Romney's blow-up with Mickelson on Drudge and Politico!

[Dave]

The footage has emerged! This is the conflict between Jan Mickelson (who's been good to Ron Paul) of Newsradio 1040 WHO in Des Moines and Mitt Romney on Thursday!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0807/Mitt_unplugged.html

[Lord Xar]

didn't our ad show up during that episode??? if that happened, how appropriate..hahhahah

[LibertyEagle]

It's also in 2 places on TownHall. Dean Barnett and Hugh Hewitt (the editor of TH). Little neocons that they are. Barnett took several swipes at Jan.

[PatriotOne]

Maybe it's just me and I haven't hung out in the right places before but.....

Lately, I hear many pundits (TV, Radio, Blogs, and even some newspapers) who are shaping their interviews and arguments around the Constitution. In addition, there are several politicians who are attempting to cite the Constitution more and more (though it usually rings hollow to me). Is it my imagination or has Ron Paul's ideology actually become the counterpoints of the pundits from which to challenge their rhetoric? Though most are not attributing it to Ron Paul, I suspect that's where they are getting it from regardless.

Or has the Constitution always been a tool of theirs and I just hadn't noticed it before?

Though I doubt the Constitution will be mentioned from the CFR commited George S tomorrow.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I think you have that right. I haven't heard so much talk about the Constitution in years. ;)

[Hook]

I think if Jan would let people finish their points without being interrupted, his guests would be less angry.

[PatriotOne]

No, I think you have that right. I haven't heard so much talk about the Constitution in years. ;)

I wonder how many Google searches on "Constitution" there were after the first debate when Ron Paul said...

My name is Ron Paul and I am the champion of the Constitution.

There were probably enough lightbulbs that went on in us brainwashed people it could of lit up a third world country. Constitution :eek: ? Oh yeah....we do have a freaking Constitution :mad: ! Now what did that thing say again? :confused:

[shrugged0106]

I think if Jan would let people finish their points without being interrupted, his guests would be less angry.

A Radio show host cant let the guest dictate the flow and pace of the show. He would be giving control over to Prophet Romney if he had.

[Mani]

Same thing happened when Ross Perot showed up and started talking about the deficit and balancing the budget.

No one had talked about that before, all of a sudden when Ross is leading the Race, everyone is talking about how they balanced the budget in their state and how they'll work towards a balanced budget etc.

Now Ron Paul comes as the champion of the constitution and everyone is a fan of the constitution (cept for Rudy), he brags about the Patriot Act and stuff like that.

[david.griffus]

I know a Mormon. He thinks abortion is murder. If you don't believe that, he thinks, you can't call yourself a Mormon. Allowing a woman to choose is allowing her to murder, according to that.

[SeanEdwards]

Did Mitt just have his Macaca moment? :eek:

[freelance]

didn't our ad show up during that episode??? if that happened, how appropriate..hahhahah

Priceless.

[cac1963]

The video cut off after Romney went off mic, even though there were about 8 minutes left on the clip. Anybody else get that?

[Razmear]

The video cut off after Romney went off mic, even though there were about 8 minutes left on the clip. Anybody else get that?

There is a 'freeze glitch' in the video, it hung up on me too at about 11minutes, but was able to slide forward a bit and see the rest of it.

So who is going to slice up the 'Angry Willard' bits of this video for a fresh YouTube?

eb

[LeifreeKC]

I'm not a Romney fan, but I think he did ok. I liked that he at least mentioned that the president isn't in office to impose his religion's tenants on everyone. He seems to get a little testy at the end but remember he had someplace he needed to go. I don't see it as being angry so much as having to extricate himself quickly without giving too much ground. I though he handled himself quite well.

[shrugged0106]

I'm not a Romney fan, but I think he did ok. I liked that he at least mentioned that the president isn't in office to impose his religion's tenants on everyone. He seems to get a little testy at the end but remember he had someplace he needed to go. I don't see it as being angry so much as having to extricate himself quickly without giving too much ground. I though he handled himself quite well.




lol..

that wasnt transparent :rolleyes:

[Sean]

I think Jan took Romney to the woodshed on the Constitution. The President has as much duty to uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Court. Romney would abdicate that duty.

[MozoVote]

Ha ha. Yeah. Welcome to Ron Paul Forums. :)

[trispear]

I posted this on the page:

I think there are a lot of Mitt-bot schills on this board. We haven't learned anything really, besides his stand on Mormonism, and there are people gushing left and right how they weren't supporters before but are now.

