Slog
News & ArtsMonday, May 7, 2012
2012 Mitt Romney Looks His Crazy Base in the Eye, Stays Silent
Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:35 PM
At an Ohio rally today, Mitt Romney was asked a question by a woman who commented that President Obama "should be tried for treason.” Romney, unlike John McCain in a similar situation in 2008, didn't stand up to the woman's statement:
When asked about this by a CNN reporter after the rally, Romney responded, "I don't correct all of the questions that get asked of me. Obviously I don't agree that he should be tried."
Right, obviously. Obviously, when someone accuses the president of treason—a crime punishable by death—you don't say anything to that person. You don't point out that words have specific meanings, and that it's important to use the right words or else the conversation turns into something ugly. You don't suggest that your opponent is a decent, law-abiding American citizen you happen to have disagreements with. No, you just let her spout her crazy language and give your silent assent. That's exactly what a leader does, right?
1
For this, Mitt Romney should be charged with forgery and theft of services.
And assault of an officer, why not.
And assault of an officer, why not.
3
Yes. This is because McCain actually used to be a decent human being, and even during the campaign had occasional vague flashbacks to what it used to be like to have integrity, before the Party beat it all out of him. Romney, on the other hand, has either never been a human being, or was cyborg-ized in early adulthood and has long since cleared all vestiges of passion or conscience from his operating system.
5
@2: Perhaps not literally assent, but you have to admit, Romney's response was so hollow he may as well as just said nothing.
Saying you are "happy" to investigate her claims (nothing to investigate anyway) is just a way to neither agree or disagree. In other words, saying nothing.
The point is the comparison of a man like McCain, who for right or wrong, at least has convictions, and a man like Romney, who seemingly has convictions or ideas at all.
Saying you are "happy" to investigate her claims (nothing to investigate anyway) is just a way to neither agree or disagree. In other words, saying nothing.
The point is the comparison of a man like McCain, who for right or wrong, at least has convictions, and a man like Romney, who seemingly has convictions or ideas at all.
6
What would you expect from someone who got a deferment from going to Vietnam only two months after protesting in favor of the war and in favor of the draft?
He is so arrogant. He thinks he deserves to live by different rules than the rest of us.
He is so arrogant. He thinks he deserves to live by different rules than the rest of us.
7
You're burying the lead here. Mitt said:
And that's just the nearly acceptable version of the theory, the one espoused by the nutballs who just want a theocracy (such as 1996 Republican nominee for WA Governor Ellen Craswell, who was heavily involved in this movement). A fringe of this fringe is the Neo-Nazis, who call their version of this idea "Christian Identity".
So: Romney was engaging there in a huge dog-whistle to the least savory extremes of the American Right Wing. And you didn't notice, because he seems so plausible, and he was responding gently to a wackaloon.
PS And that's ignoring the possible Mormon angle on the notion of a divinely Inspired Constution and Declaration.
More...
As I'm sure you do, I happen to believe the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably Inspired. And I believe the same thing about the Declaration of IndependenceThere is a belief in the fringes of right-wing politicized Christianity that the foundations of our country are to be found not in the political theories of the late eighteenth century are worked out in Philadelphia (and revised since then), but in God. This is why you see some of their political representatives saying that we must consult the Bible (the word of God) in order to properly follow the text it "inspired" in the Constitution. The people who say these things tend to stress the importance of the Declaration Of Independence (a political statement that does not define the structure of our country) and to imply it has equal status with the Constution - because unlike the Constitution the Declaration mentions "Our Creator".
And that's just the nearly acceptable version of the theory, the one espoused by the nutballs who just want a theocracy (such as 1996 Republican nominee for WA Governor Ellen Craswell, who was heavily involved in this movement). A fringe of this fringe is the Neo-Nazis, who call their version of this idea "Christian Identity".
So: Romney was engaging there in a huge dog-whistle to the least savory extremes of the American Right Wing. And you didn't notice, because he seems so plausible, and he was responding gently to a wackaloon.
PS And that's ignoring the possible Mormon angle on the notion of a divinely Inspired Constution and Declaration.
