Campaigning Faux Pas

Sorry I missed this photo when the Twit was still campaigning.

Maru calls it "one of the greatest campaign pics evar." If he'd had Larry Craig on his advisory team, he'd have never made this mistake.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

There Goes the Twit

One less Republican in the race that as long ago as, oh, last week, they were saying was going to be impossible to narrow down.

I guess Chuckles is still running. Ron Paul hanging in there. I've quit paying much attention.

Oh, and, Hillary has made a personal loan to her campaign of $5 million. A loan. Pretty shrewd, in case she doesn't win, she won't be out any personal cash.
....but hey, you do what you want....you will anyway.

The Twit Takes the Gambling State

Mitt Romney won the Nevada Republican caucus Saturday — hardly a surprise because virtually no other GOP candidates competed there.

  McClatchy

Hey, you take ‘em any way you get ‘em. Besides, he just won Michigan (and Wyoming!), so let’s not be so stingy. Considering the results, the headlines should be Romney sweeps Nevada, or something like that.

In early returns, Romney had 46 percent of the vote. Arizona Sen. John McCain was second at 15 percent, followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul, the only other Republican to make a major effort here, on McCain's heels at 14 percent.

It probably means nothing that Nevada has the fourth highest Mormon population in the country. They were only 20% of the caucus voters.

Let's give the Twit his propers.

Democratic Strategy

Remember the Kos post urging Democrats in Michigan to cast their primary vote for Twit Romney so that he'd be the man to beat? Well, some of Obama's folks are apparently urging a similar move, only they're asking Republicans to vote for Obama in Nevada in order to squelch Hillary. It's so crazy....

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

New Hampshire Results

It's hard for me to remember an election where the trend of polling and the final poll results so failed to predict the actual vote. Certainly, there's no example I can remember of it happening in such a high profile contest.

  TPM

Has he forgotten the exit polls of the presidential election of 2004 so soon?

Jon Krosnick, in an ABC article, says Clinton beat Obama because her name was at the top of the ballot, and if it hadn’t been, Obama might have won. “Who are you voting for, sir?” “I don’t know. It’s too hard to choose. I’ll just pick whoever’s at the top of the list.” Right.

On another note: Romney cracks me up. He’s the ultimate politician. And sailor, perhaps. Which way is the wind blowing? Tack. After the press picked up the drumbeat from the Democratic swell in Iowa (Change, Change, Change, Change), Romney starts throwing the word into his speeches. Suddenly, he’s the guy all about change. What meme can we start next to further test his agility?

Addendum: If I were a "conspiracy theorist", I can see that the Clinton win with the Obama-skewed polls could be a larger plot to put the Clintons back in the WH. Political campaigns have to be shrewd, you know. Rigged voting and phony presentations like creating a cowboy out of George Bush, phony ranch and all. Hillary's teary-eyed speech could have been coached. The whole thing could have been set up to let Obama win big and then make Hillary look like a real "come-back kid". Get people all excited. The Clinton camp doing the same thing the Romney camp does, only doing it at a much better level - a pro versus an amateur.

Well. It could be.

Update 1/10/08: The Daily Howler reports that the polls were also very wrong in 2000...in New Hampshire! We have such short memories.

Update 1/11/08: More machinery funny business?

Further Update 1/11/08: Iron my shirt.

Mitt Romney: Tough on Immigration

Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney, seeking to protect his narrowing lead and fend off challenges from rivals in this early-voting state, assailed Mike Huckabee and Rudy Giuliani over supporting tuition breaks and broader sanctuary for illegal immigrants or their children.

  MSNBC

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.

  Fox News

The Twit wouldn't even be in this country if somebody had been tough on immigration in 1912.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man's reasoning powers are not above the monkey's. --Mark Twain

Twit Romney

The man is hopeless.

"Should God speak to you, and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as president […] how would you handle that?" reporter Natalie Jacobsen asks.

Romney laughs and then replies, "Well, I don't recall God speaking to me. I, I don't recall God speaking to anyone since, uh, Moses and the [burning] bush, or perhaps some others, but, but I don't have that frequent of communication."

  Salt Lake Tribune

As Joseph Smith, to whom God purportedly offered the new Mormon religion, spins in his grave.

I wonder if the current leader of the church, to whom God also purportedly speaks, will take away the Twit’s membership.

