The Sound Of Mitt’s Silence

At a town hall in Cleveland today, a woman asked Mittens a question, but with a twist:

We have a president right now that is operating outside the structure of our Constitution. (Applause.) And I want to know—yeah, I do agree he should be tried for treason—but I want to know what you would be able to do to restore balance between the three branches of government and what you are going to be able to do to restore our Constitution in this country.

Now, in order to highlight Mitttens’ response to the “tried for treason” comment, I want to put it in a special box:

Yep, that’s right. He ignored it at the time. Here’s the episode in all its ignominy:

16 Comments

  1. Jane Reaction

     /  May 7, 2012

    A classier gentleman would have spoken up about it, at least to the point of saying something to assure the folks that his probable opponent was NOT treasonous, at least.

    Having spent three weeks in the Vernal, Utah vicinity in the 1980’s, I can attest to one thing: The effect of the Mormon state’s liquor regulations was that the buying window is seldom open, buying a drink is tricky and difficult, and therefore everybody was on drugs.

    The Mormon church’s smoking or drinking restrictions created an entire population of pill-poppers.

    Oh, I’ve never been to heaven, but it’s a pharmacy in Orem…

    Like

  2. I assume this lady’s point is the executive is assuming too much power. I’d take her more seriously if she was at all concerned about the assertion of additional powers to fight terrorism, but I suspect she wasn’t at all.

    Like

  3. hlgaskins

     /  May 7, 2012

    “I assume this lady’s point is the executive is assuming too much power.”

    I don’t see any assumptions there, “the executive is assuming too much power.” Across American history presidents have increasingly over reached their constitutional authority, but all past presidents combined haven’t extended presidential power as much as George Bush has alone.

    ” I’d take her more seriously if she was at all concerned about the assertion of additional powers to fight terrorism, but I suspect she wasn’t at all.”

    Hence we have George Bush and all his colors of fear, while we engage wars of choice because of the acts of a few fanatics.

    I pretty sure that Jane gets it, so don’t punish her for being selective in her criticisms.

    Like

  4. ansonburlingame

     /  May 8, 2012

    To all,

    A commenter on Jim Wheeler’s blog wrote a letter to the Speaker of the House in 2007 calling for Bush’s impeachment. He seems to believe that Bush should now be prosecuted for crimes while in office.

    The woman made a statement that Romney did not refute (a treasonous President Obama). He should have refuted the statement, simply. BUT her QUESTION was not about taking action against Obama. It was what would Romney do to not overreach Executive branch Constitutional powers.

    He answered that question, sort of.

    Now go ask Obama why he has not directed prosecution, today, of past President Bush and see what you get.

    We won’t reach any agreements on how to solve problems tomorrow if all we do is argue about the past.

    Anson

    Like

  5. I was referring to the lady who suggests President Obama is guilty of treason. My point was I think she was likely totally at ease with the executive branch assuming greater and greater power as long as it was wielded by a conservative president. Most of the right was for 2001-2009.

    Their concern for constitutinal balance has only arisen to hobble a liberal President.

    Like

  6. hlgaskins

     /  May 8, 2012

    Bruce

    ” Most of the right was for 2001-2009.

    Their concern for constitutional balance has only arisen to hobble a liberal President.”

    You mean of course the “woman,” “political shill,” in the video who is most likely a “birther” as well. I wholeheartedly agree. When presidents of any party are given greater executive authority then unfortunately even the party who opposed it at its inception will one day use it. We saw the harm done to civil liberties under George Bush and the Republicans (and more than a couple Democrats), which set us on a path to becoming a police state. The concern I have is, why weren’t those civil liberties returned to the people when Obama took office? The Patriot Act taught us to be afraid of our own shadows in order to convince us to relinquish our freedoms to uncertain fears.

    Like

    • HLG,

      You wrote,

      The concern I have is, why weren’t those civil liberties returned to the people when Obama took office? The Patriot Act taught us to be afraid of our own shadows in order to convince us to relinquish our freedoms to uncertain fears.”

      You express a critique of the President that I have heard from several liberals. The problem is that returning those liberties to the people in the context of the “uncertain fears” you mention would be politically problematic. I don’t disagree with you at all, but I also am sympathetic to the political argument (based, I think, on political reality) that we wouldn’t be talking about a second Obama term if he had taken head-on the Patriot Act.

      Duane

      Like

      • hlgaskins

         /  May 9, 2012

        RDG

        “Good to see you back. Missed your insights.”

        I’ve been busy with personal family issues and working to change a few votes “on the ground” from the undecided. Florida is going to be incredibly important in November because without Florida, he can’t win and I just happen to be here.

        “The problem is that returning those liberties to the people in the context of the “uncertain fears” you mention would be politically problematic.”

        I understand your concern but I’m reasonably certain that it won’t cost Obama votes from republican supporters, and to do nothing could cost him the youth vote that made a difference in 2008. It could also cost him votes from Ralph Nader supporters for his choosing to extend unpopular Bush policies. Either way we Democrats are different or we aren’t, because espousing the same policies on both sides of the aisles blurs the distinctions and confuses the electorate.

        Like

        • HLG,

          I refuse to argue with a guy who is actually doing something to stop Romneyism from becoming a reality, as opposed to just talking about it. Congratulations on your efforts. I feel better about Florida knowing that your energies are directed toward undecided voters. I wish you much good luck. Even though we can lose Florida and still win the election, if we beat them in your state, it’s all over.

          Duane

          Like

  7. Mitt Romney finally said something that I agree with. Speaking about Barack Obama, he said, “His four years have been a disappointment.” Of course, the GOP have done everything in their power to make the Obama years a disappointment to his supporters and to the nation. Barack has been in office only 3.5 years. Does Mitt know something about the remaining 8 months that the rest of us don’t?

    Like

    • Walt,

      I like the way you constructed your comment: The Republican Party is trying to convince voters that Obama is “a disappointment,” when they did everything in their power to make him a disappointment.

      And despite all of their efforts, the GOP still must lie about the accomplishments under this administration. When we step back and take a look, some amazing things have been achieved, albeit not as much as some of us in the labor movement would have liked.

      Duane

      Like

  8. ansonburlingame

     /  May 10, 2012

    The really amazing thing that has happened over the last 3.5 years is the accumulation of an additional $5 Trillion in debt with little to show for it. As well if the labor movement had had its way that $5 Trillion would have been much larger.

    Anson

    Like

  1. NO ONE DARES TO CALL IT TREASON… « CITIZEN.BLOGGER.1984+ GUNNY.G BLOG.EMAIL
%d bloggers like this: