Romney: Bump in the Road

Hey, Obama!

"I'm an American, not a bump in the road."

Jon Stewart Disappointed with Obama

Appearing on The O'Reilly Factor, Jon Stewart admits that Obama hasn't lived up to his expectations. But, he thinks that maybe he expected too much from Obama.

Poor disillusioned Jon Stewart.

Here's video:



Stewart also discusses the Republican 2012 presidential field.

Video:

Romney is Out

TRANSCRIPT: Mitt Romney's CPAC speech
_______________

It's not like the writing wasn't on the wall.

(CNN) -- Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, GOP sources tell CNN.

Romney had won 270 delegates in through the Super Tuesday contests, compared with front-runner John McCain's 680.

Suspending a campaign has a different meaning depending on the party.

On the Republican side, decisions on how to allocate delegates is left to the state parties.

...Romney is expected to announce his decision Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, three Republican sources told CNN.

This really isn't a big deal in terms of changing the outcome of the Republican primary.

It was clear that McCain was going to be the nominee.

I think Romney will live to fight another day, like in 2012 against the Dem president.
_________________

Romney is not going out with a whimper. In his address to CPAC, he's speaking with energy and resolve that's playing well with his audience.

It's unlikely that McCain would choose Romney as a VP, given all the bad blood. I think McCain is way too stubborn to pick a running mate who would appeal to his enemies.

But who knows?

In any event, Romney's address is not that of one whose political career is over.

He just compared himself to Ronald Reagan in 1976. Fight on.

But Romney is striking a conciliatory tone, saying he agrees with McCain when it comes to fighting Islamic extremists.

He says that because we are at war, we cannot allow Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to win the White House. So, he's stepping aside.

Romney said the race wasn't about him. His campaign has never been about him.

He said, "I entered this race because I love America."

John McCain: Super Tuesday's Big Loser

In spite of John McCain's long list of high profile endorsements, he wasn't able to secure the Republican nomination on Tuesday.

All the king's horses and all the king's men...

From the Washington Post:

Sen. John McCain surged closer toward the Republican nomination yesterday by capturing the biggest Super Tuesday states, including California, but failed to knock out his rivals, who deprived him of victories across GOP strongholds in the South and West.

As millions of Republicans went to the polls in 21 states, the senator from Arizona racked up hundreds of delegates on the strength of winner-take-all primaries in the Northeast and elsewhere. But his inability to win in more than half of the states voting yesterday complicated his hopes of rallying the party behind his candidacy.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee scored a surprising sweep of his native South, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney picked up a number of states in the West but fell short in critical battlegrounds that would have established him as McCain's primary challenger. Huckabee and Romney vowed last night to stay in the race as it moves to Virginia, Maryland and the District on Tuesday.

The multiple-front clash represented a virtual national primary as Republicans voted to choose a standard-bearer, with more states voting at once than in any other GOP nomination battle.

...McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who has carved out a career as a blunt-talking maverick on Capitol Hill, moved closer to the presidential prize he has been seeking for more than a decade by earning support across the country. But the voting made clear that serious challenges remain for McCain: to clear the field of rivals who question his commitment to conservative ideology, and to consolidate a fractured party.

During their coverage of the primaries and caucuses, the media dwelled on what a bad night Romney had.

In my opinion, McCain was the big loser.

He was supposed to seal the deal on Tuesday. He didn't. He failed. He lost.

Yes, he's the front-runner, but he's not the definitive choice. Republicans did not choose their nominee yesterday.

Do I think he'll be the nominee eventually? Yes.

Do I think he can count on the unwavering support of his party? Not at all.

Of course, McCain does have reason to celebrate capturing the big states. He had his victories, no doubt about it.

But McCain didn't accomplish the two things he set out to do -- get rid of Romney and convince voters that he's a conservative.

McCain failed to eliminate his competition and he failed to win over conservatives.

Romney and Huckabee together kept at least 11 states out of McCain's column, and each claimed to be the alternative to the front-runner, who struggled throughout the day to appeal to conservatives. "Over the past few days, a lot of people have been saying this is a two-man race," Huckabee told supporters last night in Little Rock. "And you know what? It is. And we're in it."

Huckabee did well in the South. He managed to regain some relevance.

As far as his claim that it's now a race between him and McCain, someone should tell him that he's in third place right now.

And let's drop the pretense that McCain and Huckabee have no alliance. Huckabee is preparing to fill the VP spot on the ticket.

...Speaking before the results in California had come in, Romney told supporters in Boston that "the one thing that is clear is that this campaign is going on." He said that "there are some people who thought it was all going to be done tonight," but he pledged to "go all the way to the convention, and we're going to win this thing."

The pundits and the media huffed and they puffed but they didn't blow Mitt down.

...Among self-described conservatives voting yesterday, exit polling showed that McCain lost to Romney or Huckabee in many states, a sign that the anger and mistrust vented on talk shows in recent days is shared by many of the party faithful. In California, Romney held a double-digit lead over McCain among conservative voters. Romney even won conservative voters in McCain's home state of Arizona.

Talk radio is not the source of voters' anger and mistrust for McCain.

McCain's record is the source. McCain's stance on the issues is the source. McCain's betrayal of conservative principles is the source.

I don't like that telling these truths is described as "venting."

Bottom line: John McCain doesn't have a chance of winning if he doesn't unite the party. I don't see that happening because I don't think that John McCain is going to reach out to conservatives. His idea of reaching out to them is by claiming to be one of them. At least on a number of issues, that, of course, is absurd.

The short-term future may look bright for McCain. Looking toward November, things get awfully dark.

From that perspective, it's hard to see McCain as Super Tuesday's big winner.

A Vote for Huckabee

The Democrats will be having a two-person race on Super Tuesday.

The Republicans should be in that same position, but Mike Huckabee isn't cooperating.

Klaus Marre writes:

Romney: ‘In a two-person race, I like my chances’

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he looks forward to a head-to-head battle for the Republican presidential nomination with Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

...“We’re finally getting where we wanted to be, and that is to have a two-person race,” Romney said on Fox News, adding, “In a two-person race, I like my chances.”

Romney acknowledged that the continued presence of Mike Huckabee in the race is a problem for him and made the point that the former Arkansas governor is no longer a contender.

“I don’t know what kind of support Mike Huckabee will get going forward,” Romney said. “I think conservatives recognize that a vote for Mike Huckabee right now really means a vote for John McCain. So that may have them re-think that.”

Romney is right.

Now that Rudy Giuliani is calling it quits, his supporters will likely go to McCain or to one of the Dems.

If Huckabee would bow out, he certainly would free up votes for Romney.

That won't happen. Huckabee is determined to play the spoiler.

Here's an e-mail from Huckabee (Wed, 30 Jan 2008 00:22:46):

Our focus turns now to Super Tuesday. Recent polling shows us in first or tied for first place in Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee and Oklahoma. Voters in these states will have a chance to reclaim the nominating process for conservatives by casting their votes in support of our campaign. And in the states where poll after poll has shown us in second or third, please spread the word that we are still standing and we have what it takes to win.

Because if I am a Republican voter in a state casting votes next week on Super Tuesday, I am asking two fundamental questions:

Which candidate best reflects my views on the issues?

And does that candidate have what it takes to defeat the Democrat nominee in the fall?

If I am a voter in Tennessee and I care about education, I want a President that has executive experience reforming a state's education system and has a substantive plan to reform education at the national level.

If I am a voter in Georgia and I care deeply about the issues of abortion and marriage, I want a President that will fight tirelessly for life and the family at the federal level, someone with a real record of achievement on these issues not just a politician paying election year lip service on those issues.

If I am a voter in Missouri and I am worried about the economy, I want a President that understands what its like to walk in my shoes and has a plan to stimulate the economy and real world, governing experience to strengthen and help grow our economy.