The Concord Monitor lays out some more problems with Twit's stability and asks its readers not to vote for him.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Fictitious Political History

Twit Romney claims he saw his father marching with Martin Luther King. The problem is, he didn't. And the march he's talking about may itself be fictitious.

His campaign staff now say he was "speaking figuratively." Yeah. I can say anything and then claim I was speaking figuratively.

But then why should we hold fabrication against the Twit when it's just the way things are done these days?

When future generations look back on the record of this campaign, they won't have any idea that anyone other than Hillary, Barack and John Edwards were running for the Democratic nomination. The Republican runners are still up in the air. Depends on who the media decide to cover, but certainly Ron Paul won't be noticed.

An NPR report this morning talked about the "sudden" change in standing for the "frontrunners" (Huckabee up, Romney & Giuliani down; Clinton and Obama down, Edwards "maybe" picking up). The reporter suggested that it must be that voters are just now beginning to pay attention. My suggestion is that news sources haven't yet really paid attention to voters. They're just scoping out each other's reports.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Update: It gets better. Twit says he was using the word "saw" figuratively. (Biblical, if you ask me.) He also tries shifting the blame, saying that he remembers his father telling them that he marched with King.

And in '78 he told the Boston Globe that he and his father marched with Dr. King through the streets of Detroit. Figuratively, I suppose.

Update 12/22/07: Can I get a witness? Did Twit's father march with MLK or not?

Romney Attempts to Channel JFK

"And you're no John Kennedy."

It finally became necessary for Twit Romney to address the issue of his religious faith, since a huge block of voters in the country are Christian Taliban. How'd he do?

[Romney] seems to have decided his only hope of winning is to appeal to the religious conservatives - the very people who will reject him out of religious prejudice. But you can't pander to religious beliefs without triggering faith-based prejudices; and then, when it does occur, to cry "foul" seems a bit insincere. The forces of religious prejudice that Romney is up against can only be tamed with the tolerant secularism he fails to understand, but so clearly despises.

[...]

I have wondered, can it be considered political courage to proclaim your faith in God and your loathing of secularism (and Europeans) to a conservative religious audience?

[...]

It certainly is not a good thing for our democracy when Romney says that religious tests are unfair, but then, by confessing his faith and saying such religious belief is essential to our political well-being, merely creates another type of religious test. We need men and women of integrity and constancy, not those of expediency and inconsistency. We need men and women who will educate public thought, not just pander to public opinion.

Can I get an ‘Amen!’?

That is the opinion of Jeffrey S. Nielsen in the Salt Lake Tribune. Let me expand.

From Romney’s speech:

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.”

Jeffrey Nielsen:

The great benefit of secularism is that it has left room for religious practice in our private lives while protecting it from the intolerance of religious fundamentalism - something that hasn't occurred in governments where secularism is despised. So, for someone to praise religious toleration while condemning secularism is to be simply ignorant of our history, and foolish about the possibilities of our future, if religion and government are not kept separate.

[...]

The best defense of pure religion is a healthy secularism, where religious faith is a private and protected matter. In fact, Romney's Mormonism is more respected among secularists than among conservative evangelicals. His faith would be suppressed in a government controlled by religious conservatism, while it has been allowed to flourish with a secular government.

Romney speech:

“Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of god, not an indulgence of government."

That is such an obvious load, it needs little comment. God isn’t holding the keys to Guantanamo or any of the secret and political prisons around the world. They are in the hands of governments. Liberty is demonstratedly a very real indulgence of government.

“We should acknowledge the Creator as did the founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

[...]

“The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.”

Although Romney does not specifically say that those phrases were handed down from the founders, by referring to them directly after a sentence claiming they were opposed to eliminating religion “from the public square”, he implies it. So let’s just have a look at that “under God” and “in God we trust” business.

A history lesson on the Pledge of Allegiance:

The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the popular kid's magazine Youth's Companion by Christian Socialist author and Baptist minister Francis Bellamy on September 7, 1892. The owners of Youth's Companion were selling flags to schools, and approached Bellamy to write the Pledge for their advertising campaign. It was marketed as a way to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus arriving in the Americas and was first published on the following day.

Bellamy's original Pledge read as follows: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, and was seen by some as a call for national unity and wholeness after the divisive Civil War. The pledge was supposed to be quick and to the point. Bellamy designed it to be stated in 15 seconds. He had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided they were too controversial since many people still opposed equal rights for women and blacks.