10
Eh, her question wasn't really about whether Obama should be tried for treason, that was more of a smirky aside to her question, so I don't think it's necessarily cowardly that he ignored it.
11
@8:
Ah, I see, I misread what you meant.
Communication by pure text is a necessary evil, isn't it?
Ah, I see, I misread what you meant.
Communication by pure text is a necessary evil, isn't it?
12
Paul,
Meh. Romney's having his Rev. Wright moment. Clearly, her question/comment is wacky and yeah, he could have answered with candor and humor. That's not a defense of his silence. But, he like Pres. Obama is going to be asked all sorts of silly and/inane questions.
Meh. Romney's having his Rev. Wright moment. Clearly, her question/comment is wacky and yeah, he could have answered with candor and humor. That's not a defense of his silence. But, he like Pres. Obama is going to be asked all sorts of silly and/inane questions.
13
@9 has it.
Mitt is going down to Crazy Town with all his French elitist combat-avoiding Comrades ....
Mitt is going down to Crazy Town with all his French elitist combat-avoiding Comrades ....
14
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign has a new ad out, which is playing in the "swing" states of NH; PA; OH; IA; VA; NC; FL; CO; and NV.
Summary: bad shit happened before he became president, he saved the auto industry, killed Osama and is fighting hard for the middle class.
What's Romney's message -- he'll lower taxes for rich people so they can buy a mansion with an elevator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OVngTHk…
Summary: bad shit happened before he became president, he saved the auto industry, killed Osama and is fighting hard for the middle class.
What's Romney's message -- he'll lower taxes for rich people so they can buy a mansion with an elevator?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OVngTHk…
15
@10
"Eh, her question wasn't really about whether Obama should be tried for treason, that was more of a smirky aside to her question, so I don't think it's necessarily cowardly that he ignored it."
That would come down to how you defined "cowardly".
But NOT addressing it would certainly not meet the definition for "brave". Nor "leadership".
See also Santorum:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/0…
They can use any excuse they want for their failure to address those statements. But they have failed to address those statements.
"Eh, her question wasn't really about whether Obama should be tried for treason, that was more of a smirky aside to her question, so I don't think it's necessarily cowardly that he ignored it."
That would come down to how you defined "cowardly".
But NOT addressing it would certainly not meet the definition for "brave". Nor "leadership".
See also Santorum:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/0…
They can use any excuse they want for their failure to address those statements. But they have failed to address those statements.
16
Mitt must really be a robot after all: How else can you explain that a completely spineless creature can walk upright?
17
I agree with @10. The question was prefaced by a long, rambling statement where she added her 'Obama should be tried for treason' aside as a response to the audience clapping about a separate crazy statement from her.
These are the core of the political base, and the core of any political base is typically a little... um, overly devoted. If Romney was going to correct every dumb thing they said at his campaign stops, he'd never get done.
In addition, Romney has been stuck with the tag of moderate Republican (he's not, but that's what the base thinks, anyway), so he can't afford to correct a supporter's enthusiastic allegations, because then this will play as him standing up for Obama instead than for conservative principles, and this little exchange would become a lot more newsworthy than it is today.
Romney absolutely can't win by correcting his crazy supporters, in general. He made the smart move.
These are the core of the political base, and the core of any political base is typically a little... um, overly devoted. If Romney was going to correct every dumb thing they said at his campaign stops, he'd never get done.
In addition, Romney has been stuck with the tag of moderate Republican (he's not, but that's what the base thinks, anyway), so he can't afford to correct a supporter's enthusiastic allegations, because then this will play as him standing up for Obama instead than for conservative principles, and this little exchange would become a lot more newsworthy than it is today.
Romney absolutely can't win by correcting his crazy supporters, in general. He made the smart move.
18
This is possibly answered in the video, which I can't view right now, but why do people keep saying Obama should be charged with treason? For what?
19
Right, McCain shut down crazy discourse... and he lost the election. Romney won't make that mistake. He knows who the GOP base is.
20
@14 I love that ad.
@7 FTW.
I find the prospect of a complete weasel like Romney, even getting a chance to stand for election to the most powerful office in the world, utterly depressing. His supporters are a bunch of frightening little fascists, too.