If I am a voter in California and I am concerned about national security, especially border security, I want a President that has a plan to secure our borders, end amnesty and end the practice of sanctuary cities.

If I am a voter in Alabama and I care passionately about the second amendment, I want a President that understands the 2nd amendment is primarily about tyranny and the right to self-defense not hunting.

If the Republican nominee cannot relate to Republican voters on these important and fundamental issues, we will not defeat the Democrats in the fall.

If the Republican nominee appears out of touch with regular voters or has cast votes that were an anathema to his Party, that candidate will fail to unite the Republican Party against the Democrat nominee, no matter who that nominee is.

I have what it takes, our campaign is still standing and drawing new support everyday and I am prepared to lead America forward. Spread the word. I am fighting for you and will continue to do so every step of the way.

With deep gratitude,

There are two possible explanations for Huckabee's decision to press on to Super Tuesday:

1. Huckabee is clinically delusional.

2. Huckabee is staying in the race solely to secure the nomination for McCain.

There are signs that the first is valid. The second is definitely the case.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Honor

I've said before that I would never sit out an election.

It's unthinkable. It's disgraceful for the likes of Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay to state that they would rather not vote at all than vote for John McCain.

Plenty of times I've had to choose the lesser of two or three evils. If that's the way it is, then that's the way it is. But under no circumstances would I opt out of an election.

If John McCain ends up being the Republican nominee, he'll get my vote. Plenty of conservatives have delineated his numerous faults. No need for me to reiterate.

In spite of McCain's inadequacies, I consider him to be dramatically better than any of the Democrat candidates.

I don't see a third party candidate being an option. If Michael Bloomberg has lied and he does run, I would have no interest whatsoever in supporting him.

Although I won't vote for McCain in Wisconsin's February 19 primary, it's possible that I will be voting for him in November.

If I have to, I will. I probably wouldn't feel good about it, but I'll do what I have to do to keep a high tax, socialized medicine, weak on terror liberal out of the White House.

Just when I think that I've come to terms with the notion of voting for McCain, then another problem surfaces.

This one isn't just a policy difference, like McCain-Feingold, his opposition to President Bush's tax cuts, or his position on amnesty for illegal immigrants.

This one gets to the heart of his character.

Kathryn Jean Lopez writes about a "great American’s not-so-great political attack" in her column "Dishonor on the Campaign Trail."

On Saturday, the McCain campaign worked the news cycle well, but at the cost of straight talk.

On Saturday afternoon, the McCain campaign issued the following statement: “Mitt Romney’s position on the war in Iraq has been a study in flexibility. Like every other issue of importance in this race, Mitt Romney has changed his position. On April 3, 2007 he advocated secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. His exact words were ‘of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones.’ In October 2007, Romney said that Hillary Clinton, who supports Iraq withdrawal, is ‘not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than the Republican nominee will.’ These statements, along with Romney’s inability to stick with a consistent position, provide further evidence that he lacks the critical experience and judgment necessary to lead as commander in chief.”

It was a dishonest line of attack. During an April TV interview — as anyone who clicked on a link that was provided to me by the McCain campaign can see for themselves — Mitt Romney said that of course there have to be some agreed-upon benchmarks for progress (including, yes, timetables) between the U.S. and Iraq, at least privately. John McCain himself had been suggesting something even more official, but along the same lines, in January of the same year.

All Saturday, his accusation that Mitt Romney has been for a withdrawal timetable in Iraq was the Republican presidential news story, as everyone waited for South Carolina primary results for the Democrats. By the time folks from Mark Levin and myself on National Review Online’s “The Corner” to the New York Times and Time magazine’s political blog had concluded that McCain’s line of attack was baseless, the new story was Florida governor Charlie Crist’s endorsement of McCain. A winning Saturday for the McCain campaign, if they were aiming for Florida residents watching cable news on Saturday. The storyline continued into Sunday, as he repeated the charge on Meet the Press and the issue continued to be debated on NRO and elsewhere.

...McCain is fond of saying he’d rather lose a political campaign than a war; he now seems to be swimming close to using the war to win a political campaign in the most dishonest of ways. It’s conduct unbecoming a man we all respect.

I agree. Straight talker McCain is better than this.

The first question from Tim Russert on Meet the Press dealt with McCain's charges that Romney called for timetables.

McCain had a national audience and an opportunity to retract his misleading statements about Romney. Instead, he chose to continue the ruse that he and Romney differ on Iraq policy.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, when she suggested timetables, you said was waving the white flag of surrender. Is Governor Romney waving the white flag?

SEN. McCAIN: Well, actually, Tim, what Senator Clinton said was that you would set a timetable within 60 days of withdrawal, complete withdrawal from Iraq. To me that's surrender. And I think in most people's view that would be surrender if we told al-Qaeda that we are leaving Iraq within a certain period of time.

MR. RUSSERT: Is Governor Romney suggesting surrender?

SEN. McCAIN: I said that he has said--is wrong, and I think he has equivocated on it. In one of the debates, he said the serve-- surge is "apparently working." It was working. It wasn't apparently. Look, these were tough time in American history, and I think historians will look back at April of 2000 when Harry Reid, the majority leader of the United States Senate, declared the war lost; when Republicans, even, were saying that we had to have "timetables" because we needed to get out of there. That was a critical time. I'm proud of the role that I played at that time. And I don't believe that Governor Romney's statement indicated anything but that we were going to tell--we were going to have a timetable for withdrawal.

That's dishonorable.

As Lopez notes, "John McCain and Mitt Romney are on the same side of this war. To pretend otherwise is wrong and is no honorable way to win."

Romney Wins Nevada

From Reuters:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the projected Republican winner on Saturday in a Nevada race his opponents largely shunned as voters gathered to pick presidential candidates.

From the Associated Press:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney easily won the Republican contest.

Romney said Republicans had cast their votes for change — and that he was the man to provide it.

"With a career spent turning around businesses, creating jobs and imposing fiscal discipline, I am ready to get my hands on Washington and turn it inside out," he said in a statement issued while he flew to Florida, site of next week's primary.

The Republican caucuses drew relatively little candidate interest. Not so the party's South Carolina primary, the second half of a campaign doubleheader, and a duel between Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Romney was gaining more than half the vote in Nevada, leaving McCain and Texas Rep. Ron Paul in a close race for a distant second place.

...Romney's western victory marked a second straight success for the former Massachusetts governor, coming quickly after a first-place finish in the Michigan primary revived a faltering campaign.

Nevada Republicans said the economy and illegal immigration were their top concerns, according to preliminary results from surveys of voters entering their caucuses. Romney led among voters who cited both issues.

Mormons gave Romney about half his votes. He is hoping to become the first member of his faith to win the White House. Alone among the Republican contenders, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas aired television ads in Nevada.

The first scattered returns showed Romney with more than 50 percent of the vote. Paul, McCain and Huckabee were tightly bunched, far behind the leader.

He also won at least 14 of the 31 Republican National Convention delegates at stake.

Nevada offered more delegates — 31 versus 24 — but far less appeal to the Republican candidates than South Carolina, a primary that has gone to the party's eventual nominee every four years since 1980.

The media are doing their best to discount Mitt Romney.

I think they underestimate his appeal. They certainly dismiss his success.

Bottom line: It's far too early to consider the Republican race a contest between McCain and Huckabee.

No GOP Anchor in Sight

So Mitt Romney was victorious in the Michigan primary.

The lib media are spinning that as the Republican Party in disarray.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: "Breakthrough puts another twist in jumbled GOP race"

Associated Press: "Scrambled GOP race" -- The Republican race heads south as a complete jumble.

