Political Animal

Blog

September 13, 2012 9:29 AM The Endless Whine

By Ed Kilgore

I fired up the iMac this morning looking for overnight events in the Middle East, maybe some speculation about the Fed’s decision on “quantitative easing” later today, maybe a poll or two. I found some of that, but an overwhelming percentage of material I saw on my usual aggregators was a powerful wave of whining by conservatives about the vicious treatment of poor Mitt Romney by the vicious, hateful, Obama-loving media that’s clearly trying to steal the election once again despite the obvious desire of the American people for new leadership.

A quick sample from John Podhoretz:

It’s fine to criticize Romney’s views; that’s how a debate of substance takes place. It’s also fine to question the timing of his statement (though that’s a question of strategy and tactics, not substance).
This was something different. This was an effort — not entirely conscious — to make it illegitimate for Romney to criticize the president’s foreign policy at a moment when foreign policy has suddenly taken center stage.
But that’s exactly when such a debate should take place — because it’s when the public will actually pay attention.
That is not what The Most High want — a debate. What they want is for Obama to be re-elected. And they’ll use the tools at their disposal to achieve their aim.

And another from Phillip Klein:

When Romney gave a press conference Wednesday, the questions focused on whether it was appropriate for him to criticize Obama at the time he did. Romney’s responses didn’t really matter, because reporters had already decided their narrative. Obama did not take any questions in his own press conference moments later.
In 2004, John Kerry routinely attacked President Bush’s handling of Iraq when things weren’t going well in the country. And the media dutifully reported on Bush’s foreign policy blunders in Iraq. But now, instead of scrutinizing Obama’s handling of a foreign policy crisis, the media has decided that the real story in Egypt and Libya is a Mitt Romney gaffe.

Rarely have I heard so very, very many—a whole mob of them in fact—lonely voices crying in the wilderness against the awful, repressive power of the “liberal media.”

I’ve never completely understood the persecution complex of American conservative gabbers. They are, after all, aligned with the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. They have their own large and very well-funded “shadow media” and public relations complex, even as the hated MSM constantly seeks to buy off criticism by conspicuously hiring conservative “voices.” They totally dominate one entire medium, radio, and dominate all media in many parts of the country. I get the distinct impression that conservative media types have a lot easier time supporting themselves than folks on the left.

But to hear them, they are perpetually shunned and persecuted for their brave and selfless advocacy of the status quo and the status quo ante. And their candidate, poor Mitt Romney, who not only has command of the self-same conservative media empire discussed above, but reportedly has in his campaign’s or its immediate allies’ possession more money than they know what to do with, is about to be sacrificed to “the media’s” devious plans for world domination.

I don’t hang around Green Rooms any more chit-chatting with gabbers left or right, so I don’t know whether in quiet, off-record moments, any of these folks guzzling gallons of Whine today are quietly admitting that it’s a damn shame Mitt and his people didn’t shut up for a few more hours until events in the Middle East sorted themselves out a bit. Maybe they will soon just shrug the whole thing off and move on instead of all this self-pitying talk about not being able to make their views known when they are making them known with deadening repetition. One can only hope so.

Ed Kilgore is a contributing writer to the Washington Monthly. He is managing editor for The Democratic Strategist and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Find him on Twitter: @ed_kilgore.

Comments

  • stevio on September 13, 2012 9:38 AM:

    One more day when Mitt and Co. change the subject from the economy. Brilliant eh?

    Along these lines, Michelle Obama had the best line appropriate to this dork: (paraphrased)

    This campaign will not change Mitt, it will expose him...

  • c u n d gulag on September 13, 2012 9:41 AM:

    I seem to recall people in the MSM being accused of being treasonous traitors for even questioning Dear Leader Bush and Darth Cheney as they marched us falsly into 2 wars and occupations.

    And I remember people losing their jobs in the MSM for even a hint of criticism.

