The answer is:"lost their mittens."

Ed MacMahon: (chuckling) "Lost their mittens."

Carnac the Great: What do the Republicans and the Three Little Kittens have in common?

Mitt Romney wanted to be the CEO President. I am baffled that his organization would allude in any way to George W. Bush, whose 2000 campaign also promised he would be “the CEO President.”

At least this time they picked a successful CEO. W’s CEO adventures were a tad on the um, catastrophic side. Like when his daddy-backed company, Arbusto, failed to find oil.

In Texas.

Something else that perplexed me about Romney? How could a former governor of “Taxachusetts” get the overwhelming backing of the GOP? Didn’t they read their own press releases from 2004 about Senator John Kerry?

Remember? They tried to pin the high state taxes and fees in MA on Kerry, who, as a U.S. Senator, had absolutely zero power to affect taxes on that level, unlike other state-level officials, say, like, oh…ummmm…the governor?

I kept hoping that the Kerry campaign would effectively point out to the press the idiocy of that charge, but as it turned out, the Kerry campaign wasn’t very good at pointing out idiocy.

Which brings us to the end of W’s second term.

I was actually kind of hoping that Romney would beat McCain, because I thought Romney would be easier to defeat in the general election.

But then I remembered how that was what I thought in 2000: that Bush would be easier to beat than McCain. So what the fuck do I know?

Plus, after listening to Romney’s “I give up” speech, I think he’s a douchebag of the highest order. Check it out:

As I said to you last year, conservative principles are needed now more than ever. We face a new generation of challenges: challenges which threaten our prosperity, our security and our future.

I'm convinced that unless America changes course, we could become the France of the 21st century.

Ah, pulling out the old “insult France” chestnut right at the top, eh? Excellent choice, monsieur. You know, is it just me, or does anyone else think that it would be awesome to be like France? We’d all have free healthcare, a union to fight for our rights and benefits, and a world-class reputation for having the best of all the things that really matter: food, wine, fashion, art, groovy buildings, beautiful countryside…oh, and PEOPLE WOULD STOP TRYING TO BLOW US UP ALL THE TIME.

But knowing us, though, we’d screw up being like France. We’d end up being like the Canadian version of France. We’d end up being like Quebec.

Alex Trebec is from Quebec. You can tell because he pronounces it “Ke-beck” instead of “Kwe-beck,” which is how it should be pronounced, given the whole “Qu” thing going on right there in the front. Plus, Alex Trebec is kinda prissy. Which is fine for “Jeopardy!”, which is kind of a prissy game show. But we wouldn’t want to be a whole nation of Alex Trebecs. For one thing, I am so not down with a Botany 500 suit. For another, we might endanger the world’s supplies of whatever hair product we’d have to use to tame our outrageous ‘fro/‘stache combos.

Anyway, you’ve got to hand it to Mitt, equating a Democratic administration with becoming France. It’s an argument designed to appeal to morons, which, I can only conclude, are the only non-millionaires still stupid enough to vote for Republicans.

Ah, but there is méthode à sa folie, oui?

Comparing the Democrats to the fabled “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” is just a prelude to comparing them to…well…is “cowardly homosexual abortionist traitors” too strong a term? Mitt:

Soon the face of liberalism in America will have a new name. Whether it's Barack or Hillary, the result would be the same if they were to be able to win the presidency. The opponents of American culture would push the throttle, devising new justifications for judges to depart from the Constitution. And economic neophytes would layer heavier and heavier burdens on employers and families, slowing our economy, opening the way for foreign competition to further erode our lead.

Economic neophytes? As opposed to the geniuses who took the budget surplus of 2000 and turned it into the hot mess we are in now, where the government is so desperate to make it look like they’re in charge of the foundering economy that they’re going to send us all a check to buy some scratchers and beer?

Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign. You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976.

Reagan reference? Check.

But there is an important difference from 1976. Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.

And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

Let’s see. The terrorists are angry - make that very, very angry - that we have military bases in Muslim countries, and that we are enabling the problems of the Palestinians by protecting Israel without requiring that Israel solve their issues with the Palestinians. Okay, so, Bush decides that in order to solve this problem he is going to send more troops to more Muslim countries, and require even less of Israel than previous administrations.

Look, the Republicans have gotten us into a war against a nest of hornets. Of course, we may be bigger and stronger than a nest of hornets, at least on paper, but no matter how concerned we may be about our ability to kick global ass, can we all not now, after 6 years of this nonsense, finally admit that poking at a hornets nest is a really fucking bad idea??? Can we not just put the stick down and go home?

I guess I don’t have to tell you that as far as Mittens is concerned, the answer is no:

Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention ... I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought — I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.

Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

Wow. Color me impressed. Democrat = surrender to terror. Usually you'd have to go to a Dick Cheney or a Rush Limbaugh to hear something as completely disingenuous and self-serving and Machiavellian as that.

Of course, he does lose points for stooping his lowest at the end of his campaign, when it can no longer benefit him. But I guess we can only assume he’s hoping to make an impression that will last until 2012.

Not that it will do any good. Because the only people stupid enough to fall for Mitt’s particular brand of neoconish lunatic bigotry are exactly the same people who would never vote for him.

Because he’s a fucking Mormon. And they do not like Mormons.

Très ironique, oui?