As part of my principled Burkean commitment to reading the conservosphere a little more, I’m checking out OTB sometimes. I’m not a big Doug Mataconis fan, but I’ll reply to his criticism of one of our earlier posts:
As far as I’m concerned, Ann Romney was perfectly within her rights to keep control of the conversation with this reporter, and to refuse to be pulled into a situation where she, rather than her husband, becomes the story of the day.
It’s the usual game that conservatives play with the word “rights”. Of course, she was within her rights not to answer. And the reporter was within his rights to ask.
This isn’t testimony before Congress, you don’t have to plead the fifth to avoid answering a question. But when you become a surrogate for a far right political campaign (that’s what Romney’s is, although his own beliefs may be more moderate for all I know), you should expect to be asked questions about that far right political campaign’s platform, especially when the questions are about a woman’s right to choose and your role is to make that campaign more appealing to women.
If they want to ask Michelle Obama about Afghanistan and drones, that’s fair game too.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t give a political speech one day and expect no political questions the next.
Unless you’re being interviewed by Luke Russert or David Gregory.
Spaghetti Lee
and to refuse to be pulled into a situation where she, rather than her husband, becomes the story of the day.
You know, if I recall, the Romney campaign has been promoting Ann as an asset and a reason to vote for Romney. Family members should only get the hands-off treatment if they don’t put themselves into the campaign.
some guy
surrogates are surrogates. full stop.
get over it, you people.
hhex65
They don’t want yr advice, they know how to lose an election all by themselves, thank you very much.
Bobby D
Doug, dear lord no. No engaging with the childish hack Mataconis. Engaging is lending legitimacy. He deserves none. Fuck his right wing toady, water carrying bullshit and the “I’m a libertarian and above it all” horse he rode in on, and fuck his smug, whiny, yankees hat wearing prick visage…with a rusty pitchfork…also too.
Phil Perspective
When did Doug Mataconis turn into Fluffyhead(aka David Gregory) or “The Goatee”(aka Chuck Todd)?
Calouste
But when you become a surrogate for a far right political campaign (that’s what Romney’s is, although his own beliefs may be more moderate for all I know), you should expect to be asked questions about that far right political campaign’s platform, and you will not answer them.
That’s what a far right political campaign does, DougJ. If they would allow a frank and open discussion of their campaign platform, they wouldn’t be far right. Slogans it is, slogans it shall be, and no questioning allowed. They’re authoritarians, questioning the Leader, or in Queen Ann’s case, the Divine Right to Rule, is treason, lese-majesty and blasphemy.
arguingwithsignposts
Is that understatement, or sly snark? Because Mataconis is about the stupidest hire Joyner ever did on that blog. Otherwise, I cosign Bobby D.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
On MSNBC earlier today, they played a clip of Our Blue Eyed Boy’s convention speech, in which he earnestly, oh so earnestly, vows that a Romney administration would never shrink from the hard questions. A bit later, but IIRC without tying the stories together, they talked about this. I hate the whole concept of the “First Lady”, and in general the way our political press talks about wives of candidates– rarely if ever the husbands. But since they’ve decided The Lady Ann is their only surrogate who doesn’t A) turn people off like Sununu or B) want Romney to lose like Jebbie and Christie and Santorum, she’s gonna get these questions. She’s a surrogate, she wags her finger at voters and tells them they’d better wake up and grow up. She’s made this bed as much as her husband or Fernstrom.
? Martin
It’s worse than that.
Two days ago:
Today:
Okay, so you’re asking women who will be there for them, and then when a question related to women shows up, you won’t answer it. But it’ll be about the economy and jobs:
Immediately before:
The issue of a lesbian mother marrying her partner is an economic issue. At least, it’s a decision which has economic consequences – particularly for the child. Economics isn’t just about GDP and the the deficit, economics is also about whether people can afford to feed their families.
If she wants to leave it at platitudes about her husband, then fine, but she’s right there trying to make the policy case to women at a rally for women, and then won’t answer policy details. That’s bullshit.
magurakurin
You are completely correct, and the voters that Rmoney needs to convince would basically all agree. Sure, the drones who are going to vote for Rmoney no matter what will accept this argument about Ann being within her rights not to answer. But the people she and her husband need to convince to change their mind and choose Rmoney over President Obama, won’t accept that answer.