The U.S. Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28, 1945.

The Knights of Columbus in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.

[...]

Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, "The introduction of this joint resolution [to add the words “under God” to the pledge] was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954).

The pledge originated as a marketing gimmick. How very American. And 1954 is a long way from the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

A history lesson on the motto on our coins:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861.

[...]

[An] Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States.

[...]

IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

1864 is not 1776.

Back to Twit.

"I think a person who's running for president or who's going to be president is someone who wants to, particularly in times of great need, to call on the prayers of all the people of America and not define him or herself as based upon a particular branch of faith.

[...]

" A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”

Oh, really?

[W]hen Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently addressed a group of a prominent local conservatives at a Las Vegas fundraiser, [local Republican George Harris] lobbed the first question: “If you are elected President,” he asked, “will you include any Muslim members in your cabinet?”

In the seconds before former Massachusetts Governor Romney responded, you could have heard a pin drop.

His (admittedly, very smooth) answer in a nutshell? “Not likely.”

  Liberty Watch

[Irma Aguirre, a former finance director of the Nevada Republican Party] says that she was at [a private fundraising luncheon at Lawry's restaurant in Las Vegas when Harris] asked Romney the relevant question. She described the exchange this way:

"His question was something to the effect of, `Considering the problems that we have with the Jihadist movement and the problems we have with the Middle East, would you consider having a Muslim as an adviser that can guide you as to what kind of decisions to make with regards to the Middle East?'"

"He said, `Probably not.'"

Aguirre added that what Romney said next surprised her. "He said something to the effect of, `They're radicals. There's no talking to them. There's no negotiating with them.' I can't remember the exact words he used, but that was the explanation. We left thinking, `Wow, what a racist comment. He automatically assumed that all Muslims are radical.'"

  TPM

Back to Twit:

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion.

[...]

"I really think JFK did give the definitive speech," Romney told the man. "I think he said what needed to be said. I don’t think anything needs to be added."

That candidate from Massachusetts 50 years ago, JFK, put it this way:

I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end — where all men and all churches are treated as equal — where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice — where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind — and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

[...]

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote — where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference — and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

[...]

This is the kind of America I believe in — and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

Now, here’s my question: If Romney is elected president (on which day, Satan will be ice-skating to work), will I be sent to the pokey?

I only ask because of this excerpt from his speech:

"Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

[...]

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. " [Emphasis mine]

  TPM

On second thought, the second part of that sentence is an obvious give-away that the Twit is just pulling stuff out of his ass.

I'm not sure to just whom he thought this would appeal. Invoking JFK wouldn't be likely to draw Republican voters. Being a Mormon will forever lose him the Evangelicals, no matter what he might say. Is it the fed-up Democrats he might be looking to hook?

I’ll get to Huckabee’s new prominence as soon as I can stomach more religiosity.

War and Torture

John McCain, a Vietnam war prisoner, argued Friday that his top rivals for the GOP nomination aren't qualified to deal with issues like torture — or to be president in wartime — because they never served in the military.

[...]

"There's a clear division between those who have a military background and experience in these issues and people like Giuliani, Romney and Thompson who don't — who chose to do other things when this nation was fighting its wars," McCain told reporters after touring a shipyard and taking questions from workers wearing hard hats and blue jeans.

  Yahoo

I wonder if nobody asked whether he might extrapolate to the current administration.

Frankly, there’s not necessarily a correlation between abilities necessary to be president and abilities necessary to be a soldier. What he should be promoting is his difference from those other three by virtue of his clear claim that waterboarding constitutes torture and is illegal. Giuliani thinks it “should not be used in every circumstance,” but that in “extraordinary circumstances, the president needs all options available,” which sounds to me like waterboarding would be only the beginning of his torture tactic arsenal.

And, speaking of torture, Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein are going to vote for Michael Gonzo v.2 Mukasey because they say he’s the best candidate they’re going to get offered to them. How do they know that? Diane Feinstein says Mukasey’s no Alberto Gonzales, but I’m guessing she didn’t think Alberto Gonzales was Alberto Gonzales when he was offered up, either. Boy those Democrats really shook things up when they took control of Congress, didn't they?

And who do you think said this…

Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.

If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.

