Saturday, December 22, 2007
Further thinking on MH
Several interesting comments were made about my rant about Mike Huckabee. They each have good points but I continue to think he is extraordinarily worrisome. He says he wants to change politics as usual, dislikes the traditional approach to presidential politics, etc., etc. The problem is that I get a vibe from him that fairly trembles with disingenuousness. As some have noted, many of his spoken policies are liberal which means he's holding himself up as one thing while being another. More to the point, he seems like a beautiful rattlesnake - stunning and quiet to look at but lethal if you get too close.
Meanwhile, Romney is pretty darn scary too. The other day, for example, he said he "saw" his father "march" with Dr. Martin Luther King. It turns out that George Romney never marched with Dr. King, as a matter of simple fact. George R. is widely regarded as a good man who did support civil rights and worked hard for equal justice, but he never marched. Which means Mitt never saw him march, of course. Which means he lied. I don't know if he spoke too quickly and without thinking, or if he meant that he saw his father do things that evidenced his commitment to civil rights, but he did not see his father march with Dr. King. And when he started to explain that "see" is a moving target word, I thought it was awfully familiar . . . and Anderson Cooper, of all people, thought so too. Cooper played the whole video of Bill Clinton's "it depends what 'is' means" chat. I'd never heard all of it but it's appalling. Clinton's eyes shift from side to side as he mumbles about "is" can mean "really happened" or it can mean "could have happened" or . . . well, it's all just nonsense so I won't go on.
The point is that a man who engages in flat-out lying about something that's very easy to determine is not someone to whom I want to entrust the White House. Dalliances with interns don't matter, of themselves, and it really doesn't matter whether George Romney marched with King or actively supported the enterprise. But it does matter that people are so oblivious and careless when they know the press and the public are watching their every move and listening to their every statement.
Meanwhile, Romney is pretty darn scary too. The other day, for example, he said he "saw" his father "march" with Dr. Martin Luther King. It turns out that George Romney never marched with Dr. King, as a matter of simple fact. George R. is widely regarded as a good man who did support civil rights and worked hard for equal justice, but he never marched. Which means Mitt never saw him march, of course. Which means he lied. I don't know if he spoke too quickly and without thinking, or if he meant that he saw his father do things that evidenced his commitment to civil rights, but he did not see his father march with Dr. King. And when he started to explain that "see" is a moving target word, I thought it was awfully familiar . . . and Anderson Cooper, of all people, thought so too. Cooper played the whole video of Bill Clinton's "it depends what 'is' means" chat. I'd never heard all of it but it's appalling. Clinton's eyes shift from side to side as he mumbles about "is" can mean "really happened" or it can mean "could have happened" or . . . well, it's all just nonsense so I won't go on.
The point is that a man who engages in flat-out lying about something that's very easy to determine is not someone to whom I want to entrust the White House. Dalliances with interns don't matter, of themselves, and it really doesn't matter whether George Romney marched with King or actively supported the enterprise. But it does matter that people are so oblivious and careless when they know the press and the public are watching their every move and listening to their every statement.
Permalink | 
| posted by jau at 5:22 AM
jau — at 9:14 PM, December 22, 2007:
| posted by jau at 5:22 AM
2 more:
jau — at 9:14 PM, December 22, 2007:
Sorry to have gotten you to see what I'm seeing about Huckabee, in that it's disappointing, but I'm glad you see it too. Oh, I forgot to mention how odd his eldest son is. Which doesn't necessarily mean anything about him since if all parents = kids and vice versa, many people would be in big trouble. But he talks with what sounds like pride about his son killing a dog with his bare hands - it was sick or something. Sorry but that's unpleasant behavior (possibly worse).
As for Romney, I completely agree with you, Dad. His lying dishonors what really happened as well as many people's passion and eagerness for decency. (Plus, totally beside the point, he's way way way too neatly groomed. Always makes me suspicious when someone never looks the least bit rumpled.)
So who's good enough to earn our rallying 'round??!?
As for Romney, I completely agree with you, Dad. His lying dishonors what really happened as well as many people's passion and eagerness for decency. (Plus, totally beside the point, he's way way way too neatly groomed. Always makes me suspicious when someone never looks the least bit rumpled.)
So who's good enough to earn our rallying 'round??!?
< home >
This is an old sales trick of getting people nodding their head yes enough that you can trick them into agreeing with you. Basically a slick indoctrination technique when used on children as he did.
Huck was using this to justify he numerous pardons and clemencies. He doesn't seem to see the difference between subverting justice and forgiveness. Forgiving someone doesn't necessarily mean letting them out of prison.
Instapundit mentioned Romney's lie regarding marching. Instapundit reminds us that his father did march. Instapundit's father is a religious studies professor, I had him for a "Religion and Racism" class over 30 years ago. He told us the story of marching in Birmingham and of one of his friends being killed only a few minutes after they parted company. To falsely claim involvement, as did Romney, grossly dishonors those that really marched and died.
< home >