The New York Times: "No G.O.P. Anchor in Sight" -- Can anyone bring the Republicans together again?

It's January.

Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan have had their caucuses and primaries.

That's all.

There are 50 states participating, plus the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Why should there be a clear front-runner at this stage in the process?

What's with the lib media? Are they trying to disenfranchise voters outside of Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan?

The task of choosing presidential nominees isn't the work of voters in only those four states.

The primaries are just beginning.

The fact that the Republicans don't have an "anchor" isn't alarming. It's not a problem.

The lib media don't seem to be fretting over the fact that the Dems haven't chosen an "anchor" yet.

The New York Times' analysis of the significance of Romney's Michigan win is particularly slanted. (There's a surprise.)

On the most tangible level, the vote on Tuesday was proof from the ballot box of what polls have shown: this is a party that is adrift, deeply divided and uninspired when it comes to its presidential candidates and unsure of how to counter an energized Democratic Party.

Even in victory, Mr. Romney stood as evidence of the trouble the party finds itself in. He won, but only after a major effort in a state he once expected to win in a walk. That was before he lost Iowa and New Hampshire, two other states where he had campaigned all out.

More than any candidate in the Republican field, Mr. Romney has made a conscious effort to reassemble the coalition of economic and social conservatives that came together with Ronald Reagan and that President Bush kept remarkably unified in his two campaigns and through much of his White House tenure.

Mr. Romney’s uneven performance has highlighted the strains in that coalition, and a central question about his candidacy is whether he will be able to rally its fractured components to his side. It was no coincidence that he invoked Reagan more than once in his victory speech on Tuesday, though it was perhaps equally telling that he also invoked the first President Bush, who like Mr. Romney struggled to convince Republicans that he was Reagan’s rightful heir.

“The problem for the Republicans is they all have part of it,” said Lou Cannon, the Reagan biographer, referring to the conservative movement. “Huckabee has the social conservative part of it. Reagan had a lot of draw among independents, and McCain has stepped into that. And you have the conservative Wall Street types who are with Romney.”

Mr. Cannon added, speaking of Mr. Romney, “I don’t know how you put Humpty Dumpty back together again, but certainly he has tried to do it.”

This is a bunch of doom and gloom crap.

Oh, the party's adrift.

Oh, the party's deeply divided.

Oh, the party's uninspired.

The Dems, on the other hand, are described as "energized."

Right. They're energized. They're so engerized that they've been ripping each other apart. Sure. No division there.

Tell me. Who is the Dems' anchor? Is it Obama? Is it Hillary? Is it Edwards?

Which candidate has the reins of the Democrat Party? Who is the leader?

After the race wars between Obama and Hillary, with various Dem factions taking their own shots, it's clear that the Democrats do not have an anchor. They are far from united.

Oprah may have dropped anchor, but that seems to have sown dissension in the Dem ranks.

I'm sick of the lib media painting the Republicans as floundering and confused and demoralized, while they portray the Dems as organized and acting as one.

The fact is the Dems have a rough road ahead. There will be blood on the tracks before they arrive at an agreement on a nominee.

Let Republicans vote and choose a nominee. That's what the primaries are about. Let them sort through the issues and settle on a candidate.

What happened to count every vote?

If you follow the lib media, you'd think that just the votes in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and Michigan should be counted, as if the others don't matter.

Lame. It's a weird game concocted by lib propagandists posing as journalists.

The truth is the reports of the GOP's death have being greatly exaggerated by these Leftists.

A reminder: The Republicans have no anchor yet and neither do the Democrats.

So?

I see Romney's victory as a good thing for conservatives, a very good thing.

It appears that conservatives aren't ready to settle for a lightweight anchor.

Messin' with Michigan

Daily Kos has put out the call to libs in Michigan to screw with the Republicans in the primary.

Kos writes:

Next Tuesday, January 15th, Michigan will hold its primary. Michigan Democrats should vote for Mitt Romney, because if Mitt wins, Democrats win. How so?

For Michigan Democrats, the Democratic primary is meaningless since the DNC stripped the state of all its delegates (at least temporarily) for violating party rules. Hillary Clinton is alone on the ballot.

But on the GOP side, this primary will be fiercely contested. John McCain is currently enjoying the afterglow of media love since his New Hamsphire victory, while Iowa winner Mike Huckabee is poised to do well in South Carolina.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Actually, I think Kos is doing conservatives a favor.

I don't want to see either McCain or Huckabee secure the lead, certainly not Huckabee.

It won't hurt Republicans to keep Romney in the race.

Kos makes his appeal to his lib readers:

Michigan is Romney’s last stand. He has pulled all advertising from other states for a last-ditch effort there. It’s sink or swim time for Romney, and we’re going to throw him a lifesaver.

So why are we doing this? Because we can. Because it'll be fun. And because we've suffered Republican meddling, stealing, and disenfranchisement in our elections for far too long.

So get the word out and get out the vote!. Email below the fold.

Dear [Friend],

We're not going to beat around the Bush. If you want to help make mischief for the Republican Party - and bolster the Democrats' chances for taking the White House this November - read on!

Are you a Democrat or independent registered to vote in Michigan? If you are, vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

Do you know any Democrats or independents in Michigan? If you do, encourage them to vote for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary on Tuesday, January 15th!

And if you don't know anyone in Michigan, then forward this e-mail on to your like-minded friends - you never know who they might know.

Okay, so, I know - you must think I'm nuts to suggest that anyone ever vote Republican. But this situation is special. As it happens, the Michigan Democratic primary is uncontested. Barack Obama and John Edwards aren't even on the ballot. So that means even if you're a Hillary Clinton supporter, there's no need to vote for her - she's running unopposed.

But the Republican primary is hotly contested. And Michigan law lets anyone - including independents AND Democrats - vote in the Republican primary. This means there's a great opportunity, as we say above, for us to make mischief!

So why should Dems and indies vote Romney? After his victory in New Hampshire, the press has declared John McCain the Republican front- runner. Meanwhile, Mike Huckabee, who won in Iowa, looks poised to do well in South Carolina, which hosts the next primary after Michigan.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. And the more Republican candidates who are fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for the Democratic candidates, of course! In other words, we want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

So Michigan Democrats and independents who want to see the Republican battle royale continue should just take a few minutes on Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary. And don't feel bad or awkward about doing so - the Republicans have done things just like this many times in the past. What's more, if Michigan Republicans didn't want Dems or indies to vote in their primary, they could have changed the rules. But they didn't, so here we are.

Again, if you've got friends in Michigan, send this e-mail along to them. If you don't, send it to all of your friends and relatives who want to see the Republicans booted out of the White House this year - they might know some folks in Michigan. And heck, if you live in Michigan yourself, then definitely vote Romney in the primary!

Remember, the message is simple: The more Republican candidates who remain in the race, the better it is for the Democratic candidates. And Mitt Romney is much likelier to stay in the race if he wins the Michigan primary. Democrats and independents can help make this happen - by voting for Mitt!

Good luck, and to victory in November!

[Signed]

"[W]e've suffered Republican meddling, stealing, and disenfranchisement in our elections for far too long."

Good grief.

November can't get here soon enough.

Romney and "America the Beautiful"

Patrick Gavin of The Washington Examiner has to be kidding. This is so silly.



Ooooh. Romney had a momentary lapse and didn't remember "amber waves of grain."

Yeah, that's big stuff. He's not fit to be president.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

Lawrence O'Donnell Slams Romney and Mormonism

Lawrence O'Donnell had another foaming at the mouth moment.

I still consider his "creepy liar" meltdown on MSNBC's Scarborough Country on October 22, 2004, just days before the presidential election, as one of the most bizarre, out of control performances by a political pundit ever. He was debating John O'Neill, author of Unfit for Command.