And that’s Rmoney’s big problem. He is still campaigning just to his base. The people who will accept his “the war isn’t important,” “I would have saved GM some other way,” “Ann doesn’t need to answer real questions because it’s her right,” blah blah, the people who accept this will vote for him no matter what. As has been said here before, if Rmoney ripped of the mask on his face ala Mission Impossible and revealed that he was, in fact, Jerry Sandusky, all these people will vote for him anyway.
Fuck Rmoney, were takin’ him out.
Smiling Mortician
@Bobby D: I wholeheartedly approve this message.
I was blissfully unaware of Doug Mataconis, except as a name that occasionally is mentioned here, but when his link showed up in the Ann thread, I clicked on it. What an asshole. He simply cannot let a single comment stand without responding in a petulant, adolescent whine.
Oh, and he’s wrong about absolutely everything.
Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God
Half the country seems to want a King and Queen so badly that they ache for it. To be “subjects”, not citizens.
Can’t understand it. Do their lives suck that badly? Are they that afraid?
aimai
This continued assertion by the Romneys and their advisors that the “election will be about jobs” is pretty bizarre and authoritarian. I mean, I get it-it is pivotal to their strategy. They believe and have always been told that “If the unemployment number is above X” then the incumbent loses. By this logic anybody in Romney’s position will win, regardless of what he says or does. But what happens if “the people” start to want to talk about something else, or the economy, in an existential sense, isnt “what the election is about?” They are completely at a loss to answer any question which doesn’t point towards the election they think they were promised.
You got the same feeling of disconnect and poutrage when the Democrats insisted on talking about the social issues the Republicans had been talking about just three days before. “How dare the Democrats” drag in women’s issues, and the gayz, and all that other stuff when we keep telling you–at least in the prime time speeches–that the “election will be about the economy.”
aimai
rp
Obviously he’s not addressing the substantive policy issues here, so the issue is purely about politics…I.e., perception. And what DM misses is that the question isn’t whether Ann had some nebulous obligation to answer the questions, it’s whether refusing to do so is bad for the campaign. He thinks the issues are irrelevant, but I think many, many voters disagree (maybe even half of the population).
M. Bouffant
@Smiling Mortician: Yeah, & it’s the same answer every time: “She’s not running, he is!”
Matt in HB
This is a public service announcement…with guitars!
Cacti
Birth control is an economic issue.
Unless you belong to Mitt and Ann’s country club, planning the size of your family is a full-stop economic issue.
magurakurin
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God:
They should vote for Loki then. At least he has a cool costume and super powers. Rmoney, not so much.
Ash Can
Exactly. Martin @ #9 is right. Giving her the full benefit of the doubt, I can see exempting her from all but questions on women’s issues. Having said that, the fact is, she has taken explicit ownership of the campaign’s outreach to women. As a consequence, refusing to answer questions on any topics regarding women’s issues constitutes abject failure on her part. She gets no pass for that, and Mataconis can go and chase his tail somewhere else and leave the grownups alone.
trollhattan
“You have the right to remain a worthless leech.”
You do not have the right to redecorate 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Steeplejack
@aimai:
Not only that, I haven’t heard Romney give any substantive answers on his signature jobs issue either! Other than, “Hey, trust me, we’ll create jobs.”
Dennis SGMM
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God:
One of the things of which I am irrationally proud is that back in 1775 one of my direct forebears stood tall at Concord’s North Bridge and delivered a black powder Fuck You to the soldiers of the king. If people have degenerated to the point that they want to be ruled by kings and queens then they deserve every bit of misery that will entail.
Quarks
I really have to wonder how much of Ann Romney’s heart is really into this.
Yes, I know that part of this is that she is married to a Mormon bishop and does not want to contradict him in public which is tricky when it’s not at all clear what his stance is going to be any given day of the week. And part of it is, yes, that she’s a generally privileged, wealthy woman who spends most of her time with other privileged people, and unless she’s spending a lot of time chatting with her maids and whoever grooms her horses, she’s not really in touch with working class Americans. I get that.
But some of her missteps, especially here, are coming across (to me) more as stress and exhaustion. I’ve gotten the distinct impression that she’s agreed to go along with this because she really has no choice, but she doesn’t like campaigning, and although she was willing to deliver a speech written for her, she really, really doesn’t want to start talking about policy issues, since she knows that will get her husband into trouble one way or another, which means, more stress. In more than one picture she’s looked like she’s in physical pain, which given her MS seems likely.
