Monday, May 07, 2012


You may already know about this moment from the campaign trail today:

Romney Silent As Woman Says Obama Should Be Tried For Treason

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney didn't comment on a supporter's assertion that President Barack Obama should be tried for treason at a town hall event here.

A woman in the audience expressed dismay that Obama was "operating outside the Constitution," then said Obama should be tried for treason for violating separation of powers.

"I do believe he should be tried for treason," she said to applause from the audience.

Romney ... allowed her to clarify what specifically she thought Obama had violated, and the woman proceeded to spout references to Executive Orders....

It's being said that John McCain showed more courage on the campaign trail in 2008 when he challenged a woman who said that Barack Obama was an Arab.

But there's a difference. That was an early variant of what later became full-fledged birtherism. The varieties of birtherism include the belief that Obama is secretly Muslim, along with the belief that he wasn't born in America. But the establishment right has always seen birtherism as somewhat toxic -- officially, any Republican or right-winger who expects to be taken seriously has to at least pay lip service to the notion that birtherism and its variants are beyond the pale.

But that's not the case when it comes to the notion that Barack Obama is a traitor. The notion that his presidency flagrantly violates legal and constitutional restraints is articulated day in and day out by Republicans and rightists of all degrees of prominence. It's not considered controversial. Whether it's the use of so-called czars, the inclusion of an individual mandate in the health care law, or merely the collecting and distribution of tax money for any social program at all, mainstream rightists and Republicans now deem it a violation of the Constitution and an example of full-blown, undiluted socialism.

This, of course, is nuts. It's nutty, conspiratorial, fringe thinking -- it's not birtherism, but it's exactly as crazy as birtherism. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would define just about every president of the past century as a traitor to the Constitution.

But it's simply what Republicans believe now. It's mainstream GOP thinking.

So you can't really blame Mitt Romney for failing to criticize that woman, can you? It's not his fault -- the fault lies with the degeneracy of his party's philosophy.


Victor said...

No, you CAN blame him!

If he had a pair larger than two Tic-tac's in a nickel bag, he would have said something.

"Baby Doc" Bush, and his whole mid-administration, took turns defecating on the Constitution, which I'm sure this moron reveres (even though she's never read it), and took turns wiping their asses with it, - because she never got past Dick (not Cheney"), Jane (not Tarzan's love interest), and Spot (just a pet dog), probably being afraid of reading about man/girl on dog sex.


And I'm sure if I turned on any news show, outside of one not on MSNBC (and who's title didn't start with 'Morning Cup o' Schmoe"), no reporter would ever ask this moron what Obama did that might be construed as "traitorous," and then debunking her idiotic bullshit, just leaving it as a "woman (moron-said""/'President didn't respond,' moment.

Jesus, if I knew how to make anthrax, I'd think about sending it to most MSM reporters.
Maybe their underlings might have some journalistic integrity - or can be taught it!


davemartin7777 said...

Whack-jobs for Romney!!! Who else could possibly vote for the empty vessel?

A Conservative Teacher said...

I watched the video. He was asked a question, some lady made a nutty comment, he ignored it (as he should have done) and answered the question that was asked. Later, when asked what he thought about the nutty lady's comments, he disagreed with her and moved on, because it wasn't a big deal.

It's much worse to voluntarily go to a church for 20 years whose preacher spews out racist and offensive statements. It's much worse to hire someone who said that 9/11 was faked and an inside job. It's much worse to promote someone who said that she likes Mao.

Get your priorities straight.

Dark Avenger said...

It's much worse to voluntarily go to a church for 20 years whose preacher spews out racist and offensive statements

That's so 2008, Teach.

It's much worse to hire someone who said that 9/11 was faked and an inside job.

But birtherism is so much more respectable than being a 9/11 conspiracy nut.

It's much worse to promote someone who said that she likes Mao.

And who what that, teach?

We've seen what happens when conservatives get their priorities straight, and it isn't pretty.

Victor said...

A Conservative Teacher,
Will you ever have anything at all to say if you stop drinking the Kool-aid, or they cut you off?

Some originality in your comments would be appreciated.
But I suppose that's like asking a fish to explain quantum physic's in iambic pentameter.

Reading your comments is like listening to an Oldies radio station that plays the same insipid songs over and over and over again.

Come back when, IF, you ever have anything nearly original to say, or whine about.

'Til then, spare us.

We've heard this tune before - over and over and over and over and over and over and over... again and again and again and...

Ten Bears said...

Whomever takes up the Fascist flag, the flag of corporatism, is a traitor. An enemy of the "American" people, enemy of the "American" way of life, and as forty years ago this week I swore an oath to defend this land - and defend it I did - against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, my enemy.

These day's I've got no problem with the cops gunning me down, as long as I can take a few of these bastards with me. And speaking as a retired (college) educator... you can only be "conservative", or a "teacher". "Teachers" teach, "conservatives" parrot fabricated talking points without any understanding of what it is they are saying. The titles are mutually exclusive, you can't be both.

Louis Nardozi said...

Chairman Reince Priebus violated RNC Rule 11 when he declared Romney the "presumptive nominee" and shattered it entirely when he said, "It's beyond an endorsement. It is a complete merger wherein the RNC is putting all of its resources and energy behind Mitt Romney to be the next president of the United States."

If the RNC does not abide by ITS OWN RULES regarding nominee selection, in what way is this election not a complete farce? We've all seen the anti-Paul bias first hand, but now to disobey their own rules? By the CHAIRMAN? If Paul "has no chance", what do they fear? If Romney IS "presumptive" why hasn't HE spoken up about this disgraceful breach of rules, which at best will hand him a nomination that is completely dishonest and subject him to ridicule by the Democrats?

Register YOUR protest using the petition at

Steve M. said...

Go, Paulbots! I'll make some popcorn...