@7 FTW.
I find the prospect of a complete weasel like Romney, even getting a chance to stand for election to the most powerful office in the world, utterly depressing. His supporters are a bunch of frightening little fascists, too.
21
@18 There's this constant drumbeat of accusation, lies, slander and invective on the right-wing radio talk shows. Anyone you hear accusing Obama of "treason" is a faithful listener of Limbaugh, Hannity, Michael Savage and the rest of those GOP-rented vipers.
22
Considering that Romney is still rooting on Ted Nugent and his threats against Obama, I think when he says he doens't think Obama should be tried, he's carefully not ruling out believing that Obama should be punished for treason.
23
Romney comes off as terrified of average people, scared to ever say the wrong thing to a potential voter. Based on that alone, if he wins I'll be astonished.
24
Of course he is not going to correct anyone at one of his rallies. He draws small enough crowds as it is and needs every body that can occupy a seat.
Also, if he counters he loses perhaps 25% of the people in the room that already don't trust him to be conservative enough.
Politically he played it just right. He secured his wing bat base, his answer really won't swing the undecideds one way or the other, and the only ones who have any outrage are the ones who never would have voted for him anyway.
Also, if he counters he loses perhaps 25% of the people in the room that already don't trust him to be conservative enough.
Politically he played it just right. He secured his wing bat base, his answer really won't swing the undecideds one way or the other, and the only ones who have any outrage are the ones who never would have voted for him anyway.
25
@18 Usually the whole "Obama = treason" thing is just a dog whistle for "Obama = uppity black man".
Goddamn, we're an awfully awful nation.
Goddamn, we're an awfully awful nation.
26
as much as i hate to stand up for rmoney, that was pretty much the definition of "muttered under her breath". i had to listen twice to hear it, so i wouldn't be surprised if an old man like willard didn't hear that part of her rambling bullshit question.
now, an actual reporter would have found her afterwards and asked for clarification - what has obama done that is "treasonous", specifically?
now, an actual reporter would have found her afterwards and asked for clarification - what has obama done that is "treasonous", specifically?
27
No Greenwald-ians out there that think he should be tried for killing an American citizen without due process?
Even Colbert took on the Obama administration for that!
Even Colbert took on the Obama administration for that!
28
@27, Regardless of what you think about drone strikes, they're not treasonous, as per the definition of the term. They may be unethical or illegal, but they are most definitely not treason.
Not that I expect fans of GG to care, but that's another tale for another day.
Not that I expect fans of GG to care, but that's another tale for another day.
29
@28 I personally don't think it's treasonous either. But I'd have a hard time arguing with someone who thinks 'treason' is an interpretive concept since 'due process' is considered an interpretive concept by the current admin.
30
@27
"No Greenwald-ians out there that think he should be tried for killing an American citizen without due process?"
Sure!
But I don't think that that was the specific instance that woman was talking about. Somehow I don't think she had a problem with killing a kind-of-Muslim guy in a Muslim land who might have been planning on killing a Real American.
As to whether that would even be "treason", I don't think so.
"No Greenwald-ians out there that think he should be tried for killing an American citizen without due process?"
Sure!
But I don't think that that was the specific instance that woman was talking about. Somehow I don't think she had a problem with killing a kind-of-Muslim guy in a Muslim land who might have been planning on killing a Real American.
As to whether that would even be "treason", I don't think so.
31
If we don't blow up their magic underwear in Yemen using drones, they'll attack us with it here in America, right?
32
@29, Then you can argue that they are, of course, illegal.
But treason specifically refers to attempts to overthrow the state, either through aid (material, intelligence, etc.) to an enemy, or actual armed insurrection against the US government.
Now, given that the government itself is actually doing the illegal action, you can't charge members of the government with treason. Of course, given that most people don't really seem to get what treason is (e.g. it is not an action that "goes against our way of life" what ever that may be), I don't have high hopes for people using it correctly in their critiques, be they fair or non-sensical.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with taking any administration or politician to task, but simply screaming "treason!" in most cases, is a giant warning flag and dog whistle.