People in pain — and stress will trigger MS symptoms — are far more likely to answer questions like this — no, I’m NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
Which leads back to the whole question of what is wrong with Romney to put his wife through this? Did he think that, like Mrs. Obama eventually did, she would learn how to put a bright face on things no matter what she’s thinking inside?
jp7505a
Didn’t Mittens tell us that Mrs. R was his expert on women’s issues and would be his liason to the ladies? But I guess when you have a ‘to the manner born’ view of life any questions from the serfs is viewed as being uppty.
Cacti
@Quarks:
White Horse Prophecy.
Mitt thinks he’s doing the Lord’s work, and Ann made a promise in her temple rites to obey her husband.
rp
Also, liberals aren’t mad at Ann for refusing to answer, we’re laughing at her political ineptitude.
aimai
@Steeplejack:
Numbers and common sense mean nothing to these people. How Romney can get away with asserting that he will wave a magic wand and produce 12 million jobs is beyond me. The god damned bailout of the Detroit didn’t produce that many jobs and the republicans are still stamping their feet over it. And, of course, according to them government and presidents can’t produce jobs.
But even if you took seriously the notion that Romney has a “secret plan to end unemployment” aren’t we all a bit more sophisticated than the country was under Nixon when he pulled the same shit about ending the war? Does anyone really think that Obama wouldn’t have preferred to delight his base and everyone else in the US by pulling 12 million jobs out of his rear–and if that’s what it took he’d have done it? Why wouldn’t he? If you truly believed that Obama and the Dems will buy any vote they can by any minority/woman/etc… then why wouldn’t they produce a great economy? If it could be done, it already would have been done.
aimai
Dennis SGMM
@Quarks:
Well and thoughtfully put. Romney seems to have a bottomless reservoir of offhand cruelty that is deeply disturbing. It isn’t personal, it’s just the way he rolls.
Tractarian
The interviewer was totally within his rights to ask the questions he did.
Ann Romney was totally within her rights to BS her way out of answering them.
DougJ is totally within his rights in criticizing Ann for dodging the questions.
Doug Mataconis is totally within his rights to point out that it doesn’t really matter what Ann thinks.
I have the right to just sit back and laugh at the non-stop fail parade that is Romney/Ryan 2012.
Smiling Mortician
@Quarks:
Interesting. This isn’t my impression of Michelle Obama. Generally when her mouth is smiling, so are her eyes.
Quarks
@Cacti: Oh, I get that Ann is keeping her promise to her husband. That’s fine. I’m just wondering what’s in his head — there’s other ways to do the Lord’s work that wouldn’t end up stressing his wife. Part of me even wonders if she is subconsciously sabotaging the campaign.
jl
@jp7505a:
” Didn’t Mittens tell us that Mrs. R was his expert on women’s issues ”
Yes, I believe he did. Maybe he did not check with the Mrs. about that.
And I think Mrs. Romney’s deflection was a cop out. I seem to remember Laura Bush, and Bush kids being asked about some social issues and they could say they agreed or deflect in a more stand up manner (have their own opinions type stuff). And I don’t remember Dub getting the vapors over it. May God help us, Dub seems to have been made of better stuff than the Mittster (Ohhhh, God, please help us if Mitt is elected).
So, you roll out the spouse to politick, political questions are fair game, whether it is HRC, Libby, Laura, Michelle, Ann, whoever.
Big baby whiners are what they are.
Smiling Mortician
@Quarks: If she is, she’s in good company (well, plentiful company anyway): the entire RNC seemed an exercise in sabotage.
Steeplejack
@aimai:
Amen. Plus I read that the number of jobs Romney claimed he would create turned out to be the same number that most experts predict will be be generated no matter who is president.
Cacti
@Quarks:
Seriously, google the White Horse Prophecy.
Mitt believes he has a religious destiny to be POTUS.
Ash Can
@Quarks: That’s an excellent point.
@Dennis SGMM:
And so is this.
shoutingattherain
@Ash Can:
This. All day.
Anonymous At Work
I agree with Doug Mataconis on this one. She has every right to refuse to answer questions. However, the reporter has every right to turn a fluff interview hostile and other reporters have every right to ask aloud, “What’s she hiding?” You have the right to try to hide your opinions or your husband’s in this case but not to both hide them and avoid scrutiny for hiding them.