O'Donnell completely flipped out.

Read the transcript. It's amazing.

Watch O'Donnell go nuts again, this time on The McLaughlin Group, during a discussion of Mitt Romney's "religion speech."

Here's the transcript. This is a MUST-READ. O'Donnell goes berserk!

A summary of O'Donnell's fit is offered by Jason Linkins.

He writes:

A sane, if highly flawed, discussion of Mitt Romney's "Faith In America" speech on the McLaughlin Group was cold-cocked into the realm of crazy-faced anger by guest panelist Lawrence O'Donnell this morning, who started off by criticizing Romney, but soon veered headlong into a radical assault on Mormonism.

The discussion was following along it's typical bland and predictable way, with Pat Buchanan praising Romney for defending his beliefs and Eleanor Clift dryly noting that Romney wasn't as robotic as usual. That's when the ball finally came to O'Donnell, who began by remarking, "This was the worst political speech of my lifetime." But O'Donnell didn't have much to say about the speech, as it turned out.

This was the worst political speech of my lifetime. Because this man stood there and said to you "this is the faith of my fathers." And you, and none of these commentators who liked this speech realized that the faith of his fathers is a racist faith. As of 1978 it was an officially racist faith, and for political convenience in 1978 it switched. And it said "OK, black people can be in this church." He believes, if he believes the faith of his fathers, that black people are black because in heaven they turned away from God, in this demented, Scientology-like notion of what was going on in heaven before the creation of the earth.

Pat Buchanan, believe it or not, deserves credit for asking a question that was both germane to the discussion and entirely fair: "Do you believe his faith disqualifies him to be President." Well...it's clear that O'Donnell does. Forcefully, fiercely. Frankly, frighteningly!

The conversation just went right off the rails from there. Mormonism was founded by a "fraudulent criminal," O'Donnell maintained, insisting that the speech was an "opportunity to distance himself from the evils of his religion" even as Clift cautioned that "every religion has had its scandals." That got McLaughlin defending the Catholic Church, further shouting, Buchanan blaming Christians for bringing slavery to the United States, and Clift saying that "every religion has some crazy beliefs."

Hilarious. And O'Donnell would just not let up. His kick to commercial, "Romney comes from a religion that was founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and A RAPIST!"

Spitting and wagging his finger, O'Donnell said, "And [Romney's] religion is based on the work of a lying, fraudulent criminal named Joseph Smith, who was a racist, who was pro-slavery. His religion was completely pro-slavery."

I think Linkins misunderstood O'Donnell. I don't believe O'Donnell called Smith a "rapist." I understood him to say "racist."

(Note: I stand corrected. The McLaughlin transcript attributes this statement to O'Donnell: "Look, Romney comes from a religion founded by a criminal who was anti-American, pro-slavery, and a rapist. And he comes from that lineage and says, 'I respect this religion fully.'")

McLaughlin tried to regain control, saying to O'Donnell: "All right, please relinquish.... Lawrence, please relinquish."

I think he knew O'Donnell was venturing into dangerous territory.

O'Donnell wouldn't shut up. He didn't hesitate to bash all Mormons.

"Joseph Smith was a slavery champion, the inventor of this ridiculous religion."

"Ridiculous religion"?

Wow.

When O'Donnell loses it, he REALLY loses it.

O'Donnell was so crazy that he has even embarrassed other libs.

I didn't think he could ever top his "creepy liar" performance.

In terms of content as opposed to delivery, I think he may have managed to do it.

When Eleanor Clift starts squirming at her fellow lib's ravings and feels the need to distance herself from O'Donnell's rant, you know it has to be bad.

Unbelievable.

I sincerely believe that O'Donnell is an unbalanced individual with some serious behavioral issues.

Romney's Speech an Embarrassment

The fact that Mitt Romney delivered "the religion speech" is an embarrassment.

COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- His campaign at a crossroads, Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday his Mormon faith should neither help nor hinder his quest for the White House and vowed to serve the interests of the nation, not the church, if elected president.

"When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God," Romney said in a speech that explicitly recalled remarks John F. Kennedy made in 1960 in an effort to quell anti-Catholic bias.

After declining for months to address the issue of his Mormonism directly, Romney switched course as polls showed widespread unease about his religion — and showed him losing his once-sizable lead in the opening Iowa caucuses to Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister and former governor of Arkansas.

Romney said some believe that a forthright embrace of his religion will "sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people."

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world," he said.

..."Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions," he pledged. "Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

He added: "If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States."

This is shameful.

Poll after poll finds a sizable number of Americans wouldn't vote for Romney solely because he is a Mormon. That's shocking to me.

It reflects so poorly on the level of religious tolerance in America. Are people really so ready to cast aside Romney's character and experience, his respect for the law, for the Constitution of the United States, and just focus on his religious affiliation?

There are plenty of reasons one can legitimately have to not vote for Romney; but the fact that Mormonism is being smeared by so many in such a matter-of-fact fashion is truly disturbing.

IT'S A CULT. IT'S A CULT. IT'S A CULT.

I don't want to hear it anymore.

Believe what you want to believe. If you have a problem with Mormons, then you do. If you think that being a Mormon is a disqualifying factor to become president, then you do.

Voters have the right to cast one ballot for president. They can vote for whomever they please and for whatever reasons.

But the fact that in 2007, at this point in our history, Mitt Romney was compelled to make this speech today is nauseating.

What about Mormonism as practiced in 2007 is a threat to the country?


I would like to hear every candidate for president, Republican and Democrat, loudly and clearly speak out against the disgraceful display of intolerance being directed at Romney and all Mormons.
________________

Read Charles Krauthammer's take on "Making an Issue Out of a Religion."

The God of the Founders, the God on the coinage, the God for whom Lincoln proclaimed Thanksgiving Day is the ineffable, ecumenical, nonsectarian Providence of the American civil religion whose relation to this blessed land is without appeal to any particular testament or ritual.

Every mention of God in every inaugural address in American history refers to the deity in this kind of all-embracing, universal, nondenominational way. (The one exception: William Henry Harrison. He caught cold delivering that inaugural address. Thirty-one days later, he was dead. Draw your own conclusion.) I suspect that neither Jefferson's Providence nor Washington's Great Author nor Lincoln's Almighty would look kindly on the exploitation of religious differences for political gain. It is un-American. It is unfortunate that Romney has had to justify himself in response.

Romney: Faith, Politics, and Religious Intolerance

This much we know: Voters in New Hampshire and Iowa have received anti-Mormon calls targeting Mitt Romney.

The mystery is the source of the calls. Theories abound, as libs revel in the Republican "infighting" and enjoy putting the spotlight on the religion issue.

Sam Stein writes:

Even with evidence suggesting that, in a bit of political schadenfreude, Romney's people may have undertaken the endeavor - in hopes of casting his Mormonism in a sympathetic light - focus has shifted to the other GOP candidates.

One name increasingly thrown around among Republican insiders is the guy nipping at Romney's heels in the Iowa polls: former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

"Who has the most to gain by this," one operative told the Huffington Post. "It's Huckabee. If Romney were to fall he would be the conservative option to Rudy Giuliani."

A source with another Republican presidential campaign added fuel to the fire by pointing out that the Huckabee's statement on the matter - "The Huckabee campaign does not condone this type of activity" - isn't exactly an "outright" denial.

"Of course it is a denial," Huckabee's spokesperson, Alice Stewart, told the Huffington Post. Moreover, it's worth noting that few if any political connections have surfaced linking the former governor and Western Wats, the company that made the calls.

Other candidates have been equally adamant in insisting their non-involvement. Romney's campaign, for its part, has come out forcefully against speculation that the Mormon candidate could behind the anti-Mormon calls.