But treason specifically refers to attempts to overthrow the state, either through aid (material, intelligence, etc.) to an enemy, or actual armed insurrection against the US government.
Now, given that the government itself is actually doing the illegal action, you can't charge members of the government with treason. Of course, given that most people don't really seem to get what treason is (e.g. it is not an action that "goes against our way of life" what ever that may be), I don't have high hopes for people using it correctly in their critiques, be they fair or non-sensical.
Like I said, there's nothing wrong with taking any administration or politician to task, but simply screaming "treason!" in most cases, is a giant warning flag and dog whistle.
34
President Obama shouldn't be tried for treason. He should be tried for murder, and assault and battery (al Alwaki and Manning, respectively, among others).
The constitution clearly grants Congress immunity for nearly all actions they perform in the course of doing their job. It does not offer the same for presidents, and there is a very specific reason for this.
Bush should probably tried for a great many crimes as well, but he wasn't stupid enough to make confessions for his crimes on national TV (and yeah, the bitch here probably doesn't understand any of that and is just a friggin' loon, but that doesn't make Obama any less culpable for his crimes).
The constitution clearly grants Congress immunity for nearly all actions they perform in the course of doing their job. It does not offer the same for presidents, and there is a very specific reason for this.
Bush should probably tried for a great many crimes as well, but he wasn't stupid enough to make confessions for his crimes on national TV (and yeah, the bitch here probably doesn't understand any of that and is just a friggin' loon, but that doesn't make Obama any less culpable for his crimes).
35
Can I get a little help?
I'm not as plugged into the right wing lie machine as I could be, so could someone tell me what that whole "operating outside the structure of our constitution" thing was about? What, exactly, has President Obama done that the right wing thinks was outside his authority as President? I know what he has done that progressives think he doesn't have license to do, but what is it that the conservatives think he has done that he does not have the right to do?
I'm not as plugged into the right wing lie machine as I could be, so could someone tell me what that whole "operating outside the structure of our constitution" thing was about? What, exactly, has President Obama done that the right wing thinks was outside his authority as President? I know what he has done that progressives think he doesn't have license to do, but what is it that the conservatives think he has done that he does not have the right to do?
39
Republicans feel the same way about the constitution as they feel about the bible. Some are tried for treason others burn in hell.
40
@34 has it right.
If a Republican President did the things Obama has done, lot's of Democrats would be calling for trials.
As far as Paul's suggestion for an appropriate response, I think it's rather well documented that Obama isn't "law abiding." As far as being "decent," we could ask one the hundreds of innocent people whose lives he's destroyed.
If a Republican President did the things Obama has done, lot's of Democrats would be calling for trials.
As far as Paul's suggestion for an appropriate response, I think it's rather well documented that Obama isn't "law abiding." As far as being "decent," we could ask one the hundreds of innocent people whose lives he's destroyed.
41
@37: i note that she does not mention the name or number of the EO. i doubt that the language or intent is nearly as sinister as she implies.
but i bet if GWB had done it, it'd be peachy.
but i bet if GWB had done it, it'd be peachy.
42
@40
Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the law, as well as the hypocrisy of the left in its application as long as their media darling is the one doing the breaking of said laws (of which, the laws governing treason aren't among them, as far as I know, but there are certainly plenty others that we have direct evidence of Obama breaking, including his public confessions which he has given freely and outside of the custody of any authority...'cause, the one authority that could do anything about it are just as criminal in their lack of pursuit of these crimes as Obama was when he committed them...)
Thank you for recognizing and acknowledging the law, as well as the hypocrisy of the left in its application as long as their media darling is the one doing the breaking of said laws (of which, the laws governing treason aren't among them, as far as I know, but there are certainly plenty others that we have direct evidence of Obama breaking, including his public confessions which he has given freely and outside of the custody of any authority...'cause, the one authority that could do anything about it are just as criminal in their lack of pursuit of these crimes as Obama was when he committed them...)
