LIVE FREE OR DIE!!

Zed?

Ouch!

yep

Oh Mittie. Poor, poor Mittie.

Mitt reinvents. That’s what he does.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting post up today about Mork.

Nahnoo nahnoo.

Romney and Huckabee will not distract me from my party’s candidates.

Mitt is a boldface liar and his seconds tried to parse their way out and got in deeper.

People should see him for the phony he is.

Mitt, Ghouliani and Hukster are all liars of world class standard. McCain ain’t far behind and he’s the ass kisser warmonger to boot.

Has the Concord Monitor endorsed anyone on the GOP side? It seems that “When New Hampshire partisans are asked to defend the state’s first-in-the-nation primary, we talk about our ability to see the candidates up close, ask tough questions and see through the baloney. If a candidate is a phony, we assure ourselves and the rest of the world, we’ll know it” would apply to the whole GOP field.

I’m seeing Romney/Huckabee in ‘08. Or the othere way ’round.

I’ve been watching the guy’s body language. And boy does this man look uncomfortable in his own skin!! Like someone who is afraid that touching himself is verboten. Watch him and see what I mean.

When you see someone uncomfortable in their own skin…. is there any there there?

I agree. This editorial is going to be his death knell in N.H. The guy is just taking too many blows – and rightly so!

But most politicians are liars and parsers and suck up as ass kissers. It goes with the territory.

The you have the weak willed skeerdie cats like

Leahy, Waxman, Conyers who are afraid for their lives probably so they talk big and do nothing. Makes for some good theater.

Glenn Greenwald’s post today is quite disturbing:

Mitt Romney’s pursuit of tyrannical power, literally

Salon

Mitt’s thoughts about Presidential power seem to fit with what “The General” had to say about Mitt:

Are a candidate’s religious beliefs fair game

or “My Inner-Frenchman on Why Mitt’s Mormonism Matters”

(snip)

It is also likely that he believes that he, and his Mormon supporters, are the Elders of Zion whom Joseph Smith prophesied would save this nation as it “hangs by a thread.” (JoD 7:15) How could he not believe that as he enters the presidency at a time he believes we are in a life and death struggle with “islamofascism?”

So, like George Bush, Mitt thinks he speaks with God, believes that the United States is favored by God, and likely believes God has a specific mission for him to perform.

(snip)

link

Hey. Bush got in, and then was re-elected.

literally

Glenn’s favorite word.

The dude reminds me of Max Headroom.

http://www.splatt.com.au/blog/…..adroom.jpg

who actually looks more like Tony Snow, come to think about it. Body language is Max Headroom. He looks like a robot.

I see McCain and that could be a real problem.

I looked up ’solipsism’ in my dictionary and found a picture of Mitt.

That’s good. But I wonder if the same could be said of Huck?

Re the GOP field – They’re all phonies, most are blod-faced liars, but Mitt and Rudi lead this pack of rats. Let’s hope they lead the others over the nearest cliff soon.

Mitt has a pipeline to God. Obviously most Republicans do.

Well, if your policies make no sense, recourse to divine inspiration will convince some!

No, Huck’s picture is found under ‘mountebank.’

This is going to be sooooo rich! :o)

Mitt:

“Watch closely folks; i…MOI! Can testify to my piety and to the purity of my (newly discovered) rightwing credentials, by adroitly twirling 3, THREE, 4 foot specimans of Crotalus Horridus Horridus, (the american Timber Rattlesnake) around my head at one time, while my libruler-than-me opponents, McCain, Huckabee, and Giuliani, can only manage a paltry little chickenshit two-foot copperhead.

There now; does anyone need any more proof of my qualifications to be the republican nominee? :o)

If Mittie gets in I am going to be very conflicted. Since I was baptized into two very different churches. I’m half Catholic, and 1/2 Southern Baptist. My God. What to do?

Seems to me a good ad for New Hampshire would be this:

Mitt says:

“Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.”

New Hampshire says:

Live free or die.

I wonder what else Romney “saw” back then when he was a widdle boy? Maybe his father having 14 wives? Hey, could be!

I looked up ’solipsism’ in my dictionary and found a picture of Mitt.