"That's preposterous," Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, told The Politico. "Emphatically, I reject any insinuation that we would support phone calls attacking our own campaign," he added to the Salt Lake Tribune.

Why is it assumed that the calls came from a Republican candidate's campaign?

One of the Dems' campaigns could be behind them.

And another thing, why aren't the attacks on Romney's faith being referred to as "swift boating"?

Don't orchestrated attacks on a candidate's religion merit such recognition?

(I wonder if a new term for smearing and dirty politics will come out of the '08 election -- "Mormoning.")

I think the emphasis being placed on Romney's faith is rather regressive. It's as if it's 1960 and JFK must reassure the American public that he is capable of being both Catholic and President of the United States.

It's a time warp. It's just weird to hear people say they wouldn't vote for Romney because he's a Mormon.

While I think it's legitimate to examine a candidate's character and values, taking the candidate's faith life into account, there's something very different about the way critics are discussing Romney's Mormonism.

For example, opponents attack Catholic candidates who claim to be practicing members of the Church while they ignore Church teaching.

Much has been said about Catholic Rudy Giuliani's positions on abortion and gay marriage, not to mention his less than perfect personal life -- infidelity and his string of marriages.

Giuliani is criticized by some for not being the best Catholic; but lapsed Catholic Giuliani is under fire, not his religion.

In Romney's case, he gets attacked for BEING a Mormon.

Unlike Giuliani, Romney is not attacked for being an imperfect follower of his faith. No one seems to be complaining that Romney is a bad Mormon. He's under fire simply for being a Mormon.

That difference is what I find to be troubling.

There's a significant difference between judging an individual for failing to faithfully practice one's professed religion and judging an entire religion to be unacceptable.

I don't have a problem with discussing the candidates and the importance of religion in their lives. That's a matter of character. What I have a problem with is religious intolerance.

With Giuliani, his status as a practicing Catholic is being made an issue without smearing the Catholic Church and its one billion followers.

With Romney, rather than questioning his personal standing as a Mormon, people are slamming Mormonism itself.

When the emphasis shifts from judgments about a particular candidate to judgments about a specific religion, that's where it crosses the line. It becomes a matter of religious bigotry.

In a rather odd column, Richard Cohen addresses religion in presidential politics and sort of defends Mitt Romney. As he offers a bit of support for Romney, he goes after Mike Huckabee's beliefs. He also gets some shots in at George W. Bush.

To the many people, both domestic and foreign, who are asking Mitt Romney to do as John F. Kennedy once did and make a speech explaining why his religion is not a threat to our cherished American way of life, I suggest that Romney respond by pointing to his Republican opponents and uttering two words: "You first."

Romney, of course, is Mormon while JFK was Catholic, but if the question is whether a candidate's religion should be of concern to the American people, the candidates who should respond are those who repeatedly assert that faith, not ideology, is what drives them and even leads them to question evolution. Such a candidate is Mike Huckabee, the affable former governor of Arkansas and, more to the point, an ordained Baptist minister. He raised his hand in the negative last May when all the GOP presidential candidates were asked whether they believed in the theory of evolution.

In doing so, Huckabee failed a religious test for the presidency established inadvertently by George W. Bush. Back before Bush, it was considered narrow-minded and, worst of all, elitist, to judge a person by the intensity of his religious convictions. Belief was not supposed to matter, and so it was impermissible to conclude anything about a person even if he thought Darwin was wrong or, more recently, that homosexuals chose their sexual orientation, presumably just to irritate the Christian right. Religion was irrelevant. Everyone said so -- and I agreed.

Bush changed that. He infused government with religion, everything from ineffective programs that promote sexual abstinence to an adamant refusal to authorize federal spending for most embryonic stem-cell research. The administration even erected barriers to the marketing of the Plan B morning-after pill. All these measures ran up against obstacles that were essentially religious, not strictly scientific, in nature.

Even the war in Iraq had an undeniably religious cast to it. It's not just that Bush told Bob Woodward that it was not his own father -- George H.W. Bush -- to whom he looked for strength, but "a higher father," it's also that the president consistently puts himself on the side of God in matters distinctly secular, such as his crusade for democracy. "I believe that God has planted in every human heart the desire to live in freedom," the president has said. Maybe so, maybe not, but that's not a sound basis for a foreign policy.

Now we have Huckabee talking in a similar manner. A fair reading of the Huckabee literature -- his Web site, interviews, etc. -- shows a similar religious inclination, and while on "The Charlie Rose Show" or something similar he can have moments of secular lucidity, his Web site forthrightly declares that he does not distinguish between his faith and his politics. "I don't separate my faith from my personal and professional lives," he says.

But a president should do exactly that.

...If anything, Romney is the anti-Huckabee. There is not the slightest hint that his religion has constrained his politics in any way. You name the issue and he's been for it and against it -- gun control, abortion, gay rights. Call this what you may, it is proof that Romney is not enslaved by any dogma. His religion, to which he is committed, is distinctly his business and would not, as far I can tell, have any bearing on his presidency.

It's ridiculous for Cohen to suggest that Bush was the president who brought religion into politics and policy, as if other presidents didn't infuse government with religion. (Cohen should study George Washington.)

I don't think Cohen intended to defend Romney. He takes swipes at Romney as a flip flopper.

I think Cohen set out to attack Huckabee. Cohen clearly sees Huckabee as an emerging force. He seems to be afraid that the Christian Right might embrace candidate Huckabee, so he attacks.

Cohen wants to divide Republicans, and he believes that inciting religious bigotry is an effective method.

Maureen Dowd, Hillary Clinton, and the Intern Factor

Why is it that Mitt Romney has been criticized for putting Hillary Clinton in the league of an intern when it comes to her experience?

This "loaded" word was considered by some to be an insult to Hillary. It's supposed to be a cheap shot to even utter the word "intern" around her, dredging up images of thongs and cigars and stained blue dresses.

"She's never had the occasion of being in the private sector, running a business, or, for that matter, running a state or a city. She hasn't run anything, and the government of the United States is not a place for a president to be an intern," Romney said.

The Boston Herald says that's a "loaded" word when talking about the senator or her husband because of the former president's well-documented relationship with then-intern Monica Lewinsky in the mid-'90s.

A Clinton campaign spokeswoman had this to say about Romney's remark: "Hillary Clinton is a two-term United States senator who has represented the United States in 82 countries around the world, and has been one of the nation’s leading advocates for children and families for 35 years," Ann Lewis said in a statement, according to the Herald. "Trying to diminish her service isn't going to help Mr. Romney's weak and rudderless campaign."

As for the Romney campaign, spokesman Kevin Madden sent this response when we asked if Romney had intentionally alluded to the Lewinsky affair when he used the word intern:

"Governor Romney offered a substantive contrast between his record of experience as a chief executive in both elected office, at the Olympics and in the private sector compared to that of Senator Clinton.

"Senator Clinton doesn't have any comparable experience, and the governor's point is that, at this place in time, he is a better choice in that capacity than someone who needs on-the-job training as a chief executive.

"I'd disagree with any hyperactive analysis that a reference to needing on-the-job training has anything to do with the past Clinton administration."

So Romney is slammed for playing dirty just because he questioned the level of Hillary's experience.

Will Maureen Dowd be attacked by the Clinton camp because of her column today, directly confronting the significance of Hillary and the intern factor?

From the no longer "Select" columnist of the New York Times:

It’s an odd cultural inversion.

The French first lady, the one in a role where wives traditionally ignored and overlooked their husbands’ peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping their marriages intact and running the Élysée Palace, has fled her gilded perch, acting all-American and brimming over with feelings and feminist impulses.

The former American first lady, the one who’s supposed to be brimming over with feminist impulses, has ignored and overlooked her husband’s peccadilloes for the greater gain of keeping her marriage intact, as she tries to return to the gilded perch and run the White House.