    I also remember Kerry criticising Bush.
    But it wasn't about sudden attacks on embassies - no, it was about his adminstrations handling of the two wars and occupations HE AND HIS MIS-ADMINISTRATION GOT US INTO.

    Again, the Conservatives/Repbublicans are trying to goad the MSM into false equivelincies.
    Sadly, that doesn't take much work - if any.

    They need to admit - Mitt spit the bit.

  • terraformer on September 13, 2012 9:43 AM:

    The reason that they whine when they do is exactly and directly why the "MSM" hires right-leaning nincompoops in a perpetually futile attempt to assuage them.

    They whine because it works. They whine because it has effectively led to whole media conglomerates not already completely on the take to hire said voices. This ensures that: 1) conservatives maintain a clear, unarguably majority of the available number of perch on most any TV show, and 2) that the substance of what they say on those shows - such as it is - remains focused on mundane topics and preferred narratives, instead of on the real issues of the day.

    And it works. Over and over again. Exhibit "one" of the prescient and very effective strategy dreamed up 30 or so years ago to buy up media outlets,create think tanks, and use them to feed talking point pablum to the masses to sow resentment and make them think they are informed.

  • Ronald on September 13, 2012 9:43 AM:

    What is missing is that if Mr. Romney had stopped after his first announcement then I could have bought the Right's arguments.
    However, he went on a smirk-filled, stuttering diatribe that was as messy a word-salad as Ms. Palin herself could have produced.
    The MSM didn't dig this hole- Mr. Romney did this all by his big-boy self.
    And if the Right isn't strong enough to handle a little pressure from the 'big bad media', do they really think that they're going to be able to convince people that they are able to handle real pressure from, say, a pissed off foreign power with nuclear weapons?

  • BillFromPA on September 13, 2012 9:44 AM:

    This time yesterday I was dreading what the day would bring. As ghastly as the murder of several American diplomats are, in this election season I'm ashamed to say that my first thought was, 'The repugs are going to make huge political hay out of this, Romney and Obama will be tied by the weekend.' We didn't know the timeline and Romney's blunt attack that evening seemed, at the moment, to possibly be devastating.
    How wrong I was. On the 'Ed Show' last night, Ezra was interviewing a guest about the bungling of this issue, leading off with , 'The Romney campaign is not run by amateurs......'
    Really? They have effed up literally every possibly opportunity handed to them and created numerous Foot-in-Mouth moments out of thin air. Who are these clowns, and how can we keep them employeed in GOP politics?

  • Robert on September 13, 2012 9:44 AM:

    Talk about vetting a candidate...Ole Mittens has just vetted himself into oblivion. I hope. There is no more doubt about the fitness of Mitt to be leader of the free world. Just to add a little food for thought here...just think about Paul Ryan being a heart beat away from the Nuke button.

  • stormskies on September 13, 2012 9:47 AM:

    These cretins are nothing more than little children who feel victimized by everything and anything. They are utterly unable to accept the responsibility in their own actions. As a result they always need to find scapegoats for that which they are responsible for.

    Simple witness the spinning red light of the Drudge Report, the true symbol for it all.

    In reality they just need to have their diapers changed on time and that may, may, calm them down some.

  • Ronald on September 13, 2012 9:47 AM:

    @Robert
    Ryan at the button? I'm afraid of Romney at the button. Or should I say, Nordquist at the button, or Adelson at the button, or...

  • Josef K on September 13, 2012 9:48 AM:

    Iíve never completely understood the persecution complex of American conservative gabbers.

    You find the same sort of mental affliction within any powerful and reasonably-secure minority. American Christians of nearly every stripe are another example.

    I suppose its part and parcel of our living in a massively diverse - ethnical, economic, religious, even linquistic - country. Sadly, we don't seem to have sewn together a truly national indentity yet; likely we never will, given the same size and diversity of the country. People still seek out what is familiar to them, and react strongly against what isn't. Add to that how disconnected the Beltway is from the rest of the country and its fertile territory for this kind of idiocy to take root.