Frankly, he contradicted himself. He said it was okay to ask him anything, but gets offended and all worked up over the Mormon issue. We are supposed to seperate that from the man? How? He probably thinks his faith is integral to himself personally as a person, but it is not integral to himself as a candidate? What did you learn of his policies? Nothing. Mitt is very liberal, he presided over the largest tax increases in Mass. history, not to mention a feel-good, expensive, but do-nothing socialized medicine plan.

Go read him up. Don't support him just based on emotion but because his positions are in line with your own.

[MozoVote]

Well, since I have 600+ posts, and am not a Mitt-head, I do think he came off OK in that discussion. It sounded like the interviewer was trying to corner him as violating his faith, and I'm not surprised he got testy.

Most people would not want religious views mixed with legislation, after all.

[kalami]

Here are Romney's faults... according to his children:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=T6Co7scFx50
This is the kind of generic crap that passes in bad job interviews. It's amazing how his kid's know it's bullshit they're spewing and can't say it with a straight face, yet say it anways. Then cue to $250m, blue blood Romney in a tractor.

[SeanEdwards]

Well, since I have 600+ posts, and am not a Mitt-head, I do think he came off OK in that discussion. It sounded like the interviewer was trying to corner him as violating his faith, and I'm not surprised he got testy.

Most people would not want religious views mixed with legislation, after all.

Sadly I think Mitt did pretty well too. He seemed fiesty without losing it.

Although the bit where he talks about Jesus flying down to Missouri was comedy gold. I can't imagine too many voters know any of the peculiar details of the Mormon sect, and when they hear 'em, they're gonna say "whut?"

[Kuldebar]

Well, since I have 600+ posts, and am not a Mitt-head, I do think he came off OK in that discussion. It sounded like the interviewer was trying to corner him as violating his faith, and I'm not surprised he got testy.

Most people would not want religious views mixed with legislation, after all.

I agree, but what's more important to me is the seeming disconnect or contradiction between what he says and what he is or has been.

Maybe cognitive dissonance is a good description for what I hear when Mitt, and for that matter all the other candidates except Paul, speak.

Romney seems to have a problem explaining how his "principles" mesh with his life and religion.

The reason I have a problem with his difficulty or inability to be clear on this is because it indicates to me that he may not actually hold to the "principles" he claims to have.

Political and social chameleons often have this problem.

[MozoVote]

One thing that drove "Dittoheads" crazy about Clinton in 1992 was his reputation as a flip flopper. But as that became imbedded into his image, it didn't do so much harm. People began to see him as an astute political animal that can change position and stay on top.

I think Romney has a bit of that. He's a career politican and he'll change the message as needed to get votes. It's just business to him.

[jjschless]

Not nearly as bad as Paul V Hannity.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

I just realized.. that Mitt Romney is a fruit cake. You can tell by the way he wriggles his butt in the chair.

[ghemminger]

I wonder how many Google searches on "Constitution" there were after the first debate when Ron Paul said...

My name is Ron Paul and I am the champion of the Constitution.

There were probably enough lightbulbs that went on in us brainwashed people it could of lit up a third world country. Constitution :eek: ? Oh yeah....we do have a freaking Constitution :mad: ! Now what did that thing say again? :confused:

This made me laugh!!:D

[Kuldebar]

One thing that drove "Dittoheads" crazy about Clinton in 1992 was his reputation as a flip flopper. But as that became imbedded into his image, it didn't do so much harm. People began to see him as an astute political animal that can change position and stay on top.

I think Romney has a bit of that. He's a career politican and he'll change the message as needed to get votes. It's just business to him.


Yes, and I have a huge problem with "political animals" because they are in it to win at any cost.

It's that realpolitik crap. It plays well with people who treat politics like a sporting event but it is the embodiment of evil (http://ponerology.blogspot.com/)as far as integrity and honor goes.

It sickens me more that people admire that type of skill.

I my self find it as close to evil as you can get because these people have no conscience.


Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes (http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm) by Andrew M. Lobaczewski

Imagine - if you can - not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken.

And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools.

Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.

You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.

In other words, you are completely free of internal restraints, and your unhampered liberty to do just as you please, with no pangs of conscience, is conveniently invisible to the world.

You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences will most likely remain undiscovered.

How will you live your life?