Cécilia Sarkozy acts so American, while Hillary Clinton acts so French.

...In Essence magazine, Hillary sounded très French, très laissez-faire, talking about her marriage. “Now obviously we’ve had challenges as everybody in the world knows,” she said. “But I never doubted that it was a marriage worth investing in even in the midst of those challenges. And I’m really happy that I made that decision. Again, not a decision for everybody. And I think it’s so important for women to stand up for the right of women to make a decision that is best for them.”

In addition to the warrior strategy, the one that led Hillary to back President Bush on the Iraq war and the Iran drumbeat, the senator has a girlfriend strategy.

Hillary recently told an interviewer that they should talk like “two girlfriends,” and last week her campaign theme was: “Women Changing America.” She returns to Wellesley tomorrow to launch Hillblazers, a bid to attract young Hillarys to the campaign. She will be back in the setting of her 1969 feminist triumph as the commencement speaker who described her class’s desire for a “more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living” and who spoke truth to power, chastising Edward Brooke for being out of touch.

Hillary doesn’t speak truth to power any more. Now that Mark Penn believes women can carry her to victory, Hillary speaks girlfriend to girlfriend.

That tack, Caitlin Flanagan writes in The Atlantic, would only work if she were “willing to let us women in on the big, underlying struggle of her life that is front and center in our understanding of who she is as a woman. Her husband’s sexual behavior, quite apart from the private pain that it has caused her, has also sullied her deepest — and most womanly — ideals and convictions, for the Clintons’ political partnership has demanded that she defend actions she knows to be indefensible. To call her husband a philanderer is almost to whitewash him, for he’s used women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful than he — women particularly susceptible to the rake’s characteristic blend of cajolery and deceit — for his sexual gratification.

“In glossing over her husband’s actions and abetting his efforts to squirm away from the scrutiny and judgment they provoke, Hillary has too often lapsed into her customary hauteur and self-righteousness and added to the pain delivered upon these women.”

Dowd is not cutting Hillary any slack.

If a Republican dared to write or say anything remotely like this, that individual would be crucifed by the Left.

I guess it's OK for Dowd to seemingly attack because by the end of her column, Dowd points out that Hillary's handling of her philandering husband serves to prove that she's the superior candidate.

...But maybe the qualities that many find off-putting in Hillary — her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness — are the same ones that make people willing to vote for a woman.

Few are concerned that Hillary is strong enough for the job. She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity. Yet, the characteristics that are somewhat troubling are the same ones that convincingly show she will do what it takes to beat Obama and Rudy. She will not be soft or vulnerable. She will not melt in a crisis.

And, unlike Obama, she doesn’t need to talk herself into manning up. Obama whiffed in the debate last night when Brian Williams and Tim Russert teed up the first question for him to take on Hillary — something the debate dominatrix never would have done.

Bottom line: Dowd is calling Hillary a man.

Dowd is saying that Hillary is more of a man than Barack Obama. (Have you noticed she loves to poke at Obama's manhood?)

Will Dowd be criticized for using the term "dominatrix" to describe Hillary?

Is that a "loaded" word?

There's so much in this one column over which Hillary and her people would cry foul if they chose. They certainly would if it came from Republicans.

---She has abandoned the women that Bill dumped at the side of the road when he was finished with them.

---She has whitewashed his abusive pattern of preying on "women far less sophisticated, educated and powerful" for his sexual gratification.

(Sounds very "intern" to me.)

---She has off-putting qualities, including: "her opportunism, her triangulation, her ethical corner-cutting, her shifting convictions from pro-war to anti-war, her secrecy, her ruthlessness."

---"She is cold-eyed about wanting power and raising money and turning everything about her life into a commodity."

---She's manly.

---She's a dominatrix.

---She acts so French.

Dowd gets to say it all. She gets to tackle the intern factor head on.

That's because Dowd is arguing that Hillary's marriage to hound dog Bill makes her uniquely qualified to be President of the United States.

In Dowd's world, a woman strong enough to accept a lifetime of betrayal and humiliation from her husband -- tempered by adultery, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace -- is fit to be leader of the Free World.

Mitt's Osama-Obama Slip

So what?

Why is a slip of the tongue news?

Mitt Romney made the quite common Osama-Obama mistake.

GREENWOOD, S.C. -- In a slip of the tongue, Republican Mitt Romney accused Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama of urging terrorists to congregate in Iraq.

In the midst of criticizing Obama and other Democrats on foreign and economic policy Tuesday, the GOP presidential hopeful said:

"Actually, just look at what Osam — Barack Obama — said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq. That is the battlefield. ... It's almost as if the Democratic contenders for president are living in fantasyland. Their idea for jihad is to retreat, and their idea for the economy is to also retreat. And in my view, both efforts are wrongheaded."

Romney apparently was referring to an audiotape aired Monday in which a speaker believed to be terrorist Osama bin Laden called for insurgents in Iraq to unite and avoid divisions. The authenticity of the tape aired on Al-Jazeera television could not be immediately confirmed.

Romney also said: "It's my personal belief that having someone like John Edwards, a senator, who goes out and communicates that there is no global war on terror — that it's just a Bush bumper sticker — I think that is a position that is not consistent with the facts."

Romney quickly corrected himself. He didn't even get the entire "Osama" name out.

Although Romney's spokesman Kevin Madden said it was just a simple mistake, the Obama camp chose to take a swipe at Romney's err.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said, "Apparently, Mitt Romney can switch names just as casually as he switches positions, but what's wrongheaded is continuing a misguided war in Iraq that has left America less safe."

Whenever a Republican is criticized for saying "Osama" instead of "Obama," I think back to Ted Kennedy's slip.

Was that an AP story?

On January 12, 2005, during questions after a speech at the National Press Club on the future of the Democratic party, Kennedy said:

Why don't we just ask Osama bin -- Osama Obama -- Obama what -- since he won by such a big amount. Seriously, Senator Obama is really unique and special.

Remember CNN's Osama Obama gaffe?

CNN apologized Tuesday for mistakenly promoting a story on the search for Osama bin Laden with the headline "Where's Obama?"

A spokesman for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama said the apology was accepted.

The blunder came Monday evening on Wolf Blitzer's news show, "The Situation Room." Both Soledad O'Brien and Blitzer offered separate apologies during CNN's morning show on Tuesday.

CNN called it a "bad typographical error" by its graphics department.

"We want to apologize for that bad typo," Blitzer said. "We also want to apologize personally to Sen. Barack Obama. I'm going to be making a call to him later this morning to offer my personal apology."

Tommy Vietor, Obama's press secretary, said he appreciated the bloggers and activists who brought the error to light so quickly and helped make sure it was corrected.

The Obama campaign can tolerate mistakes by Ted Kennedy and CNN, but it won't cut Romney the same slack.

The lib media and Obama's campaign want Romney's slip of the tongue to be seen as an intentional attack.

Lame.

Catty Maureen Dowd Attacks the Republicans' Wives

Now that miserable failure TimesSelect is no more, it's easier to access New York Times columnists.

Thrilling. The unwashed masses can once again read their "wisdom." What a privilege!

Maureen Dowd mainly takes on Rudy Giuliani in her Sunday column. But "Uxorious or Spurious?" isn't just about Giuliani and his relationship with the NRA.

As usual, Dowd veers off into odd name-calling and very personal attacks.

Rather than sticking to commentary about the GOP candidates and the issues, she shamelessly slams their wives.

I don't know if it's laziness on her part, but it seems that she lifts lines from her diary and slaps them in her columns. Some things are better left unsaid in a public forum. Dowd hasn't learned that.