  TPM

That would be John Dean, former Nixon White House crook. I’m not sure how many thinking Americans there are left, but I’m pretty sure they’ve already had their spines thoroughly chilled by the acts of the Senate Democrats. This latest is only what's become expected of them, chilling as it is.

It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress. --Mark Twain

Twit Romney on the Slime Trail

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."

  Fox

”Slip of the tongue” my ass. He did it on purpose, and quite obviously (whether he intended to be obvious or not). He started out to correctly say Osama.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Values Voter Summit

That’s right, you’re not a “values” voter. Only they have values.

“I am pro-family on every level, from personal to political,” [Mitt Romney] told the summiteers. (Take that, Rudy.) He reeled off anti-abortion pledges — not just the requisite anti-Roe Supreme Court nominees, but promises to “oppose abortion in military clinics, oppose funding abortion in international aid programs and I will work to ban embryonic cloning.” He was almost as impassioned as he was during his Senate race against Ted Kennedy when he talked about the “dear, close family relative who was very close to me” who died from an illegal abortion and his firm conviction that “we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.”

  NYT

I’m not getting it. He’s against abortion, and somehow he uses the fact that a close relative (family relative – in case you were wondering exactly what type of relative) died from an illegal abortion to support that position? I thought that was an argument for legalizing abortion. Is it just that he’s against abortion in those two situations: military clinics and international aid programs?

The activists and evangelical voters appeared to tolerate Fred Thompson's speech this morning, offering polite applause for his pledges to oppose abortion and gay marriage. And then Thompson offered this promise: that in the first hour as president, he would "go into the Oval Office, close the door and pray for the wisdom to do the right thing."

The crowd leapt to their feet, applauding and yelling their approval to a smiling Thompson, who -- it seems -- had finally pushed the right button.

  WaPo

Scary.

"I would go into the Oval Office, and close the door, and pray for the wisdom to know what was right."

  Raw Story

Thus, fulfilling Jesus’ command to not be like the hypocrites who pray publicly - but rather to go into a closed room to pray, and yet letting you know what he’s going to be doing in there. Hypocrite Lite.

John McCain was there, with no hope of pleasing this group of folks with his support of stem cell research and after having in the past called the late Rev. Jerry Falwell and their beloved Pat Robertson, “agents of intolerance.” But I myself have faith, and I’m sure John will say something Christiany to pimp himself to the Religious Right on his way to losing the party nomination.

Senator John McCain choked up when talking about a North Vietnamese prison guard who loosened his bonds and later drew a cross on the ground in front of him on Christmas Day.

[...]

“And then, shortly after, with his sandal, he rubbed out the cross and walked away,” he said, choking up with emotion at this point. “He’s the one person I have always wanted to have the opportunity to be with again.”

  The Caucus

Bingo.

And apparently Rudy “9/11” Giuliani was proud to be there along with the rest, even though he’s been married about three times and supports gay rights and abortion. This is a man who was afraid to participate in the Black Voters debate. There’s a major point in there somewhere.

And finally, a couple of notes of dischord in presentation by the summit planners:

Arizona Sen. John McCain came on to “The Marine’s Hymn.” McCain was in the Navy, not the Marines. Different song.

Next was Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. Selected for him was Wilbert Harrison’s “Kansas City,” which - after his speech about family values - allowed Brownback to leave the stage to this lyric: “They got some crazy little women there and I’m going to get me one.”

  Statesman

D’oh!

The “Values Voters” are supposed to announce the winner of their straw poll today. And Twit Romney, with a snowball’s chance in Hell – even behind Giuliani – for getting the support of the Evangelicals, is trying to stack the deck.

"Everyone has a flaw. I guess it's going to be what's considered the least liability," said Victoria Cobb, who runs the Family Foundation in Virginia.

  WaPo

Isn’t it always. Isn’t it always.

2008

More fun with fools.

Mitt Romney [called] upon the United States to withdraw from a United Nations council that the United States isn't a part of to begin with.

[…]

"We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council."

There's one problem: The United States already boycotts the Human Rights Council, and has not sought a seat on it. This caused an aide to clarify the remarks by saying what Romney really meant is that the U.S. should stop any possible financial support for the council.

  TPM

Yeah. Sure. "We should withdraw from the United Nations Human Rights Council,” seems pretty clear to me.