    At least that's my take.

  • gregor on September 13, 2012 9:50 AM:

    Did anyone of the press corps laugh when he appealed to his 'principles' so many times? As in 'I donít think we ever hesitate when we see something which is a violation of our principles'. If not, the press seems to be in the tank for him.

    Mitt Romney. Principles. Madoff. Honesty.

  • DAY on September 13, 2012 9:59 AM:

    Teh Media are generally useful stenographers, doing their corporate masters bidding.

    It is only when an especially egregious example of the Emperor parading naked that the report the facts- and the Right grasps their pearls and heads for their fainting couches.

  • Th on September 13, 2012 10:00 AM:

    Monica Crowley said that all the problems started when Obama turned his back on our allies, Mubarak and Qaddafi, and let them be overthrown. I wonder how many other Republicans will admit they think that? Mitt? McCain?

  • c u n d gulag on September 13, 2012 10:01 AM:

    Joseph K,
    If we have any national identity, it's that of "A Melting Pot."

    I've long argued that that's not true.

    We haven't melted together yet. We still have a lot of work to do 'E Pluribus Ununming' everyone, until we all melt together.

    On the flip-side, maintaining your national and religious identity is allowed here.

    So, my analogy is that, instead of being 'a melting pot,' we're more like a person's coin collection, where all of the coins can be used as currency - though, not all like coins are worth the same amount.

  • Tom Dibble on September 13, 2012 10:15 AM:

    "But thatís exactly when such a debate should take place ó because itís when the public will actually pay attention."

    Um, no. This kind of thinking is exactly what leads us to conclude that Mitt Romney is just not fit for the Presidency, nor his advisors fit to advise a man in that office.

    When events are unfolding, when the details are not known, is not the time to take the shaky details you have at the moment (which, again, were completely WRONG) and "debate" their consequences. You debate based on facts, not based on rumors. Period.

    I welcome debate. We should have an open debate about all sorts of things. To claim that Mitt Romney, Mr Liar and Mr "You People Have Seen Enough", welcomes the debate over issues is the height of hypocrisy. Let's debate, Mitt, in a couple days, when the facts are known, and when the consequences of your prep school debate tactics are NOT more lives being lost. In the meantime, you are welcome to open a debate about tax policy, or healthcare policy, or the deficit, or ... well, ANY of those topics the "left" has been trying to debate with you for the past nine months but you refuse to engage on in any level of detail.

  • berttheclock on September 13, 2012 10:19 AM:

    @cundgulag,

    "and if you have'nt a ha'penny, then, God bless you"

    Whomever or whatever that may be.

  • berttheclock on September 13, 2012 10:21 AM:

    The RNC does make Whine before its time.

  • nerd on September 13, 2012 10:28 AM:

    First rule of modern right wing politics: Attack!

    Second rule: never admit fault on your own part.

    Third rule: when attack fails, in other words when your victim refuses to crumble, be the victim of a nefarious enemy.

    Pretty simple.

  • T2 on September 13, 2012 10:29 AM:

    read a story from NYTimes under a headline inferring that both candidates had attacked each other over this Libyagate. 75% of the article was about Romney's various statements on it. At the conclusion of the 75% about Romney the reporter, in a short sentence, mentioned that the time frame of Romney's comments did not happen to match the actual time line of the events...in other words, what he said was NOT REAL.
    The 25% on Obama's "attacking" statements just mention what was actually real, and that Obama said Romney basically jumped the gun and made an untrue statement.
    So the liar got 75% of the press, the truth got 25%. That's why this election is still close, folks.

  • PTate in MN on September 13, 2012 10:31 AM:

    Good post, Kilgore. Your frustration with the Whiners sounds authentic. c u n d gulag: excellent points.