I looked it up and found a picture of ME!

Drink a 6 pack of O’Doule’s I guess.

Excellent!

My candidates:

The Surgemaster and The Last Honest Man.

Petreus/Lieberman ‘08

I hate to say this…. but it’s a good question anyway:

At what age does a Mormon start wearing mormon underwear?

Because maybe the mittster didn’t get to see “much at all” growing up!

“Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.”

Recall that Bu’ush repeatedly says his #1 job is to “Pertekt Th’ Murkin Peeple.”

Not to defend the Constitution.

Won’t that bloat me? ;0)

The meaning of the Oath of Office needs to be repeated over and over and over, till the public finally understands.

Thank you for pointing that out. And it cannot be said often enough.

Oh my…LOL

Oh yes! I remember the day well when Bush put down his 11th margarita and his cigarettes at the ranch to come to DC to save Terri Schiavo! Ah yes…it was another beautiful day in fascist America.

Nahnoo nahnoo.

Actually, Nauvoo, Nauvoo.

So then it has come to this: the Republican front runners are St. Mitt, St. John and St. Mike?

These guys are all crooks and phonies, and as such I can understand them to some extent. Ron Paul is an idealogue. He’s the one that really scares me.

Pretty sure I’m gonna regret asking this but: has anyone disproved the article in The Detroit Free Press? It came out a few days ago. IIRC, TPM deferred to that article and acceded the point.

My lady reminds me that there is religion. And then there are beliefs, faith and the Golden Rule.

It’s gonna be tough, Mitt; and the rest of you wannabe nominees.:o)

For decades now, you’ve been making political hay out of putting lipstick on the 500 pound feral hog of bible-zombie expectations, and bringing “her” to the electoral prom like she was the homecoming queen. :o)

Now that she’s found her feet, and has been so instrumental in getting us to the brink of a corporate 4th Reich, you’re finding out that she has 6 inch tusks that can carve suet off republcan asses like it was tofu. :o)

Deal with it, asshole.

I’m wondering the same thing. Because people’s recollections are not always correct. So, was it possible? And how surprising is it that if it happened, there were no photos?

A Special Christmas Message.

He’s taking Emerson’s statement that, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,” far beyond it’s intended meaning. And to think they beat Kerry based on a few changes regarding specific highly complex issues and can ignore 189 degree reversals in core philosophy and principles.

Heven’t we had enough of zealots?

er, 180 degree.

Not even the “Ronnie Raygun did it” defense is working for him.

Pardon, but isn’t NH the Granite State and Vermont Live Free or Die?

Pardon, but isn’t NH the Granite State and Vermont Live Free or Die?

NH is both of those.

Romney or Huckabee. What’s your choice? You say Romney? Another self-made Republican religious fanatic multi-millionaire?

Thanks I was misinformed.

OT/BTW- In case you haven’t heard, the surge has been a “stunning sucess.” (Chris Wallace, FauxNews)

Second response to your question. I have looked at the data provided by Mitt’s campaign that tpm refers to. I see no proof there that his father “marched with MLK.” There is proof that his father spoke at a conference. There is proof that he marched for civil rights. But there is nothing there that specifically ties his father to actually being in the room with MLK or on a march with him. There is a picture of his mother with MLK.

So, if I were a historian doing careful research, I would not consider that this is proof of anything, except the governor spoke and marched on behalf of civil rights. This is good. But it does not prove mitt’s assertion.

Not to me anyway!

Of course the bottom line question in this Democratic household is this: which Democrat can beat Romney or Huck or any other Republican hypocrite. And which Democratic will lead this nation out of the wilderness?

Heh, heh. I love watching the repubs implode.

There’s a fresh pot of coffee and pumpkin pie if anyone wants some. Pie is a breakfast food, right? (West coaster here.)

Absolutely! I am eating a ham and cheese sandwich in SoCal right now. Pumpkin pie sounds like a good breakfast dessert.

What kind of dirty f**kin hippy are you?

The Republicans become more of a caricature of themselves by the day. It alternates between being funny and just pathetic.

I’m wondering the same thing. Because people’s recollections are not always correct. So, was it possible? And how surprising is it that if it happened, there were no photos?