Ash Can
@Quarks: In addition, I just happened to spot this comment on another thread from earlier. To summarize, this commenter, Dogwood, says that s/he saw Ann Romney speak live in 2007 on a panel of political wives that included Michelle Obama, and that A. Romney acquitted herself quite well, and that along with Michelle O. she did a very good job of expressing the frustrations of having a husband who was on the road campaigning. Dogwood’s comment does much to support your theory.
Catsy
This is willfully mendacious bullshit. Mataconis understands the English language and knows full well that the reporter wasn’t trying to make her the story, he was trying to get a straight answer about her husband’s position on several important issues. She kept trying to dodge the questions by pivoting to vague bromides about jobs.
Mataconis is a useless hack and that quote is a perfect, black and white example of why.
tomvox1
Mataconis sure got his ass kicked in the comments. And it can’t be nutpicking when it’s your fucking site. LOL.
Mandalay
The reporter asked Ann Romney “Do YOU believe a lesbian mother should be allowed to marry her partner?”. That was poor phrasing, and she should have replied that the election was not about her personal opinions. That would be a perfectly reasonable response, regardless of whether she is speaking on women’s issues on behalf of the Romney campaign.
A better journalist would have asked her “Since you are speaking on women’s issues on behalf of the Romney campaign, what is the campaign’s position on a lesbian mother being able to marry her partner?”.
Then she would be cornered. If she refuses to answer she is being evasive, and escalating the issue. And if she says she doesn’t know the campaign’s position then she is exposed as a fraud. And if she honestly states the campaign position (i.e. “No chance in hell of Mitt allowing lesbians to marry”) the press will pounce.
I am all for gotcha journalism, but this journalist blew it.
Omnes Omnibus
Of course she is within her rights to refuse to answer questions when she a surrogate for her husband. of course everyone else is within his or her rights to judge her and her husband based on that refusal.
Also too, the Clash.
Um, where are the html buttons for Firefox?
danimal
@Matt in HB: You have the right to free speech…as long as you aren’t dumb enough to actually try it…
Excellent advice from DougJ for Queen Ann.
cckids
@Cacti:
This. I’ve read that the biggest economic “mistake” you can make is to have an unplanned child. Sounds cold, but truly, if you reduce it only to dollars & cents, that is pretty true.
Mandalay
@DougJ
Why? Gotcha journalism is great for skewering the ignorance and hypocrisy of the powerful. But the only possible intention of the question you proposed asking Michelle Obama is sensation journalism. Her opinion on drones is no more relevant than yours or mine. By all means ask her about the White House garden, or meals in schools, or any other causes she has taken up.
Asking Ann Romney about lesbian mothers is legitimate because she is the Romney campaign’s spokesperson. Asking Michelle Obama about Afghanistan and drones will become legitimate once she is formally given a role on such issues, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
Mandalay
For the 48% of homeowners under 40 who are underwater with their mortgages, an unplanned child might be a relatively cheap “mistake”.
suzanne
Oh fabulous. Another dipshit who doesn’t understand the right to free speech. No one wants to throw (Marie) Ann-toinette in prison here, FFS. We just think she’s revealing something unpleasant about her character.
My eighth-grade American History classmates were more insightful than this fuckhead.
Omnes Omnibus
@suzanne: Were they dipshits? No? Well, then.
David Koch
GIVE. ME. A. FUCKIN. BREAK.
3 months ago when Obama was heckled while making a statement by a Tucker Carlson douche bag Mataconis said it was justified because Obama doesn’t answer questions when making statements.
Now he’s saying it’s perfectly fine if Romney doesn’t answer questions.
HA!
suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: Some of ’em were dipshits. A few of them, no lie, were Romney relatives. (Note: I didn’t explicitly say the dipshits were the Romney relatives.)
Living in Mesa, AZ, you meet LOTS of Mormons. And you learn pretty quickly that their family trees don’t branch so much as entangle. I had multiple friends start dating a fellow Church member and then find out that their new boy- or girlfriend was actually a cousin.
Jay in Oregon
@Mandalay:
Um, what?
Last time I checked, an unplanned child is around a lot longer than an underwater mortgage. And the bank doesn’t take them away if you stop paying for them, though the state might.