If she wants to claw at Giuliani, he's fair game. Fine.

However, I don't see why she has to draw blood from his wife and the wives of the other GOP candidates.

First, Dowd accuses Fred Thompson of exploiting his beautiful wife to win approval with the NRA audience.

Fred Thompson had already spoken to the group, recalling palling around with Charlton Heston, shooting skeet with some good ol’ boys from the N.R.A., and hanging out at gun stores and gun shows.

After guns, sports, Moses and a reference to his young ’uns, there was only one other ingredient needed for Flintstone Fred’s testosterone cocktail: a sexy blonde. Introducing his wife, Jeri, he drawled, “I think she’d make a much better first lady than Bill Clinton.”

Because Jeri is an attractive woman, does that mean that she shouldn't campaign for her husband or join him at appearances?

I find the lib media to be particularly vile in the way that they belittle her and treat her like an object.

When Dowd gets into the cell phone call that Giuliani took from his wife Judi during his speech to the NRA, she goes way beyond analyzing that incident and brutalizes Giuliani's wife. (By the way, I think that call has received a ridiculous amount of attention and analysis.)

Dowd writes:

First The Times’s Marc Santora noted that it wasn’t the first time Rudy had interrupted an appearance to take a call from his Princess Bride, as Vanity Fair dubbed her. He did the same thing in June in Hialeah, Fla., with more mushy talk during a rally.

This suggests either that Friday’s call was staged to humanize the dictatorial former mayor, or that Rudy is afraid of Judi’s digital wrath, or that the candidate is still struggling with how to integrate his third wife into his campaign, after her puppy-killing, husband-hiding, cabinet-sitting rough start.

Dowd seems to be taking a cue from Hillary Clinton's pal Tom Vilsack by joining him in going after Giuliani's personal life. It's not smart for liberals to make the private lives of the candidates an issue, considering Hillary is likely to be the Democrat nominee.

Dowd attributes the NRA phone call moment to either Giuliani's castration by Judi or his efforts to work this supposedly evil woman into his campaign.

Simply put, Dowd's analysis is really ugly and uncivil, really unnecessary.

Dowd doesn't stop there. She describes Mitt Romney's wife and children this way:

The episode also provided ammunition to Mitt Romney’s camp, which sensed an opportunity to highlight their candidate’s scary-perfect wife and scary-perfect kids.

I am really sick of liberals referring to good people, politically conservative people, as "scary-perfect," "Stepford Wives," etc.

If they can't find something to criticize, then the liberals criticize the fact that there's nothing to criticize. Have you noticed that?

I don't think conservatives would get away with being so cruel to the wives of the Democrat candidates. And if they did, I would lose respect for them if they engaged in such attacks.

It's a double standard. Same old, same old.

For all their self-proclaimed enlightenment, overflowing with respect and compassion, liberals don't hesitate to mercilessly slam women.

Mitt Romney and Sons and Chicken Hawks

Here we go with the "chicken hawk" crap again.

It's one of the lamest arguments that the Left has ever utilized.

On the campaign trail today, Mitt Romney, once again, had to answer for his sons' lack of military service.

BETTENDORF, Iowa -- Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."

Romney, who did not serve in Vietnam due to his Mormon missionary work and a high draft lottery number, was posed the question by an anti-war activist after a speech in which he called for "a surge or support" for U.S. forces in Iraq.

Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, also saluted a uniformed soldier in the crowd and called for donations to military support organizations, and last week he donated $25,000 to seven such organizations.

"The good news is that we have a volunteer Army and that's the way we're going to keep it," Romney told some 200 people gathered in an abbey near the Mississippi River that had been converted into a hotel. "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard."

Back in May on 60 Minutes, when Mike Wallace did an interview with Romney, his wife, and sons, Wallace brought up the same question about military service.

(Excerpt)

"Three of you went to Harvard Business School, one to medical school. All married. Nobody seems to have rebelled, gone off the rails. How come?" Wallace asks.

"Where a lot is given a lot is expected. So we have to live up to that standard," Craig Romney tells Wallace.

While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world, their answers vary about putting on a uniform and going to war.

"I feel guilty having not done it," Josh Romney tells Wallace.

"I’ve seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, 'My goodness, I hope I never have to do that,'" Ben Romney says.

"Not one agreed or thought about serving in the military," Wallace remarks.

"There are other sacrifices to make as well. And I hope to be able to make a sacrifice of that caliber at some point in my life," Matt Romney says.

"Did you ever serve in the armed forces?" Wallace asks Mitt Romney.

"I did not," Romney replies.

Why not?

"I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years in a mission," Romney replies.

And because of his high lottery number, he was never drafted to serve in Vietnam, something he says he regrets to this day.

In his typical accusatory tone, Wallace suggested that Romney and sons were hypocrites and unpatriotic for not serving in the military.

Not only is that absurd, but CBS and 60 Minutes should steer clear of referring to presidential candidates and their military service.

The Dan Rather story that relied on fake documents to trash George W. Bush and his National Guard service is still too fresh.

CBS should avoid anything that brings to mind that disgraceful episode.

The real issue in both the 60 Minutes interview and this AP account is the effort of liberals to cast disgrace on conservatives regarding their military service.

How many times have you heard libs, like blowhard Michael Moore and lib Queen Bee Maureen Dowd, say that President Bush's twin daughters should be over in Iraq?

I've heard it countless times.

The notion that one cannot support military action unless one has personally served in the Armed Forces or one's children have served is positively ridiculous.

Romney's sons and Bush's daughters didn't dodge the draft.

They didn't volunteer. There's no disgrace there.

Most 37 to 25-year-old Americans, roughly the age range of Romney's sons, have not served.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a candidate's kids must serve in the military in order for that candidate to be considered eligible for commander-in-chief duties.

Romney shouldn't have to explain why his sons didn't serve in the military.

Back to the AP story--

...The woman who asked the question, 41-year-old Rachel Griffiths of Milan, Ill., identified herself as a member of Quad City Progressive Action for the Common Good, as well as the sister of an Army major who had served in Iraq.

"Of course not," Griffiths said when asked if she was satisfied with Romney's answer. "He told me the way his son shows support for our military and our nation is to buy a Winnebago and ride across Iowa and help him get elected."

Just yesterday, AP pulled the same thing, highlighting an individual who was dissatisfied with a Republican candidate's response.

Yesterday, it was Thomas Fritzsche who wasn't happy with Giuliani's answer about his faith.

When Fritzsche was asked if he was satisfied, he replied, "Of course he didn't answer my question."

Now today, Rachel Griffiths said that she wasn't satisfied with Romney.

It seems that AP stumbles on a lot of dissatisfaction in Iowa, doesn't it?

Griffiths' brother served in Iraq. Terrific. She should be proud of his service.

I'm grateful for his contribution and all that members of the military and their families have sacrificed for our country.

That doesn't mean that I think Romney's sons should be attacked for not serving or that they are weasels for not fighting in Iraq.

Are we to assume that because Hillary Clinton didn't volunteer for military service or because Chelsea Clinton hasn't signed up that a President Hillary wouldn't have the moral authority to act as commander-in-chief?

Bill actively dodged the draft yet he sent Americans into harm's way. Was he a chicken hawk, as well as a hound dog?

The fact is none of the top tier '08 Democrat presidential candidates spent any time in the military and neither have their children. (Settle down, libs. I acknowledge that Obama's kids are too young right now.)

According to the chicken hawk argument, no Dem candidate is fit to employ the services of the U.S. military if need be. Such a president would put the U.S. in a dangerously weak position on the world stage.

Of all the top presidential candidates, only John McCain (if you can still consider him in the top tier) would have the authority to act as commander-in-chief.

The chicken hawk argument is lame.