I thought about the fact that it seems if the governor of the state joined the march, there should be pictures, but OTOH, they did say it was an unexpected surprise. You would have thought it should have had a photo op. I think that the only thing that makes that article a little more credible is that it is from the time period in question?

Vermont is the “We make great cheese & ice cream” state. It’s on their commemorative quarter.

Well, I used to be this kind.

I guess Cult-Boy will be all about this when he gets elected (in his own mind)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12…..ref=slogin

Vermont is the Green Mountain State.

The time is now for the Democratic Party to set an example to lead in the concepts of fairness, compassion and justice. We have done it many times before. We can do it again. Let the GOP do what it does. And we will do what we do.

But it does not say that MLK was in the march, just that it was a “spin-off” march. So I’m guessing MLK was marching elsewhere. And in solidarity with him, people marched in many places.

So it would be like me saying I attended Christmas Mass with the pope. Ok, maybe there’s a photo of the pope at Christmas Mass. And maybe there’s one of me as well. Maybe I even attended that Mass as a surprise. But that does not mean we attended the same Mass at the same time in the same place.

I am not convinced by the contemporaneous article. It contains no mention of MLK being there. People may recall the governor being there. But was MLK?

Romney, McCain and Huckabee. More extremism. More of the same.

Bingo!

After many years of Bushisms, the odd thing is that we are expected to take McCain, Huck and Mittie seriously.

If the voters of New Hampshire really believed the state motto, the state suicide rate should show a steep rise in the last seven years.

Per Ben Franklin: “Those who would trade essential liberties for a bit of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” That alone disqualifies all Republican presidential candidates except Ron Pau.

But Willard “Mitt” Romney makes absolutely no pretense of respect for constitutional liberties as his responses to Charlie Savage’s questionaire visibly show. IMHO, Glenzilla was too easy on him.

Here’s what the mitt’s campaign says about that:

FACT: In The Summer Of 1963, Governor Romney Participated In Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Freedom Marches” In Grosse Pointe, Michigan.

Now, a naive person may read that as MLK’s freedom marches being ones he marched in. But that’s not what that sentence says. And the Detroit Free Press article says no such thing either. So it’s a careful parsing.

This may sound like a dead horse I’m beating. But it’s important. Because it fits a pattern of mitt sliding around in his use of English. And that rubs me the wrong way. My work requires a careful attention to language. I feel on pretty safe ground questioning the conclusion mitt came to.

Now maybe his dad was also slippery in his use of language. And mitt recalls his dad saying he marched with MLK. If so, like father – like son.

Santa has done it again since George Bush was chosen by the US Supreme Court in 2000…

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZThrYCy9Zzo

I need aspirin and maybe a round of Captain Morgan’s & Diet Pepsi to get through 2008.

Yes, you’re right. There was a march in Grosse Pointe that Gov. Romney participated in, but MLK was not there, although he was probably the inspiration. So, essentially, the whole thing boils down to what the meaning of “with” is. It’s not just “saw” that needs to have its meaning stretched.

Okay, that video was just plain wrong. Skip it!

To paraphrase Lloyd Benson, I remember George Romney, as Republicans go, he was a pretty descent fellow, but Mitt, you’re no George Romney.

I don’t understand Mitt’s insistence on connecting his dad with MLK.

It doesn’t help him within his party. He needs to connect with the dog-whistle racist element of his party’s base, which is already a bit put off by the cult thing.

And it doesn’t help him with those outside his party. If anything, it shocks people into thinking, What the hell has happened to the Republican Party?

I mean, how did that party change so much? In the 1960’s, a Republican presidential candidate went to some effort (so the story goes, whether true or false) to appear with a prominent civil rights leader, to make an important point. Just a few years later, a Republican president went to some effort to speak at a Nazi Waffen SS cemetary, to make another important point. In just the last few years, the Republican party has feasted on the intentional abandonment of the nation’s formerly blackest major city.

I remember George Romney, and I don’t understand why little Mitty thinks he’s helping himself by reminding people of his dad.

