come here to see it in its native context. Nicely done.]

    [Update 7: A little late to the party, but Gawker finally weighed in with a snarky dismissal of their misinterpretation of what I wrote. It’s not a party until you guys show up. Can Jezebel be far behind?]

    • kanaughty says:

      that’s funny about deconstructing a deconstructed version of the original story and calling the media out… i love that!

    • angienc says:

      I’d think there would be at least a 50% chance of getting the context right when you are “taking out of context a piece that was already out of context.” Of course, Kos still managed to get the context wrong. 🙂

      • kanaughty says:

        so much of the media doesn’t actually do their own homework anymore and they think it is okay because they have other media as their source. it is just ridiculous. i don’t know why it is acceptable to not have real researched journalism anymore and just a bunch of biased opinion that passes as journalism. we are going in the wrong direction with journalism, period 😦 it is a sad day…

      • swanspirit says:

        Isn’t that like playing the gossip game , where one person tells a story and by the end “the story” does not even resemble the original ? Except of course, there is no excuse whatsoever , the original being only one click away .

  3. DandyTiger says:

    When you’ve lost Dilbert, you’re done.

  4. DandyTiger says:

    Here’s how you know it’s over: I saw a Prius today with a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker. Done and done.

  5. tommy says:

    Thats plain dastardly.

  6. DeniseVB says:

    Now I know why Big Bird and Binders have been so important to Team WTF recently ….

    The source is CBS ! This should give Romney some fresh ammo for the next debate.

    • britgirls says:

      I read about that before … can’t remember the source now. But basically there’s CCTV coverage of the attacks at the embassy, but the part where the ambassador enters the safe room is not covered (or “missing”). The same article said that a drone was overhead taking video. When is any of this video going to emerge or has it already been wiped?

    • ME says:

      That made me sick to my stomach.

  7. DandyTiger says:

    MSNBC is still talking about how because Romney is spending less time in NC, that he must be losing. Now I’m feeling sorry for them. Wait, no I’m not.

  8. Out of context. Par for the course nowadays. and as Kanaughty said

    so much of the media doesn’t actually do their own homework anymore and they think it is okay because they have other media as their source.

    So often we try to follow a story back to its source- only to find there is NO source- just some blog posting somewhere that is completely opinion- no citations or references anywhere. But the crazies pick it up and run with it and pretty soon- it is everywhere stated as a fact.
    journalism is indeed dead.

  9. DandyTiger says:

  10. DandyTiger says:

    • DM says:

      I think Gallup is nailing it. CA went to Obama in 2008 by 24 points. Today the polls put him ten points lower. While the blue states will remain blue with lower margin, the battleground states will go Republican. I expect a big win for Romney/Ryan.

      • Constance says:

        I live on the blue coast and I really think that if pro choice republicans would put out a message stating which states have pro abortion laws in place a lot of women would feel better about voting for Romney and other Republicans. I live in WA and you would not believe the number of women who have no idea we have state Reproductive Rights laws. I don’t know but would guess both Oregon and California do to.

    • Glad to see Gallup did not cave to that crap lawsuit bs out of the DOJ.

  11. DandyTiger says:

  12. myiq2xu says:


    The ongoing collapse of President Obama’s campaign may lead to some extraordinary stunts during Monday’s last debate, but no matter what he tries, it is very unlikely that the president can reverse the enormous momentum behind Mitt Romney’s campaign.

    (One data point. Congressman John Campbell, a frequent guest on my radio show, polled his district this week. It is Califronia’s 45. John McCain carried it by 4.7 points in 2008. Mitt Romney is almost 20 points ahead in this cycle. Campbell reports that this sort of result is showing up across the country.)

    The nation is simply finished with a president whose rhetoric has never been matched by his actions, and whose performance has removed Jimmy Carter from the bottom of the rankings of the modern president.

    The president of course has his passionate supporters. These are the same people that spent last Tuesdaynight declaring him the winner of his second meeting with Mitt Romney, and Wednesday and Thursday trying to infuse the word “binder” with game-changing significance.

    They are the same people who spent Friday denying that “not optimal” was not a big deal.

    “Binder” –big deal. “Not optimal” –no deal at all. That’s the state of the Obama campaign: A nearly Orwellian effort at making some words matter and others disappear while facts are pushed aside It hasn’t worked. It won’t work..

    Mitt Romney by contrast followed two very strong debate showings with a wonderful set of remarks at the Al Smith dinner, the third time in two weeks that he has reassured those just tuning into the presidential campaign that he will be a steady and reliable force for good in the Oval Office.

    Romney was ready for his close up. This is the primary reasion behind his surge.

  13. HELENK says:

    I saw this and did not know whether to laugh or cry.

    my ideas for his songs

    don’t blame me

    it’s not my fault

    how could you believe me when I said I loved you when you know I’ve been a liar all my life

    oh Lord it’s so hard to be humble

  14. DandyTiger says:

  15. swanspirit says:

  16. DandyTiger says:

    He means what he says:

  17. HELENK says:

    just for a little bit of just because.

    which football team will grab him first????

  18. A bit rough, because I don’t have photoshop, but good enough, I suppose.

  19. melisshka says:

    Nice man just knocked on my door to tell me about his wife’s campaign to be a state senator here in Central PA. He asked if I had considered who I was voting for. I told him I know who I’m voting in the Presidential race, but nothing local. She’s a big animal rights activist, which is normally right up my alley, but when I saw she’s Dem, I know I can’t vote for her. I feel bad that perfectly decent people are getting tainted by their association with Obama, but I guess that’s life. She has been sponsoring debate watch parties, so that tells me that she’s drawing nearer to Obama, not pushing herself away. She kind of knows though, I had to look pretty hard at her literature to see her party affiliation.

  20. dailypuma says:

    Mark Cuban also seems supportive of Romney for probably similar reasons.

  21. votermom says:

    Something to note for Monday’s FP debate

    Putin flexes muscle in big test of Russia’s nuclear arsenal
    (Reuters) – President Vladimir Putin took a leading role in the latest tests of Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, the most comprehensive since the 1991 Soviet collapse, the Kremlin said on Saturday.

    The exercises, held mostly on Friday, featured prominently in news reports on state television which seemed aimed to show Russians and the world that Putin is the hands-on chief of a resurgent power.

    Tests involving command systems and all three components of the nuclear “triad” – land and sea-launched long-range nuclear missiles and strategic bombers – were conducted “under the personal leadership of Vladimir Putin”, the Kremlin said.

  22. myiq2xu says:

    The Mormons are beating the Catholics 14-7 in the 3rd quarter.

Comments are closed.