Romney also said he would support an alternative to the United Nations, an all-new "coalition of the free nations of the world and bring those nations together so that we can act together."

"We should develop some of our own — if you will — forums and alliances or groups that have the ability to actually watch out for the world and do what's right […]”

That’s really quite funny in at least a couple of ways: in comparison to the Coalition of the Willing we put together for the Iraq invasion, and to a schoolyard crybaby who goes off to start his own club when the collective doesn’t want to accept his dominion. Twit should take his act on tour. His boys already know how to drive a bus.

In fact, I believe it was largely due to the Abu Ghraib horror that the U.S. in effect took its toys and went home. Speculation was that it was a pretty sure bet the U.S. would not win a seat on the Council, and so refused to take part.

The United Nations General Assembly established the Human Rights Council on 15 March 2006. by a vote which was opposed only by United States, Marshall Islands and Palau (bound to the United States through Compacts of Free Association), and Israel. The United States explained its vote was due to there being not enough safeguards to keep human rights abusing nations off the council.

  Wikipedia

Very funny.

So anyway, I guess Twit's group of countries who would "watch out for the world" would be the U.S., the Marshall Islands and Palau.

Too funny for words.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

2008

Republican Sam Brownback will drop out of the 2008 presidential campaign on Friday, people close to the Kansas senator said Thursday.

Trouble raising money was a main reason for his decision, said one person close to Brownback, who requested anonymity because the candidate had not yet announced his plans.

  Politico

That’s a pretty important reaon, to be sure. Maybe he should go for a name change, if he wants to run again in the future. Whitefront. Or maybe Redneck.

Fox asked [Ron] Paul about a study showing he is the candidate with the most support from members of the US military, even though he is calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "We take the traditional position that you should only go to war under a declaration and win and get out," Paul explained. "It's protecting the troops ... and the fact that we get the money from the military more than all the other Republicans put together is a pretty darn good endorsement."

  Raw Story

Maybe Fox has the wrong approach to the question. Maybe Paul is the candidate with the most support from members of the US military, because he is calling for immediate withdrawal.

The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.

  Huffington Post

That should alert you to two things: Hillary is considered by the defense industry to be the likely next president, and they are expecting she will act favorably toward them. And at least the latter expectation is a safe bet.

At a breakfast with political reporters, [Mark Penn, the pollster and senior strategist of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign] said his internal polling shows Clinton would win over some 24 percent of Republican women in the 2008 general election because of the “emotional” appeal of electing the country’s first woman president.

  Atlanta Journal

Sure, because women can only vote on an emotional basis. That comes from Hillary’s own campaign strategist. He doesn’t think she’s got a good enough platform to win over Republican women, but the emotion thing scores points.

Mitt Romney wants you to look at him and think: strong leader, successful businessman, good father, faithful husband.

He does not want you to look at him and think: Mormon.

  Politico

Why?

Gallup polls found 37 percent of churchgoing Protestants saying they would not vote for a qualified Mormon candidate for president. Churchgoing Protestants did not show similar opposition to voting for either a Catholic or a Jewish presidential candidate.

[...]

Also, a recent Newsweek poll found that 28 percent of Americans would not vote for a Mormon for president.

I have a very sinking feeling that if Romney were Protestant, they wouldn’t object to voting for him.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Undisclosed

Last Friday Vice President Cheney addressed the super-secretive conservative movement group, Council for National Policy, in Salt Lake City, as did the editor of the Deseret Morning News, a former lobbyist and Republican state chairman who "promised council leaders he would not write about what was discussed."

Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus also spoke to the group, after the Prague Post reported that his anti-environmentalist campaign is being funded by the right-wing think tank in the U.S., the Heartland Institute. Klaus is among those cited in a comprehensive report about "Alternative Views on Climate Change.'

  Cursor [with more links embedded]

Vice President Dick Cheney and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addressed some of the most influential leaders of the conservative movement Friday in Salt Lake City, but their speeches, like the group itself, remain cloaked in secrecy.

The Council for National Policy is a shadowy group comprising leaders in the family values, national defense and ''decency'' movements, dubbed "Sith Lords of the Ultra-Right" by the liberal blog DailyKos.

Members are told not to discuss the group, reveal the topics discussed in the closed-door meetings, or even say whether or not they are members of the organization.

[...]