Boy, this comments thing is touchy. I accidentally hit enter and it published my comment prematurely. I was about to say that Romney is obviously a serial prevaricator and he misrepresents by puffing up his resume alot!

Per Glenzilla:

Romney described the root of his view of the world this way: “Our most basic civil liberty is the right to be kept alive.”

Romney recited that cowardly platitude — what has now become the shameful flagship of the Republican Party — in response to being asked whether the President has the power to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants even in the face of a law that makes it a crime to do so.

WTF, do the Republicans have any clue as to the difference between Big Brother and the president of a democratic republic? I’m convinced now that imperialism is an ancient insidious disease to which all militarily successful nations are subject.

OT/BTW- In case you haven’t heard, the surge has been a “stunning sucess.” (Chris Wallace, FauxNews)

This is the typical Beltway approach to any issue: Make up a story and repeat it until it becomes the dominant way to talk about the issue.

You’ll get a certain number of politicians and journalists who will buy it whole. Most of the others will accept the basic assumption of success but qualify it. Instead of “stunning”, they may say “major”, “noticeable”, “significant”, etc.

They may note tangentially that there has not been progress on the political front, conveniently forgetting that at the outset a political settlement was precisely the reason for the surge. It’s enough to give me a headache.

I’d say that’s the last nail in Romney’s coffin. Looks like it’s going to come down to Huck and McCain over the long haul. Deja vu.

Willard “Zelig” Romney must really believe that Army slogan “Be all you can be.”

[totaly ot: is anyone else on time-warner in los angeles? my digital phone and internet have been going out since last saturday, 3 visits from techs haven’t found the problem, curious if anyone else is experiencing problems…]

As I see it mitt is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand he wants to show that his mormonism is not connected to racism. Thus he’d like to believe his dad marched with MLK. And he wants us to believe he wept when the mormon church agreed blacks could be admitted to their priesthood. Maybe he did weep. But why?

So, he’s got to remove himself from the explicit racism that his church practiced in the past.

However, this places him in conflict with republican “values” of being implicitly racist. So his embrace of MLK goes against the repub base he needs to court.

It’s a pretty difficult spot he’s in. And he’s so inauthentic, that I think he’ll lose both independents and repubs over this!

I thought Republics like inflated resumes. They are the Party of Bush.

OT/BTW- In case you haven’t heard, the surge has been a “stunning sucess.” (Chris Wallace, FauxNews)

This is the typical Beltway approach to any issue: Make up a story and repeat it until it becomes the dominant way to talk about the issue.

I think the progressive response to all this spin should be: “That’s fantastic news! When are the troops coming home?” I suspect that the “stunning success” will then suddenly become “a long way to go”.

Romney could quickly announce Alan Keyes as his running mate. It would be particularly entertaining if he did that without consulting Alan.

Do you have att u-verse?

I don’t work for them, but I do know, confidentially, that att is selling a product it can’t really support everywhere. It’s putting their technicians and “telephone hand-holders” in an almost impossible position.

Oh, wouldn’t that be fun? Well, why doesn’t he just announce that right now? That would certainly inject a great deal of humor and spontaneity into his campaign right away!

There is not a Republican running for President who believes in or knows how a democracy is supposed to function. Instead they cobble together lamebrained, fact free assemblages of prejudice based on our worst and most pernicious fears and pass it off as political philosophy.

The opinion in this house is that concerning the practice of, and belief in, Christianity, is it all depends on how one uses it.

There is not a Republican running for President who believes in or knows how a democracy is supposed to function. Instead they cobble together lamebrained, fact free assemblages of prejudice based on our worst and most pernicious fears and pass it off as political philosophy.
reply

Well said, Hugh!

Maybe he did weep. But why?

The general explains:

feel like I must comment on Mitt’s confession that he wept when he heard that Blacks had finally been given the priesthood, an honor that had been given to every 12 year old white boy since the Church came into being. I’m sure Mitt hopes that we’ll all believe he cried because he was happy that an injustice had been righted, and I think many people will be fooled. But the truth is Mitt, as a true believer, would not have thought it was an injustice.