What will you do with your huge and secret advantage, and with the corresponding handicap of other people (conscience)?

The answer will depend largely on just what your desires happen to be, because people are not all the same. Even the profoundly unscrupulous are not all the same. Some people - whether they have a conscience or not - favor the ease of inertia, while others are filled with dreams and wild ambitions. Some human beings are brilliant and talented, some are dull-witted, and most, conscience or not, are somewhere in between. There are violent people and nonviolent ones, individuals who are motivated by blood lust and those who have no such appetites. [...]

Provided you are not forcibly stopped, you can do anything at all.

If you are born at the right time, with some access to family fortune, and you have a special talent for whipping up other people's hatred and sense of deprivation, you can arrange to kill large numbers of unsuspecting people. With enough money, you can accomplish this from far away, and you can sit back safely and watch in satisfaction. [...]

Crazy and frightening - and real, in about 4 percent of the population....

The prevalence rate for anorexic eating disorders is estimated a 3.43 percent, deemed to be nearly epidemic, and yet this figure is a fraction lower than the rate for antisocial personality. The high-profile disorders classed as schizophrenia occur in only about 1 percent of [the population] - a mere quarter of the rate of antisocial personality - and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say that the rate of colon cancer in the United States, considered "alarmingly high," is about 40 per 100,000 - one hundred times lower than the rate of antisocial personality.

The high incidence of sociopathy in human society has a profound effect on the rest of us who must live on this planet, too, even those of us who have not been clinically traumatized. The individuals who constitute this 4 percent drain our relationships, our bank accounts, our accomplishments, our self-esteem, our very peace on earth.

Yet surprisingly, many people know nothing about this disorder, or if they do, they think only in terms of violent psychopathy - murderers, serial killers, mass murderers - people who have conspicuously broken the law many times over, and who, if caught, will be imprisoned, maybe even put to death by our legal system.

We are not commonly aware of, nor do we usually identify, the larger number of nonviolent sociopaths among us, people who often are not blatant lawbreakers, and against whom our formal legal system provides little defense.

Most of us would not imagine any correspondence between conceiving an ethnic genocide and, say, guiltlessly lying to one's boss about a coworker. But the psychological correspondence is not only there; it is chilling. Simple and profound, the link is the absence of the inner mechanism that beats up on us, emotionally speaking, when we make a choice we view as immoral, unethical, neglectful, or selfish.

Most of us feel mildly guilty if we eat the last piece of cake in the kitchen, let alone what we would feel if we intentionally and methodically set about to hurt another person.

Those who have no conscience at all are a group unto themselves, whether they be homicidal tyrants or merely ruthless social snipers.

The presence or absence of conscience is a deep human division, arguably more significant than intelligence, race, or even gender.

[fluoridatedbrainsoup]

The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler
who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore
unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse
both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like
frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers
from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most
powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms
of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them.
Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought
and proved by nothing. The word means no more than:—Give me
what I want in order that thereby I might have a proof that I am
stronger than you.
Where does right begin? Where does it end?
In any State in which there is a bad organisation of authority, an
impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality
amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find
a new right—to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to
the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct
all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have
left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily
in their liberalism.

/ protocol

I have a feeling Mitt reads this kind of Teach more often than the Constitution.

[Kuldebar]

The political has nothing in common with the moral. The ruler
who is governed by the moral is not a skilled politician, and is therefore
unstable on his throne. He who wishes to rule must have recourse
both to cunning and to make-believe. Great national qualities, like
frankness and honesty, are vices in politics, for they bring down rulers
from their thrones more effectively and more certainly than the most
powerful enemy. Such qualities must be the attributes of the kingdoms
of the goyim, but we must in no wise be guided by them.
Our right lies in force. The word "right" is an abstract thought
and proved by nothing. The word means no more than:—Give me
what I want in order that thereby I might have a proof that I am
stronger than you.
Where does right begin? Where does it end?
In any State in which there is a bad organisation of authority, an
impersonality of laws and of the rulers who have lost their personality
amid the flood of rights ever multiplying out of liberalism, I find
a new right—to attack by the right of the strong, and to scatter to
the winds all existing forces of order and regulation, to reconstruct
all institutions and to become the sovereign lord of those who have
left to us the rights of their power by laying them down voluntarily
in their liberalism.

/ protocol

I have a feeling Mitt reads this kind of Teach more often than the Constitution.

Sounds like Guiliani reads out of the same book.