Omnes Omnibus
@suzanne: Oddly, it sounds like when try to figure out my Salem, MA, ancestors. More or less, if one is related to anyone who came to Salem before 1640, one is related to everyone who came to Salem before 1640. Convicted witches, accusers, and judges. Al least I am proud of France Dane. But anyway, one carries the good, bad, and the ugly. But no empty chair.
suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: I’ve never been able to trace my heritage back that far. I’m envious.
Omnes Omnibus
@suzanne: Oh dear. My father inherited a project from his dad. He has people traced back to the 1300s – with records. As the elder son and only one really interested in what he is doing, I need to learn Latin and delve into actual Euro church archives to push it back further.
Fuck. I have to learn Latin.
ETA: I am really proud of the convicted witches. Like I would be proud of someone blacklisted in the 1950s
suzanne
@Omnes Omnibus: My mother-in-law is proud that she is a direct descendant of a sibling of George Washington, My grandfather’s family was one of the first white settler families of Alaska. My grandfather’s aunt was the first female Postmistress General of the territory, and his father wrote the state song, and ran the first major newspaper. But I can’t find anything on any of them from back across the pond.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Tu parle francais. Latin should be relatively easy after that.
@suzanne: Damn. My family’s been on this continent at least 500 years (I’m related to half of Quebec) but barely 100 on any side in the US. I’m practically an anchor baby.
NA
@aimai: Exactly.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: 500? Perhaps you mean 400, yes? The first settlements in Quebec were in the early 1600s. If you have First People ancestry, then, fuck it, you win.
suzanne
@Yutsano: Some of the branches of my family have been here that long, while some are far newer. My WASP mother married a ITALIAN. My grandfather hated my father so much that he referred to Portapotties as “Italian Embassies”.
Racist as hell. But I gotta give him points for funny.
freemark
@aimai:
You forget, minorites/women/etc don’t want to work. They want gubmint handouts and welfare. If Obama created jobs they might have to get off the gubmint teat.
RandyH
Way to go Ann!
In trying to not make herself the story of the day by answering two perfectly legitimate “women’s issues” questions, she managed to make her nasty demeanor the story of the day.
I see no one has taught her how to filibuster questions she wants to dodge yet. Or to smile instead of snarl when the reporter goes off-script and asks a follow-up. I thought that was Republican PR Hack 101.
I give her two weeks until Her Majesty loses it and starts screaming and throwing things. THOSE People just don’t know their place! How DARE they challenge her? Don’t they know who she IS?
The next time she responds “I’m here to talk about jobs and the economy,” I really hope the reporter asks her just what qualifies her to comment on either one of those topics.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Ogala Sioux north of the border. Great-great grandma was daughter of a chieftan. Great-great grandfather a laypriest. Things happened that far from Rome.
@suzanne: How the Irish Became White indeed. Oi.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: All I have on record is Euro, so you win. My Euros, esp. the Frog-Canucks are early, but First Peoples win.
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Where things get really wonky in my genealogy is when the Jewish side comes in out of nowhere.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: Oh, sure. What you are trying to say is that you had literate ancestors while all of mine were saying things like “Ugh, Thak, me burn foot in fire, you lick now.”
Yutsano
@Omnes Omnibus: Or my family has a long tradition of purchasing wives. Including my parents. True story.
Omnes Omnibus
@Yutsano: I was going to say my story was kinkier, but maybe not…
No offense meant.
Susan K of the tech support
I use Google, hear me roar.
Link to the 2007 forum thingie that Dogwood talked about (in this post, not the one mentioned by Ash Can).
http://www.c-span.org/Events/RWH-Presidential-Candidates-from-the-California-Women39s-Forum/8571/
(wait, what? where IS the video on that page? Get thee to the right hand margin of the page (Usability fail) and click the link under the Video Playlist. It’ll wanna launch a real player.)
BTW, here is most of what Dogwood said in that other comment thread (emphasis mine):
Kane
Someone please explain to the Romney campaign that marriage equality is also an economic issue. That a woman’s right to choose is also an economic issue. That economic equality is also an economic issue. That Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and health care and Planned Parenthood are also economic issues. That child care and day care and Head Start are also economic issues. That education and opportunities for higher learning are also economic issues. That building and restoring our infrastructure is an economic issue. That investing in science, technology, health and our future are economic issues. That addressing global warming is also an economic issue. That Afghanistan is also an economic issue. That veteran’s care is also an economic isssue. And that providing a public examination of a candidate’s tax records is also an economic issue.
