Mitt Romney for President My Man Mitt

What do these things have in common? They are all prime examples of politicians inventing their own memories for political gain.

The Drudge report links to a YouTube clip from a CBS report unraveling Hillary's claim that she was essentially a one-woman combat battalion landing in Bosnia. My only complaint with the piece is that CBS comes out singing na-na nana naaa. Anything that buoys the shamed CBS news team is not a good thing.

This isn't the first time. You might recall Hillary down under in the 90s claiming that she was named after famed explorer Edmund Hillary who climbed Mt. Everest. Problem is, Hillary was a nobody until he accomplished that feat in 1953, quite a few years after Mrs. Clinton was born.

If I recall, Hillary's fellow New Yorker, Senator Schumer, had another moment like this, conjuring up in his mind the angst he felt watching the congressional mob hearings via boob tube as a child. Problem is the boob Schumer was watching at that point was his mom's... (forgive the crassness)... he was 8 weeks old.

There's something in the water up there...

Labels: bosnia, CBS, edmund hillary, hillary, Hillary Clinton, schuster


	2 Comments: To my grave disappointment, Hillary and her disbarred hubby have been lying with less and less style as their campaign slips into panic. I once wrote : In my lifetime I've had the privilege of watching Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and Michael Jordan play basketball, Wayne Gretzky play hockey, Muhammed Ali box, Tom Seaver pitch, Tiger Woods golf. And I've heard the Clintons lie. Greatness comes in many forms. I guess, like aging boxers who stay in the ring after their skills are gone, the Clintons are sliding into pugsville. It's so sad. By A Red Mind in a Blue State, at March 25, 2008 at 5:30 PM The firt thing I thought of after hearing about Bosniagate was how nuts the media went over Mitt's MLK story. The media is just laughing off Hillary's embellishment as no big deal at all.The media also seems to be in a quandry over who to back between Obama and Hillary because they can't figure out who is going to win.What irks me is the recimination republicans face in a scandal and how it's poo pooed away when a dem messes up.Does anybody believe that a republican mayor of Detroit would still have his job? By Anonymous, at March 26, 2008 at 5:49 AM Post a Comment

John Edwards is a great attack dog. He just happens to be fighting for the wrong side. I've got to hand it to him, though, on this ad about Hillary's debate performance:

Jim Geraghty also makes this point about the difference between Hillary's and Mitt's responses after taking fire at the debates:

Thought that popped in my head... could you imagine if Mitt Romney played the 'Mormon card' the way Team Hillary has played the 'gender card' in the aftermath of the debate?
It's unthinkable. He'd be mocked and ridiculed mercilessly as a guy who couldn't handle a real debate.
Mitt Romney gets slammed from all sides in the debates, particularly the most recent one, and he knows why: He's leading in Iowa and New Hampshire (and close in South Carolina); he's the guy Rudy needs to beat someplace early, he's the guy Fred needs to falter, the guy Huckabee needs to catch up with, the guy McCain wants to see knocked out. Congratulations, you matter now; this means it's time to duck, brace for impact, and demonstrate an ability to get up off the mat.

Labels: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards


	2 Comments: I don't want to derail Mrs. Clinton too early - I WANT her to be the nominee. She will be easy for Mitt to defeat. By Anonymous, at November 2, 2007 at 2:44 PM I would be cringing like crazy if Senator Clinton were my witness on the witness stand. On the other hand, I would love to play with her on cross examination. By Anonymous, at November 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM Post a Comment

This is an easy win for Romney:

"One of the ways that you help instill, if you will, family values is by having a White House be a place that demonstrates family values," the Massachusetts Republican said in a response to a question at a New Hampshire house party about how he would instill family values as president.

"And, you know, I think during the last Clinton presidency, the White House did not demonstrate that in a way that was helpful to our nation's culture," Romney added.

No serious person would dispute this notion. The personal behavior of White House occupants directly affects the nation. Indeed, I think we can easily trace the "my private life is private" syndrome of public officials trying to hide unseemly behavior to Bill Clinton. Of course not all people are serious, which is why the CNN article quotes a response from the Clinton campaign that tries to shift the focus from family values to character:

Responding to Romney's comments, top Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said, "Hillary Clinton needs no lessons on character from a man who switches his positions on a daily basis."

Does this mean that Clinton doesn't dispute the charge on family values, but instead will defend her character? Does it mean she values consistency more than morality? Perhaps she is willing to defend her own honor before her family's? I guess I shouldn't be surprised by any of it. It reminds me of Grampa Simpson trying to defend Homer from allegations of being a communist:

Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.

Labels: Hillary Clinton


	0 Comments: Post a Comment

People are talking about Hillary’s recent “Mississippi Comments.”

Jonathan Martin at Politico wonders why none of the GOP nominees are making any statements about it: “Would seem like the perfect opportunity to score some points about her being a liberal elitist looking down her nose at a Southern state, right?”

It truly would be a good opportunity for Mitt Romney or the others to take Hillary to task on being a snob, but what everyone seems to be missing is the word “Communitarianism.”

Hillary:

"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

I had never heard this word before, so looked it up.

Wikipedia’s first paragraph describing it says: “Communitarianism as a group of related but distinct philosophies began in the late 20th century, opposing individualism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism emphasizes the interest of communities and societies over those of the individual."

Sounds like Communitarianism is Hillary's new word for Communism.

This woman is scary.

And the fact that she made this statement and so easily used this word "Communitarianism" and everyone is caught up in her snobbiness and have totally (as far as I can see) missed the real heart of her message is very troubling to me.

Any thoughts on this? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

P.S. Does anyone think this would be the makings of a good 'Hillary Attack Ad" ad for Mitt?

Labels: Communitarianism, Hillary Clinton


	3 Comments: The scary thing is that builders of communism in the Soviet Union were themselves the most selfish individuals. So whenever someone advocates commune society over individual society, i see a desire to rule the masses. In this scheme, the few elect benefit at the expense of the mass which leads to the inhibition of individual industry and the rise of good-enough attitude. I am will not mention the level of corruption, cronysm, extortion, and other vices that come with a commune oriented society. I know I've lived most of life in the former USSR. By YK, at October 25, 2007 at 3:11 PM Krim, thank you so much for your helpful, informative and sobering comment. We must do all we can to preserve the freedom we have in America. I believe that Hillary Clinton and the very left Liberal Democrats in our country are working day and night to create the very situation you described in your comment. Thanks again, Krim! By Beth Barnat, at October 25, 2007 at 4:48 PM When I first read Hillary's comments, they seemed disjointed and I didn't understand what she was trying to say. But as I read Hillary's comments over again, I saw that she's was trying to reach for the right words to describe what is, to her, the difference between Mississippi and Iowa. Notice she says "That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa." quality/communitarianism/openness These three words are synonyms to her. It really sheds light on her true beliefs. You could easily substitute - quality/communism/openness - for what she said. She rarely expresses her true beliefs, for if she did, most people would be horrified. But they do slip out -- sometimes blatantly and sometimes not so blatantly. She does seem to be a true believer -- in the Revolution. By Beth Barnat, at October 25, 2007 at 7:07 PM Post a Comment

Hillary, Bosnia, CBS, Mt. Everest, Schuster, Mobs...

Hillary's Debate

Family Values: Romney or Clinton

“Let’s Talk About Communitarianism”