    My son once shrewdly observed that, for conservatives, the problem at Abu Ghraib was not that Americans were torturing prisoners and violating the Geneva Conventions but that someone brought a camera. I think the same thing is happening here. I'll pose this as a multiple choice problem:

    Which of the following do conservatives consider the biggest problem facing the US?

    1) Republicans have adopted a deliberate strategy of undermining American confidence in their institutions of self-government;
    2) Mitt Romney is a shallow, mean-spirited, out-of-touch, immoral asshole who has no idea what he is doing and who is not qualified either in character, values, intellect or by experience to be POTUS;
    3) Republican economic, domestic and foreign policies have been a proven disaster for the US and are deeply unpopular;
    4) the media are starting to notice 1, 2 & 3

    So, yeah, sure, when light starts to shine on your corrupt, seditious practices, one response is to whine. It's not how someone with integrity or courage would respond, of course, but someone with those virtues would never embrace 1, 2 & 3 in the first place.

  • MuddyLee on September 13, 2012 10:35 AM:

    Ari Fleischer - the Bush-Cheney press secretary - basically said it was unpatriotic to criticize or question President Bush about the "war on terror". This is how they (the repubs) want to be treated when they are in power. They didn't want to be questioned. And they got their way in the first Bush-Cheney term - how'd did THAT work out? If they can't stand the heat, why do they want to be in the kitchen? Their candidate, Mitt Romney, whose great grandparents ran off to Mexico to escape the laws in the United States, is like the emperor who wore no clothes. We should point that out - 24/7 - until the election. Obama didn't win in 2008 because of "the media" - he won because he got more votes. We need to make sure the same thing happens in November 2012.

  • c u n d gulag on September 13, 2012 10:44 AM:

    SteveAR,
    Any linkies?

    You can't make accusationies about bullsh*t like the one about the open mic without any linkies.

    'Cause there AIN'T ANY, @$$HOLE!

    Even Rushba the Hutt wasn't able to find any.

    I see that you still troll Liberal sites.
    I haven't seen your moniker around since Steve M. kicked your sorry lying troll ass off No More Mr. Nice Blog.

    Do soldier on.

    Has the rate of pay for troll comments increased, since Mitt's looks like he's heading down the toilet faster than a lead-infused turd?

  • T2 on September 13, 2012 10:52 AM:

    @steveAR - how about a few recent tax returns from Romney? Do you think he's hiding something??

  • danimal on September 13, 2012 10:52 AM:

    The whining is understandable; it's the craven reaction by the media moguls to the whining that is so aggravating.

    And if the right can gripe about foreign affairs while an emergency is still unfolding, can we please point out the absurdity of our gun laws in the aftermath of the next (because it is SURE to happen) mass shooting?

  • Leopold Von Ranke on September 13, 2012 10:57 AM:

    So. SteveAR, Poe's Law? If so, pretty good. In the heat of a political campaign, one does understand the initial assault by the Romney campaign,when it appeared to them that folks in the US embassy in Cairo were placating those who attacked the consulate in Benghazi.

    However, even when the Romney campaign had to have understood that the Cairo statement was issued hours before the murderous attack in Libya in an effort to quell potential violence in Cairo, they let their candidate reiterate an obvious falsehood?

    That's lying.

    And SteveAR, if what you wrote was not an attempt to invoke Poe's Law, then you need to read Carl Von Clausewitz, "Vom Kriege," which makes the essential point that diplomacy is war by other means. For an example, then read Mahan, "The Influence of Sea Power Upon History."

    The embassy's statement was a rational diplomatic response to an immediate and pressing problem that threatened to escalate into physical violence, made a t a time before it did so.

  • danimal on September 13, 2012 10:57 AM:

    C U N D, the media conspiracy tape is easy to find if you look for it. It's somewhere North, South, East or West of Baghdad. Just look in the cabinet, you should find it behind the Whitey tape, behind Bill Ayer's book notes.

  • jjm on September 13, 2012 11:01 AM:

    Romney 'jumped the gun' because he was infuriated by the condemnation of the film implied in the Cairo statement.