There are very few issues that are not in one way or another an economic issue. This deliberate avoidance of addressing these issues and hiding behind the claim that these issues are somehow a distraction is absurd.
sm*t cl*de
The next time she responds “I’m here to talk about jobs and the economy,”
This has the drawback that the interviewer is under no obligation to ask questions about jobs and the economy. If not, it’s going to be a short interview.
From the Romneys’ perspective. interviews naturally run more smoothly if they choose the questions as well as provide the answers.
Billy
Of course she is within her rights. Just like everyone in the country is within their rights to not vote for folks whose campaigners refuse to even state their own positions. If you believe something you ought to have the guts and honesty to say it.
scav
@sm*t cl*de: They also fancy themselves in charge of choosing the reaction to their questions and answer ponyshows and ah, I nearly forgot! they know what are in everyone’s minds beforehand too. One-stop shopping for all thoughts and opinions ever, on any and all possible subjects.
She has the right to be an entitled self-preening, self-destroying arrogant dick (or non-gender-specific bodypart, say, gall-bladder) as does her husband and we and certain reporters also have the right to notice their demeanor + behaviors and find them distasteful, vile and, moreover, not vote in favor of their self-prophesied turn at apotheosis to the presidency. Have no fear DougM, I’ll do my best to ensure that you and your party’s right to be entitled preening self-defeating dicks/gall-bladders will not be curtailed in any way. Your right to talk to invisible bogie-men in chairs while smashing yourself in the head with dunces’ hats will be enshrined and and, I might even try to throw in still more prime-time TV slots for you to prance about enjoying your rights in. Wouldn’t want to miss anyone’s attempt at jamming still more well-clad feet in behind their perfect teeth.
pluege
You can’t have it both ways.
Your think you can if you’re a snotty conceited blue blood like Ann romney.
You can have it anyway you want if you’re talking to corporate media that caters to snotty conceited blue blood like Ann romney and you are a snotty conceited blue blood like romney
aimai
Here’s another thing. Romney makes a big deal out of his faith-family-values triangle but wants to duck the question of what that faith consists of and how it guides his decisionmaking process. Women’s issues like reproduction are absolutely fundamentally religious issues for Romney the Mormon. Gay rights are fundamentally a religious issue for Romney the Mormon. Obama was hammered both on the “kind” of Christian he was–and you still see people accusing him of sitting in the wrong kind of Christian Church–and also for being a crypto muslim. He has specifically drawn on and referred to the particular way he interperets his religious values in terms of a secular public sphere.
Why are the Romney’s immune from that kind of questioning? Because its inconvenient for the right wing to acknowledge both that they are promoting an ecumenical theocracy and that there are fundamental goals for the kind of religious person that Romney is that don’t comport well with being leader of a multi cultural, multi religious, secular state.
What Ann thinks about women’s rights or gay rights isn’t a subject for argument or for scorn. She’s entitled to believe what she wants. But she is vouching for her husband–and she has done so before–specifically leaving his cult beliefs at the door and focusing only on narrowly defined economic issues. Is that really the case? Will Romney act as a secular head of state and respect other people’s right of conscience and right to practice their religion without state interference or will he enforce his “values” on the rest of us? That’s a very, very, very, fair question which he and she are dodging.
aimai
Jamie
Good lord, the comments over at the House of Doug are hilarious. He just keeps repeating “shut up, shut up, shut up” over and over again, while people keep pointing out how stupid the whole thing is.
Man, I may be unemployed at the moment, but I’m very happy not to have to pretend the Romney campaign makes any sense. Can these people sleep without medication?
Central Planning
@Omnes Omnibus: Hey, you’re related to my wife and kids. She’s a descendant of John Alden and Priscilla Mullens.
It also turns out my wife has the same name as one of the witches that was hanged in Salem :o
grandpa john
@suzanne: my sister once traced ours back to our first in America ancestor,who settled in VA he was a knight so wow we have royalty in the background not that it shows up anymore, the early ancestors were also supposedly rich so I have always wondered what the blew it on, since the riches are n o longer there,m at least in my immediate branch
Golgaronok
@Judas Escargot, Acerbic Prophet of the Mighty Potato God:
Yep. You’ve touched on the single most terrifying fact about American politics: a significant portion of the electorate doesn’t want to govern itself. They really do want a king, dictator, generalissimo, lord, or Fuehrer to tell them what to do. Robert Altemeyer’s research on the subject is as enlightening as it is depressing.