The point is it's irrelevant that Romney's sons have not served in the military, completely and utterly irrelevant.

Republican Debate: The Ron Paul Cult

UPDATE:

Get enlightened: Go inside "The Cult."

Ronstock '08

"First we're spaming the polls, now we're spaming the audiences. lol"


llepard

"Get in there and add some comments. Her rant should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. No registration required."

________________________

The Republican presidential wannabes spent this Sunday morning participating in a debate aired live on ABC. It was an exteneded version of This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Naturally, Stephanopoulos moderated the debate.

"Real Americans" asked the questions. The format was reminiscent of the YouTube debate, without the goofiness factor.

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I watched enough to note that whenever Ron Paul said anything the auditorium erupted in cheers.

What did that indicate? It revealed that nearly every person in the country supporting Paul decided to attend that debate.

I definitely prefer a zero tolerance policy when it comes to applause at political debates.

When cheering is not kept in check, the atmosphere becomes more Jerry Springer than serious discussion by presidential candidates.

Although supporters of each candidate applauded with approval after their man spoke, Paul's group seemed disproportionately louder and more obnoxious.



Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stands at the podium prior to the ABC News Republican presidential debate at Sheslow Auditorium on the campus of Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sunday, Aug. 5, 2007. (AP Photo/Kevin Sanders)


Of course, the Iraq war was addressed. And of course, Ron Paul was utterly clueless. He's even worse than some Democrats on that issue.

When it comes to matters of foreign policy, he's more naive than Barack Obama, and that's saying a lot.

Mitt Romney got in a good line about Obama. It was scripted, not an off-the-cuff remark, but it still was good.

Romney said:

"I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies. I mean, he's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week."

I wonder if Hillary Clinton's campaign forwarded Romney that line.

Anyway, back to Iraq...

QUESTION: If you were president, what would be your strategy for ending the war in Iraq?

RON PAUL: Just come home. We just marched in, we can just come home. We went in there illegally. We did not declare war. It's lasting way too long. We didn't declare war in Korea or Vietnam. The wars were never really ended. We lose those wars. We're losing this one. We shouldn't be there. We ought to just come home.

Good grief.

He has the depth of understanding of a fifth grader. No, that's being unfair to fifth graders.

He speaks with the wisdom of a drunk in the gutter. No, that's being unfair to drunks.

I think Paul is intoxicated with his cult status. He gives his followers what they want and what they want is sheer lunacy.

"Just come home"?

That's insane. Truly.

Look at ABC's unscientific poll on the winner of the debate.

I'm shocked! Ron Paul ran away with it! The public adores Paul.

He's a real contender to be the nominee.

What a joke!

I would vote for Hillary before I'd cast a vote for Ron Paul.

Thank God it will NEVER come to that. No chance. No way.

60 Minutes: Mitt Romney's Sons

On 60 Minutes this evening, Mike Wallace interviewed Republican presidential nominee wannabe Mitt Romney.

Two observations:

1. It was creepy the way old man 89-year-old Mike Wallace was talking about how physically attractive Romney's wife Ann is.

2. It bugged me when Wallace grilled Romney's five sons about their lack of military service.

Interview excerpt--

"Three of you went to Harvard Business School, one to medical school. All married. Nobody seems to have rebelled, gone off the rails. How come?" Wallace asks.

"Where a lot is given a lot is expected. So we have to live up to that standard," Craig Romney tells Wallace.

While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world, their answers vary about putting on a uniform and going to war.

"I feel guilty having not done it," Josh Romney tells Wallace.

"I’ve seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, 'My goodness, I hope I never have to do that,'" Ben Romney says.

"Not one agreed or thought about serving in the military," Wallace remarks.

"There are other sacrifices to make as well. And I hope to be able to make a sacrifice of that caliber at some point in my life," Matt Romney says.

"Did you ever serve in the armed forces?" Wallace asks Mitt Romney.

"I did not," Romney replies.

Why not?

"I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years in a mission," Romney replies.

And because of his high lottery number, he was never drafted to serve in Vietnam, something he says he regrets to this day.

I don't think 60 Minutes should get anywhere near talking about military service and presidential candidates.

The Dan Rather story that relied on fake documents to trash George W. Bush and his National Guard service is still too fresh.

CBS should avoid anything that brings to mind that disgraceful episode.

Furthermore, the U.S. has a volunteer army. Does Wallace know that?

Most 37 to 25-year-old Americans, the age range of Romney's sons, have not served.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a candidate's kids must serve in the military in order for that candidate to be considered eligible for commander-in-chief duties.

Wallace was talking as if the five sons were on the same plane as draft dodgers. His insinuations were typical of the libs' favorite chickenhawk talking point.

Romney's sons shouldn't have to explain why they didn't serve in the military.

While Wallace was on the attack, I'm surprised he didn't badger the five married sons about whether they had premarital sex. Maybe he did and editors elected not to use it in the segment.

As it was, Wallace asking Romney if he had premarital sex with his wife Ann was way, WAY over the line.

Romney Looks Like a President?

The newest issue of TIME is really strange.

A black and white photo of Mitt Romney is on the cover, accompanied by the words "Sure, he looks like a president."

The cover story introduces the "real" Romney to the country.

Naturally, the article talks about Mormonism. It also details Romney's changing attitudes about issues like abortion. It's sort of a "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?" type of report.

What initially caught my attention was the cover shot of Romney.

He may look like a president, but he doesn't look like himself.

It's a really bizarre picture.



Maybe I haven't seen enough of him to recognize his different expressions. I don't know, but it's a very odd photo.

At first I thought Ward Cleaver was on the cover.

The lib media must have agreed to make this Romney week. In addition to the TIME story, Romney will be interviewed by 89-year-old Mike Wallace will this Sunday on 60 Minutes.

Romney is 60, hardly a spring chick, but he looks like a baby compared to Wallace. He is a baby compared to Wallace.

Wallace poses some creepy questions.

He delves into polygamy and Romney's sexual habits and history. Romney must be getting so tired of the Mormon question.

Wallace also gives Romney the opportunity to slam President Bush on Iraq.

Romney seizes it.

In what may be his strongest public statements against the Bush administration, presidential candidate Mitt Romney says his fellow Republicans in the Bush White House made mistakes in Iraq that the country is still paying for.

Romney also deplores the polygamy his ancestors practiced in the 19th Century....

"I think the administration made a number of errors," he tells Wallace. "I don't think we were adequately prepared for what occurred. I don't think we did enough planning. I don't think we considered the various downsides and risks," says Romney.

He says President Bush isn't the only one to blame. "He's the person where the buck stops, but it goes through the secretary of defense and the planning agencies, the Department of State — it's the whole administration," Romney says. "They made mistakes … and we're paying for those mistakes."

The president's "surge" policy of putting additional troops into Iraq may never work, says Romney, but it deserves a chance. "We're going to know in a matter of months if it's working or not working."

Romney acknowledges that voters may have a problem with his religion's history of polygamy.

"That's part of the history of the church's past that I understand is troubling to people," he says.

..."I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert and so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't image anything more awful than polygamy," he tells Wallace.

Bush = Bad

Polygamy = Bad

Got it.

This is the killler:

Romney's wife, Ann, who converted to the Mormon Church before they were married, is also interviewed. When asked whether they broke the strict church rule against premarital sex, Romney says, "No, I'm sorry, we do not get into those things," but still managed to blurt out "The answer is no," before ending that line of questioning.

What kind of question is that???

Would Wallace ask that of Hillary Clinton and spouse?

How about Barack Obama?

When Lesley Stahl interviewed Obama and wife Michelle, the subject of premarital sex didn't come up.

What an inappropriate line of questioning!

The real question: Why does Wallace keep coming out of retirement?

He's as bad as Barbra Streisand.