    That's what brought him out of his chair in an absolute rage: defense of Christian fanaticism and anti-Islamic propaganda. He was ANGRY that anyone dare to criticize anything Christian. And he did not back down, claiming '1st amendment rights' FOR THIS FILM.

    What we saw yesterday was a religious fanatic pretending to be a moderate. Chilling.

    And no amount of rewriting history, which his campaign tries to do all the time, or any amount of whining about 'media bias' can now veil the fundamental creepiness of the man.

  • SteveAR on September 13, 2012 11:03 AM:

    [troll elsewhere -mod.]

  • c u n d gulag on September 13, 2012 11:10 AM:

    SteveAR,
    I go by the track records of commenters.

    And I've never seen an "opinion" of yours that wasn't a right-wing talking point.

    Not ONE - including the one above.

    So, maybe others will forgive me from from reading anything that comes from you with a very large grain of salt.

    And speaking of "inane," YOU define that term by never having an original idea, or even an original way of expressing the talking points you've digested.

    Go home, troll - you're out of your league - AGAIN!

  • Elie on September 13, 2012 11:16 AM:


    The rightwingers are defensive and feel overtly persecuted because, as all narcissists, they have an overwhelming sense of entitlement to always be correct and above all, listened to. Whatever they believe or hold, on its face to them, is right and proper so any questioning is just not acceptable. Like two year olds, they have no boundary between their selves and the selves of others -- the rights of others. Its all me me me. And no, they NEVER learn anf NEVER change. Like two year olds, you have to take stuff away from them because they will hurt themselves or others .. they are incapable of seeing or respecting others.

    I pray that what little integrity is left in our political system and press prevents this seriously flawed person from being elected. I pray that what little honor and sense of wanting the best for their country -- true patriotism -- still exists enough in the Republican party to back away from their candidate and accept the facts: He is unsuitable for the office of the Presidency. Completely.

  • Steve P on September 13, 2012 11:35 AM:

    The point of John Normansson's whine is not to defend Romney, but to protect his own little line of work: defending our "special" conservatives. Anyone remember Buckley or Goldwater needing protection from verbal challenges?

    And Mitt's going to need a lot of protection. He survived the debates with the Jukes and the Kallikaks, but anyone who saw him with Ted Kennedy knows that damage control is already being planned.

  • FlipYrWhig on September 13, 2012 11:39 AM:

    The way I remember it, John Kerry in 2004 was constantly criticized for trying to make hay of negative developments in Iraq. So even the counter example they're trying to use about the media being unfair to their guy when they were fair to the last guy is a fail.

  • c u n d gulag on September 13, 2012 11:42 AM:

    Anonymous,
    The you ain't been readin' me or this site for long.

    There are plenty of times I have criticized President Obama and the Democrats here on this website - and any number of regulars will vouch for that fact.

    And surely those comments about Obama ignoring warnings can't be any sort of projection for the mother of ignoring ALL warnings - Bush, Cheney, and Rice, leading up to 9/11?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html?_r=1

    Nah, can't be projection.
    Conservatives NEVER do projection!

  • Zinsky on September 13, 2012 11:48 AM:

    What is missing in the Whine is the comprehension by these right-wing slime is that the predicate cause of these uprisings and killings in the Middle East is an idiotic movie made by a shit-for-brains conservative bigot.

  • Leopold Von Ranke on September 13, 2012 11:48 AM:

    Anon.

    Lessee. You are a US diplomat in a foreign country surrounded by a completely irrational and obviously hostile mob, protesting a film of dubious quality that they have never seen but whose local equivalents of Mssrs. Limbaugh and Hannity have told them is an insult to their virtual diety.

    Intelligent response: Attempt to defuse immediate and probably hopeless situation if it escalates situation by saying, "The US had nothing to do with it, we're sorry you're insulted," (or words to that effect)or "Eff you, 'Bring it On!'"

