Why are we running this clip from 2007? Only because it is awesome. Gather round your iNook and watch in wonder as a murderously Miffed Romney gushes period blood all over this nice fellow, Jan Mikelson, a conservative radio host from WHO Iowa. They are talking about Miffed's stance on abortion and the Mormon Church, and Miffed is all "I didn't come here to talk about Mormon!" and "I'm totally pro-life but it's not because of Mormon" (it's because he wanted the GOP nomination, duh) and "I think I know my church better than you!" He is ranting and freaking out and seriously having a cow, man. But why wouldn't Ol' Miffed want to have a nice conversation? It could have been thoughtful, and interesting! Well, as Charlie P. Pierce at Esquire never tires of reminding us, Miffed simply does not care to be Questioned by The Help.
I think there is something to the idea that he's changed his colors so many times, all of his supporters see him as just the right shade they want to see.
The strange part is that they wilfully look right past the usually-disqualifying issue of all of this crass pandering staring them right in the face, and somehow see what he's doing as a necessary evil. He has to hold differing opinions in order to appeal to people!
How they don't see that as a seriously troubling negative is pretty much a mystery. I'm gonna go with "but he's got white skin" as the reason they so easily can look past this ridiculously obvious problem.
That is, of course, what old Joe designed it to be. I'd be curious to know what percentage of converts do come over from the more traditional fundies.
This is a huge reversal of what is preached. Some of us know just how emphatically the Mormons are slammed for not holding Jesus in uniquely high esteem / denying the Trinity. It&#039;s quite amazing to me that so many hardline evangelicals are rejecting the incumbent - who has said nothing in <i>clear</i> contradiction to his often stated Christian faith - and are clinging to innuendo and laughably circumstantial evidence, in order to justify their support of a &quot;non-Christian&quot;.
I think you are on to something here. Some time ago Michael Huffington (yes, Ariana&#039;s x) ran for Senator. He had no history and no discernable positions.
People projected onto him what they wanted - or, perhaps more importantly, what they didn&#039;t like in the other candidates. &quot;Well, at least he isn&#039;t...&quot;
It turned out he wasn&#039;t a lot of things. Including elected.
To be semi-serious on a beautiful Autumn morning - and best wishes to all on the East Coast and Midwest, dealing with a terrible storm.
I mentioned before Michael Lewis&#039; excellent article on President Obama in the October issue of &quot;Vanity Fair.&quot; Mr. Obama states he was surprised that the Republicans could abandon positions they had previous held and not pay a political price for it.
I would just like one person to explain to me which Multiple-Choice Miffed she or he supports.
Is it Mittens 1994 who ran as a Massachusetts librul against Teddy Kennedy?
The Mittens 2003 who ran for Governor? He no longer holds a single position he had then. He isn&#039;t running on his record - he&#039;s running from it.
The uber-Conservative Mittens 2012.1 who ran for the Republican nomination in all those primaries (where, in the early states, fewer people voted for him in 2012 than they did in 2008)?
Or Mittens 2012.2, who has Lurch&#039;d to the center in a desperate attempt to win?
I got the feeling that the interviewer really wanted to like Mittens but the Mitt personality V2.0 is so putrid that is just not possible. Kind of like Windows Millennium. I still have not forgiven Bill Gates for that.
I think there is something to the idea that he&#039;s changed his colors so many times, all of his supporters see him as just the right shade they want to see.
The strange part is that they wilfully look right past the usually-disqualifying issue of all of this crass pandering staring them right in the face, and somehow see what he&#039;s doing as a necessary evil. He has to hold differing opinions in order to appeal to people!
How they don&#039;t see that as a seriously troubling negative is pretty much a mystery. I&#039;m gonna go with &quot;but he&#039;s got white skin&quot; as the reason they so easily can look past this ridiculously obvious problem.
Well done.
It&#039;s just the occasional massacre. It&#039;s not like a habit or something.
That is, of course, what old Joe designed it to be. I&#039;d be curious to know what percentage of converts do come over from the more traditional fundies.
Not until after he had drunk and smoked quite a bit of it.
Sometimes on an hourly basis?
And would lying, reversing the lie and then telling it again count as three lies?
One thing about Mormon Jesus, is he&#039;s a <i>lot</i> more about the smiting than New Testament Jesus.
But they&#039;ll vote for him.
Huh.
This is a huge reversal of what is preached. Some of us know just how emphatically the Mormons are slammed for not holding Jesus in uniquely high esteem / denying the Trinity. It&#039;s quite amazing to me that so many hardline evangelicals are rejecting the incumbent - who has said nothing in <i>clear</i> contradiction to his often stated Christian faith - and are clinging to innuendo and laughably circumstantial evidence, in order to justify their support of a &quot;non-Christian&quot;.
I think you are on to something here. Some time ago Michael Huffington (yes, Ariana&#039;s x) ran for Senator. He had no history and no discernable positions.
People projected onto him what they wanted - or, perhaps more importantly, what they didn&#039;t like in the other candidates. &quot;Well, at least he isn&#039;t...&quot;
It turned out he wasn&#039;t a lot of things. Including elected.
It marks a stark contrast to the defense of George Bush by people like Sheer uh &quot;Am i uh An Idiot?&quot; uh InSannity.
&quot;You may not agree with him, but at least you know what he stands for.&quot;
&quot;Behind every great fortune is a crime.&quot; ~ Balzac
To be semi-serious on a beautiful Autumn morning - and best wishes to all on the East Coast and Midwest, dealing with a terrible storm.
I mentioned before Michael Lewis&#039; excellent article on President Obama in the October issue of &quot;Vanity Fair.&quot; Mr. Obama states he was surprised that the Republicans could abandon positions they had previous held and not pay a political price for it.
I would just like one person to explain to me which Multiple-Choice Miffed she or he supports.
Is it Mittens 1994 who ran as a Massachusetts librul against Teddy Kennedy?
The Mittens 2003 who ran for Governor? He no longer holds a single position he had then. He isn&#039;t running on his record - he&#039;s running from it.
The uber-Conservative Mittens 2012.1 who ran for the Republican nomination in all those primaries (where, in the early states, fewer people voted for him in 2012 than they did in 2008)?
Or Mittens 2012.2, who has Lurch&#039;d to the center in a desperate attempt to win?
I got the feeling that the interviewer really wanted to like Mittens but the Mitt personality V2.0 is so putrid that is just not possible. Kind of like Windows Millennium. I still have not forgiven Bill Gates for that.
was thinking the same thing. this guy could be a serious leader.
i&#039;d still think he was an asshole, but at least a convincing one.
i wish you hadn&#039;t put it like that. i was still back on five minutes of convincing miffed mitt.