I knew a lot of Mormons who wept with joy when they learned of the revelation. I saw them tearfully bearing their testimonies at the first Fast and Testimony Meeting after that. They did so, not because an injustice had been righted, but because a prophecy was being fulfilled. Mormon doctrine held that in the last days, God would lift the curse He levied against Blacks for being indecisive in the heavenly war between Jesus and Lucifer and allow them to hold the priesthood.

link

Hey. Bush got in, and then was re-elected.

There, fixed.

They fear offending their owners, the Bush family, by being too democracy oriented. It’s all about the plunder.

There is not a Republican running for President who believes in or knows how a democracy is supposed to function. Instead they cobble together lamebrained, fact free assemblages of prejudice based on our worst and most pernicious fears and pass it off as political philosophy.

What Hugh said.
Good enough to Digg.

correction. preview didn’t work and there’s no edit and there’s no quote the person option either.

frustrating when you make mistakes or want to avoid making them. i especially miss the being able to quote people in order to have the kind of conversations we used to that i could easily follow.

“Hey. Bush got in, and then was re-elected got in again.”

There, fixed.

Thank you, Steve. So…. we’re in the last day, huh??? Glad to be enlightened!!

Now…. do these “last days” include a mormon as president? or something they could interpret that way?

what else are they expecting here? or wanting to do to us to usher in these “last days?”

By the way, FWIW, in my view the bbc is the one to listen to when the world ends. They are able to report everything calmly…. which is the opposite of our US news. So… when the very last day comes… listen to the bbc. Their reporting will help you face it with total calmness.

I wonder if the mormon prophecies include anything about the bbc.

IN case anyone is wondering…. this is all….TOTALLY… tongue in cheek.

hey therap, nope i’m on time-warner, but sounds like the same thing is happening – the marketing has outstripped their technological capacity. signed everyone up for bundled services, but can’t deliver the services reliably.

Mitt has a pipeline to God. Obviously most Republicans do.

Correction, a lot of Republicans “think” they do. I’m afraid they’re going to be in for a rude awakening when they get to the other side. Or if they’re caught in the “end days” expecting to be among the “chosen.” Jeebus never said anything about getting to heaven by being bigots or by trying to be missionaries for your religion at the point of a gun, or any number of the other things they’re doing and not doing in His name.

there’s a war on. they’re trying to run each other out of business. and in the process consumers are going to go nuts or revolt or both!

I use a tv antenna. No cable. No special stations. NO PROBLEMS!

The Times compares the wealth of Romney and Edwards. Romney started rich and got richer by investing and operating businesses.

Under Mr. Romney, Bain took advantage of new financial instruments like junk bonds, borrowing money to make big bets and, when they paid off, big returns. The firm also inserted itself into a variety of industries. It helped transform office supplies from a local business into a national one, by financing a business plan that turned into Staples.

Compare the with the description of how Edwards succeeded.

Mr. Edwards, for all of his legal skills, was able to amass $30 million in net worth partly because juries became more willing to confer large personal-injury verdicts. With some of his earnings, he built a 28,000-square-foot home in North Carolina.

The writer, David Leonhardt, really wants to see similarities where the rest of us don’t see anything similar. Romney gambles with other people’s money, Edwards works for a living, but that looks like two sides of the same coin to Leonhardt.

lahoma and i believe strongly in the fact that people-kind are born of the right motives. Therein lay the difference. Merry Christmas.

Now…. do these “last days” include a mormon as president? or something they could interpret that way?

Again the General explains:

As a High Priest in the Melchizedek Priesthood, Romney believes he receives revelations from God. He believes God directs him to do the things he does, and he never makes an important decision without asking God for guidance and receiving a revelation first.

As a committed Mormon, he also believes that God played an important role in the creation of this nation; that he “guided the hands” of our founding fathers. He believes that the United States is favored above all nations by God, and that Jesus will return to rule the Earth from the city of New Zion, which will be built by the faithful in Jackson County, Missouri.

It is also likely that he believes that he, and his Mormon supporters, are the Elders of Zion whom Joseph Smith prophesied would save this nation as it “hangs by a thread.” (JoD 7:15) How could he not believe that as he enters the presidency at a time he believes we are in a life and death struggle with “islamofascism?”