    Your choice. Remember, you're surrounded.

    With regard to Carter's "mishandling" of Iran, as you phrase it, pray tell, what should he have done? Invade?

    While I'm perfectly prepared to agree with you that what happened in Benghazi may well have been a well-planned terroist attack, I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that President Obama was forewarned of a specific attack at a specific place, or any attack, for that matter. Are you, perhaps, clairvoyant?

  • Rip on September 13, 2012 12:29 PM:

    Both the right and left complain when the conventional wisdom of the beltway media doesn't comport with the way they believe an issue should be framed, the difference is that the left usually ascribes it to a lazy corporatist "village" mentality, while the right sees a grand conspiracy to sabotage conservatives.

    The conservative movement has become less about promoting ideas and philosophies than it is about profiting both financially and politically from fear and resentment, and a persecution complex fits into this mentality perfectly.

  • Rabbler on September 13, 2012 12:41 PM:

    @PTate in MN 4) The media are starting to notice

    You can't really believe they just caught on. There is something else in play here.

    2 problems: 1) The Republicans can't or won't tell the truth.
    2) The Democrats can't, won't or are afraid to tell
    it.

  • Judith Martinez on September 13, 2012 1:15 PM:

    Ed, I think I'm in love with you. Just keep Posts like this one coming !

  • majun on September 13, 2012 1:18 PM:

    The whines offered up by Podhoretz and Klein both have some glaring problems.

    Podhoretz writes:

    "This was an effort ó not entirely conscious ó to make it illegitimate for Romney to criticize the presidentís foreign policy at a moment when foreign policy has suddenly taken center stage.

    But thatís exactly when such a debate should take place ó because itís when the public will actually pay attention."

    WRONG! When foreign policy suddenly takes center stage, it is because there is a potential crisis brewing. At that moment it is most important that the world see the President of the United States acting with the support of the entire country and the POTUS should not feel constrained by domestic political considerations in any way. Statements such as those by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are the templates that should be followed (and beleive me, I never considered I would ever say anything approving of either gentleman). And if Romney doesn't understand that, he is only showing just unfit for command he is.

    When events have unfolded and the country is committed to a course of action, then it is appropriate to criticize, but with the clear proviso that the critic supports all US actions, even those that are the product of decisions he disagrees with.

    Klein's problem is that he comes in on the other side of that turning point - and gets it just as wrong.

    "In 2004, John Kerry routinely attacked President Bushís handling of Iraq when things werenít going well in the country. And the media dutifully reported on Bushís foreign policy blunders in Iraq. But now, instead of scrutinizing Obamaís handling of a foreign policy crisis, the media has decided that the real story in Egypt and Libya is a Mitt Romney gaffe."

    A little history is in order here. Kerry voted for the use of force in Iraq in 2002 and the Congressional Record contains some very serious reservations that he had when casting that vote, most involving his insistence that every possible diplomatic solution should have been exhausted before the US would resort to force. Bush fell well short of that standard and Kerry rightly criticized him for it, even while supporting the troops in the field, because we were committed. I seriously doubt that Kerry would have made much of an issue of Iraq were it not for the Bush campaign's strategy of branding Kerry a flip-flopper, with his allegedly changed position on Iraq as exhibit A. In fact, Kerry's position on Iraq was entirely consistent throughout. His statement when he voted for the use of force specifically said that the conditions under which Bush committed the nation to war were not legitimate and that he was only voted for the use of force because there were conditions under which the use of force would be legitimate. The point being, none of the criticisms leveled at Bush, by Kerry, or the press, were made in the midst of exigent circumstances, where such criticisms could be seen as constraining the President's free hand in carrying out foreign policy.

    Big difference. BBBIIIGGG Difference.