43
There are many questions about obama's loyalty, honesty and whether he is treasonous. I believe he is and I'm not crazy. I don't believe he's a U.S. citizen. I believe he falsified his birth certificate, used another person's social security number, is a KGB agent for the Russians and is pell-mell using executive orders to usurp the constitution consistently, and is turning our sovereignty over to international bodies. Of course he should be impeached and tried for treason. These are acts of treason and when all of these things come to light before congress and the supreme court, this is evil equal to the crime of treason. Until he is found out, he should not be, but the evidence against him is mounting and I believe that by and by he will be found out and will be tried and ousted from office.
44
There are many questions about obama's loyalty, honesty and whether he is treasonous. I believe he is and I'm not crazy. I don't believe he's a U.S. citizen. I believe he falsified his birth certificate, used another person's social security number, is a KGB agent for the Russians and is pell-mell using executive orders to usurp the constitution consistently, and is turning our sovereignty over to international bodies. Of course he should be impeached and tried for treason. These are acts of treason and when all of these things come to light before congress and the supreme court, this is evil equal to the crime of treason. Until he is found out, he should not be, but the evidence against him is mounting and I believe that by and by he will be found out and will be tried and ousted from office. I'm not running for president so I can speak freely. Obama's communist rhetoric is crystal clear. He's no patriot. He's leading the country quickly to ruin.
47
ROOO7 is on a visit to Crazy Town with Mittens. Come to think of it, they're both terrified of their real names.
48
@46
That may be true, though Carter and Ford were not directly responsible for anyone's death or torture.
OBAMA IS THE 1ST US PRESIDENT TO ADMIT TO THE ASSASSINATION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
We don't assassinate serial killers, and al-Alwaki was a scout for Al-Queda at best (like the guy who goes out and finds Manny Ramirez for the Red Sox...but usually finds some no name who never gets out of AAA ball).
Regardless, he was an American Citizen who was not posing a direct and immediate threat to this country, nor the any officials tasked with his capture...because there were no officials tasked with his capture...because the President ordered a hit on him...like a mob boss does when someone pisses them off.
Bush deserves the Assault and Battery convictions as well, but who else has condoned the complete dismantling of our rights as laid out in the Constitution?
Not Clinton...not Bush 41...not even Reagan. Nope, it was Bush 43 who opened the door and Obama who kicked it off the hinges so that no one can ever shut it again without a massive effort to that end.
It's why Obama's college law professor and mentor resigned from his administration and signed a letter, along with 300 other law professors, condemning the president, and also why prominent black intellectuals like Dr. Cornell West condemn Obama's presidency and call for his impeachment.
Hey...I voted for him as well, but we were sold a bill of goods and got something else entirely. All I'm doing is noting it.
That may be true, though Carter and Ford were not directly responsible for anyone's death or torture.
OBAMA IS THE 1ST US PRESIDENT TO ADMIT TO THE ASSASSINATION OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN.
We don't assassinate serial killers, and al-Alwaki was a scout for Al-Queda at best (like the guy who goes out and finds Manny Ramirez for the Red Sox...but usually finds some no name who never gets out of AAA ball).
Regardless, he was an American Citizen who was not posing a direct and immediate threat to this country, nor the any officials tasked with his capture...because there were no officials tasked with his capture...because the President ordered a hit on him...like a mob boss does when someone pisses them off.
Bush deserves the Assault and Battery convictions as well, but who else has condoned the complete dismantling of our rights as laid out in the Constitution?
Not Clinton...not Bush 41...not even Reagan. Nope, it was Bush 43 who opened the door and Obama who kicked it off the hinges so that no one can ever shut it again without a massive effort to that end.
It's why Obama's college law professor and mentor resigned from his administration and signed a letter, along with 300 other law professors, condemning the president, and also why prominent black intellectuals like Dr. Cornell West condemn Obama's presidency and call for his impeachment.
Hey...I voted for him as well, but we were sold a bill of goods and got something else entirely. All I'm doing is noting it.
49
Only thing that couldbe worse than this would be a 2 am Drunk As A Skunk endorsement of Romney by Santorum ...
What?
Oh.
Wow. They really are that stupid.
What?
Oh.
Wow. They really are that stupid.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
-
So I've Got This Baby Bird... by Brendan Kiley
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (49) RSS