In the hallways, the talk was of presidential politics, efforts to combat pornography, preserve religious freedoms and fight Islamic extremism.

[...]

Phil Burress, president of Citizens for Community Values and a leading anti-pornography activist, said he still questions why, as a board member for the Marriott hotel chain, Romney didn't campaign to have pornographic movies removed from the hotel rooms.

  Salt Lake Tribune

Yeah, why not?

Utah Democratic Party Chairman Wayne Holland said that the Council for National Policy meeting gives Utahns "a rare opportunity to see - or more accurately not see - what Republicans are all about. And that is how policy is influenced in this country by what amounts to a secret society of far-right-wing conservatives and religious extremists."

Members of the group say they are not a shadowy cabal but concerned Americans engaging in frank policy discussions, made possible by the secrecy.

A confidential copy of the agenda, obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune, showed topics for presentations covering a range of conservative causes, including anti-union presentations, the future of the anti-abortion movement and trends in international terrorism.

The Council for National Policy (CNP), is an umbrella organization and networking group for conservative activists in the United States. The New York Times has described it as a "little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country," who meet three times yearly behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference.[1] It was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about turning the country to the right.[2]

  Wikipedia

Barry W. Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told the New York Times about the CNP meeting ahead of the 2004 Republican National Convention, "The real crux of this is that these are the genuine leaders of the Republican Party, but they certainly aren't going to be visible on television next week."

  SourceWatch

There Goes Another One

A top Utah fund-raiser for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign - who has links to an organization facing a civil lawsuit alleging child abuse - is no longer part of Romney's state finance team.

Robert Lichfield of La Verkin, who founded the umbrella group called the Worldwide Association of Specialty Schools, brought in some $300,000 earlier this year for Romney during a single Utah event and has donated tens of thousands to the former Massachusetts governor and other Republicans in recent years.

Lichfield is named in a federal lawsuit charging that students of the "behavior modification" schools with ties to WWASPS were subjected to "physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse." The suit had 140 defendants at last count.

[...]

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Utah, alleges brazen acts of child abuse, including that students of the various programs had been forced to eat their own vomit, clean toilets with a toothbrush and brush their teeth afterward, were chained or locked in dog cages, kicked, beaten, thrown and slammed to the ground and forced into sexual acts.

  Salt Lake Tribune

He wasn't just a fund-raiser. He was co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee. If Lichfield is convicted, do you suppose Twit will give all that money to charity? (Maybe as reparations to the abused students?) Or will he take Pat Kennedy's stance on Hsu: Hey, the donated money isn't illegal; I'm keeping it.

Twit's been losing some real losers since he started campaigning for President. Jay Garrity, aide and director of operations, was busted for impersonating a cop. Larry I-AM-NOT-GAY Craig was a co-chairman for Twit's campaign. And now Lichfield. What are the odds that so many would be on one politician's team to begin with? John McCain may hold the record for losing campaign staff, but not because they were caught in some illegal activity.

....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.

Larry Craig Resigns

Not from his Senate seat, but as co-chairman for Twit Romney's presidential campaign.

Either the current GOP presidential hopefuls are having a rash of bad luck, or there just aren't that many non-sexually hypocritical GOP members to choose from.

In the latest on the story, Craig is still denying that he's gay. Of course, he's married with grown children, so he's probably bi-sexual and therefore, denying that he's gay would be a technical truth.

But this isn't the first time the question has come up.

Since this story has been simmering for a while before breaking, do you suppose it has anything to do with the timing of Gonzo's resignation...taking the opportunity when something else will occupy the headlines? Craig and Vick together give pretty good cover, considering the way our media focuses.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

2008

Twit Romney says his five sons are seving their country by helping him to get elected president, rather than serving in the military.

To which Greg Sargent says:

America thanks you, sons of Romney, for your brave and noble sacrifice on behalf of this great nation.

Update: Romney responds: "the quote was taken out of context."

2008

W3IAI summarizes the GOP Iowa debates for us.

Several candidates meant to say that you needed security before you could have proper democracy, but wound up actually saying that you can have democracy without voting.

And TPM spotlights a Ron Paul moment (with a Twit Romney comedy bit to boot).

2008

CNN is rescheduling the GOP YouTube 'debate' to accommodate Rudy and Twit's 'other engagements'. Can't wait to see why they won't be able to appear now.