So, like George Bush, Mitt thinks he speaks with God, believes that the United States is favored by God, and likely believes God has a specific mission for him to perform.

link

BTW Joke Line has a short piece on David Petraeus as a runnerup for Times’s Man of the Year.

http://www.time.com/time/speci…..o-featured

It’s not outstandingly awful just rather mealymouthed. There is no mention of Petraeus’ transitory “successes” training Iraqi troops or his losing track of huge numbers of weapons in Iraq. He describes the surge this way:

And yet Petraeus has not failed, which, given the anarchy and pessimism of February, must be considered something of a triumph.

He says of Petraeus’ much vaunted Congressional testimony:

Most Americans know Petraeus best from his performance at congressional hearings in Washington last September, a moment of some discomfort for him.

I came away from the article wondering why Klein had written it. It nowhere advances any reason why Petraeus should be considered a potential Man of the Year.

Mitt will never be President.

This scares me to death!!!

I think I need a dose of the bbc.

Live free or state a false dichotomy!

TheraP @ 99: Now…. do these “last days” include a mormon as president? or something they could interpret that way?

Yow! I hadn’t thought about that possibility – that fundies might accept a Mormon preznit as part of an End-Times package deal.

Of course, that would sort of put George W Bush in a role like that of John the Baptist, a voice crying in the wilderness, preparing the way of the Mitt. I’m not sure Commander AWOL Flightsuit will willingly take a demotion like this.

I came away from the article wondering why Klein had written it. It nowhere advances any reason why Petraeus should be considered a potential Man of the Year.

I believe the premise is that it’s quite rare for someone to become a part of the Bush administration and not end up looking like a miserable failure. In Klein’s defense, there’s quite a bit of merit to that argument.

Well … my mother changed her party of registration when the older Bush changed his publicly-expressed views on abortion in order to become Ronnie’s vice-president. She said later that if he was going to change his expressed principles in order to get elected, he didn’t have the kind that she was willing to vote for.
It still seems like a good rule of thumb, but clearly not enough people have checked their thumbs lately.

Mitt just strikes me as a shape shifter who wants to be popular. So accommodating, really.

What an empty suit.

Kiddo@5: that about “who can win it for us?” is certainly the bottom-line question.

Speaking as an Edwards supporter, I’m glad you asked it. :o) :o) :o)

Leave it to Hugh Hewitt to spin this as a good thing.

Tancredos Gone…And now there wereSeven Republican Candidates left

Unless you count Alan Keyes that is.

Or maybe there are the seven dwarfs?

.

I concur, the “witnesses” cited by Fox News and the Romney Campaign may not have even known who King was in 1963. They are elderly, and memories become distorted over decades.

The fact that the campaign still is citing the discredited Broder book and other historical sources that used that citation or material doesn’t provide any more evidence. In fact, it demonstrates that the Broder and Romney effort to confabulate things. It shows that they are stil trying to claim it DID, in fact, occur.

King may have been mentioned at the Rally or they could have mistaken one of the other speakers for being MLK, Jr. There is no known material that MLK marched at Grosse Point in 1963…and if he had been there I’m sure the papers would have mentioned it. George Romney DID join that 1963 March. It’s documented. But King didn’t march in that one. And King didn’t march in Grosse Point when he was there in 1968, just a few weeks before his assassination. He gave a speech. But George, who was no longer Governor, is not noted as being in attendance at that. And Mitt couldn’t have seen them together at that event in any case. Mitt was serving in France as a Mormon missionary.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs…..6/71220047

The Mitt Campaign has posted a bunch of stuff about George Romneys support for Civil Rights and King’s work as an effort to make it appear that the complaints were that George Romney wasn’t for integration. That’s utterly facetious. The issue was whether Mitt lied about seeing his father and MLK walking hand-in-hand in Grosse Point. Trying to swerve the issue of his honesty onto different topics is a further sigh that the Romney Campaign is unwilling to deal with the real issue. Instead they lie and try to make the complaints about something that never was said.

Where have we seen this tactic before.
1) Lie, 2) If caught, Lie Again~ say your opponents said something that they didn’t say. 3) Call them liars.