Posted by Pat Cunningham on Jul 15, 2012 in Uncategorized | 11 comments
Mitt Romney wanted to be John McCain’s running mate on the Republican ticket in 2008, but he didn’t get the gig.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
I going to tell you what makes me wonder as a life long Democrat and supporter of this President. Why do you use any name other than that which is correct for the candidate of the Republican Party?
To say it’s impolite is being nice about it, Pat. His name isn’t “mittens.”
When you write here, you are representing Democrats so polish up your best manners for doing the job. I have no interest in what your opposite does in these matters. He isn’t on my team so to speak, but you are, and I’m asking you use people’s names correctly in the future.
Carol: Your complaint has been heard and rejected.
Besides, I don’t represent Democrats in general. I represent only myself.
And in light of the disrespect shown to the incumbent president by so many of those who are backing Romney’s candidacy, I have no compunction about applying an occasional sobriquet to the Mittster.
I wish I had a dollar for every time this execrable blog committed a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy.
Mittens was not selected for the same reason that Walter Mondale rejected male VP running mates in 1980: a woman was needed to shake things up. There is no evidence that tax returns were a significant factor in McCain’s decision.
I suppose there is time for Marco Rubio to get a sex-change operation before the November election, but this may not be necessary. Mittens in 2012 is in a far better place than Mondale was in 1980 or McCain was in 2008.
But of course the readership of this blog would drop from negligible to zero if you stopped posting these zesty tidbits of nonsense. Yawn.
Oops, I meant 1984. Small keyboard.
Dan: You speculate about the possibility that “readership of this blog would drop from negligible to zero,” and the other day you said something about how “confidence in Applesauce has declined over the years.”
As I’ve explained to you, readership over the first six months of this year was at a five-year high. And last month, for example, saw a 20-percent increase over the month before.
Page views over the life of this blog have numbered roughly 1.5 million.
So what’s the basis for your claims about declining readership here? In this matter, as in so many others, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
Viewership of crappy reality shows and roadside car accidents is at an all time high too.
McCain’s pick was certainly an error but perhaps he knew a lot more about Mittens and Bain. BTW now his senior advisor claims he retired from Bain retroactively. This is actually getting hilarious.
OK, Pat, have it your way but as your MOM most likely told you long ago, you don’t do something wrong because the other person does it. It’s a very poor excuse for your own bad bahavior. Certainly earns you no points in being crediable.
For all the years I’ve read the miserable names this President has been called, It has never made me call the former President nor any other Conservative/Tea Party person, other than their correct name or title.
When you change yourself to be on a lower level they win. And you lose more than you realize, so give it a second thought as to how much of yourself you are willing to give away for the sake of becoming no more than a name caller in this life?
Won’t bother you again.
Carol: You’re making way too big a thing out of this.
It isn’t as if “Mittens” is an especially mean-spirited nickname. It’s actually kind of gentle, almost cute. I’d be surprised if some of his schoolmates didn’t occasionally call him that.
Besides, this blog is an admittedly partisan — and often snarky — enterprise. It’s not a straight news outlet.
If the worst that can be said about my ramblings here is that I sometimes called Romney “Mittens,” I can live with that.
Mittens is better than Willard, lol.
However I disagree with Pat – if Romney’s male schoolmates (weren’t they all male?) had called him Mittens he doubtless would have punished them with his barber routine.
Yeah Carol, you know, it’s just politics right? No big deal. That’s why the Democrats think stuff like this is ok.
As our Ohio colleagues point out, the allegation that Adelson allowed prostitution at the Macau comes from a fired employee. The DCCC takes that claim and says money from prostitution was included in Adelson’s campaign contributions to GOP congressional incumbents — including Duffy.
There’s no evidence that Duffy received contributions from Adelson, and he has no control over contributions to groups that support him.
“The claim that Adelson’s donations to these other groups amount to ‘Chinese prostitution money’ is dubious enough that inserting the word ‘allegedly’ can’t save it,” PolitiFact Ohio wrote in its assessment.
That holds no matter what name is inserted into the cut-and-paste news release.
You can repeat a claim, but the smell of smoke remains the same. Pants on Fire.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of followup comments via email. You can also subscribe without commenting.