  • bluestatedon on September 13, 2012 1:36 PM:

    Wingnuts simply can't make up their mind about the evil libruls. One day liberals are limp-wristed, lily-livered, mollycoddled gay pansies who can't park their bicycles straight or use a hammer, much less stand up to the Soviet Union; the next they're gigantically powerful and endlessly malevolent geniuses who control the entirety of the US media and win elections through fraudulent voting in every district across the country.

  • Oh my on September 13, 2012 2:48 PM:

    Itís also fine to question the timing of his statement (though thatís a question of strategy and tactics, not substance).-John Podhoretz

    Uh, no. Questioning Romney's timing for that now infamous statement falls squarely on "substance". Namely, his character flaw of politicizing a crisis involving American deaths as the event was unfolding, and his poor judgement in rushing out a media release armed with half-assed information.

    But thatís exactly when such a debate should take place ó because itís when the public will actually pay attention. -John Podhoretz

    Seriously, John? Some Christian nutjob's idiotic video causes middle eastern riots to erupt leading to the deaths of 4 Americans abroad, and within hours of it happening, we as a nation should be debating whether or not our President appeased, apologized, or invited via complacency the attacks? That's the debate we should be having? You're a strange petty little man.

  • thebewilderness on September 13, 2012 2:55 PM:

    It has been the oft repeated Republican position that Democrats are sympathetic to terrorists for eleven years.
    Every time they are called on accusing Democrats of treason they respond by claiming that they are being criticized for criticizing and that it is right and good to criticize and anyone who says otherwise is a lefty liberal partisan.
    The corporate media has been complicit in changing the framing from an accusation of treason to criticizing criticism for all of those eleven years.
    I have every expectation that if Obama is reelected the corporate media will joyfully debate just how treasonous Obama is during the impeachment proceedings.

  • Marko on September 13, 2012 3:37 PM:

    +1 for majun @ 1:18 PM
    +1 for Oh my @ 2:48 PM

    These are the same thoughts I had, but didn't have time to write it up as well.

  • TCinLA on September 13, 2012 5:17 PM:

    The Apparatchki" have been told the party line and are now bending themselves into pretzels to obey (lest they find themselves next in line at the Gulag).

    Everyone talks about the way the GOP has become a "parliamentary" party. I marvel at the way they have become a Stalinist party.

  • boatboy_srq on September 14, 2012 9:58 AM:

    @majun on September 13, 2012 1:18 PM

    Aren't these the same blowhards who accused any and every Democrat who expressed reservations about Iraq in 2002-3 of something just short of treason?

    Sauce for the goose, and chickens home to roost.

    Even Captcha agrees: calculate yePollo.

  • Barbara on September 15, 2012 6:03 PM:

    Would the republicans like some cheese with their whine???? I can't even imagine how romney can claim that he should be president based on his business experience...is that the experience of giving up on any moral principles whatever, flip-flopping to the point of absurdity, caving into the tea party's insistence that he pick ryan (the liar) as his running mate, the fact that he stands and smirks as embassy staffers' bodies arrive in the US, the fact that he would surround himself with 27 of 34 bush advisers in his administration and yet treat bush as the pariah he is? If romney had any self respect whatsoever, he would pull out of the race rather than being a rather transparent puppet of the right? I thought bush was a puppet, but romney has him beaten by more than a mile. Does this man(?) have any opinions about anything? He's been a loser at everything he's tried, except for making money with money, which shows you really don't need much skill, just bucks! Perhaps he should go back and don his highway patrol uniform daddy got for him and go back to stopping cars on the highway and "creeping out" his classmates. Or...perhaps he'd be better suited as a bully who runs around cutting a perceived gay boy's hair. Where are those tax returns? What will Adelson, etc., want in return for their misguided financial support? Follow the money if Democrats want to engage in the same ludicrous conspiracies...who is the one obscene, disgusting person who has vowed to spend whatever it takes to get romney nominated (after having given up on newt (yech!), up to $100 million...Adelson! Think trump got the idea that he wasn't wanted at the convention? Just thinking.