The Sound of Mitt’s Silence, Part II

It’s good to know that “of course” Mittens doesn’t think his political opponent—who happens also to be the President of the United States—”should be tried for treason,” as a woman asserted at his town hall in Cleveland on Monday.

But understand: It’s not that Obama hasn’t committed treason—that may be up for discussion, I assume—it’s just that he shouldn’t be tried for it.

What bizarre times we live in. There is no indignity that can be hurled at Barack Obama during a Republican event these days that Republican candidates feel compelled to challenge.

Mittens defended his silence this way:

I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me.

Ah, the old Rick Santorum dodge. Remember this:

Santorum: Not My Job to Correct Voters Who Say Obama’s a Muslim

Now, the problem with Romney using the Santorum Shuffle here is that he has bothered to correct voters in his recent campaign past:

Romney to angry fairgoers: ‘Corporations are people, my friend’

How could we forget that wonderful moment where Mittens decided he should educate someone in the audience who dared suggest that corporations should be taxed more.

Apparently, corporations warm Mittens’ heart-cockles such that a bad word towards them spikes his pissometer and compels him to speak out. But not so when someone—as part of a question being asked of Romney—clearly states that Obama “should be tried for treason.”

Treason, the last time I checked, is a crime punishable by death in the United States. And one would think that if a disturbed audience member at a Republican town hall accused a sitting president of a capital crime like treason, that perhaps the presumptive GOP presidential nominee might have a McCain moment and object to it.

But nope. No McCain moment, perhaps because Romney’s confrontational courage was wasted during the Vietnam War in France, shilling  for Joseph Smith’s cultic church.

Let’s imagine that the questioner had said that Obama’s stance on abortion meant that he should be “tried for murder.” What would Mittens have said?

There is obviously no outrageous charge that can be made against Barack Obama that would stir Romney to decency. If accusing the President of treason doesn’t do it, nothing will summons from Mittens even a hint of decorum.

The man is a walking advertisement for political pusillanimity. He cannot and will not take on the freaks in his party. Even the creepy talk show host and theological teabagger Bryan Fischer is on to him.

Fischer, who claimed that Romney fired Richard Grinnell, his gay foreign policy spokesman, under pressure from right-wing homophobes like Bryan Fischer, said this:

… if Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, co-opted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin? How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me?

How, indeed.


  1. ansonburlingame

     /  May 8, 2012

    To all,

    Simply astounding that Duane voices concerns about a GOP President being able to “stand up” to foreign leaders or the policies of those countries.

    One of the huge criticisms of Obama, particularly in the first year or so of his Presidency was his failure to “stand up” to such foreign leaders. Not only did he fail to “stand up”, he was actually shown “bending over” (bowing) to such.

    I thought that outrage over a “bow” to an Arab Prince was overblown.

    I think insinuating some lack of courage or ability to stand firmly on principle on the part of Romney is equally overblown and again, just pure political lhyperbole which SHOULD matter not.

    In fact, in past blogs, Duane has shown alarm (outrage?) that Romney would “stand up to Iran” far more than he would want to see.

    So what is it? Will Romney bend over or start WWIII. Which is you real concern?



  2. jdhight01

     /  May 8, 2012

    Obama should be tried for treason–on what charges? What has he done that makes conservative Republicans hurl such charges? Personally, he is a bit too conservative for my liking since the banksters and Wall Street execs have not been prosecuted for almost killing the economy, we are still in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, blanket recess appointments have not been made, there is not a single-option healthcare plan, the wealthy still have their tax breaks, corporations have complete immunity from wrongdoings, corporate interests are running the country, and so many more disappointments on my part. Even with this, I support him wholeheartedly. After all, look at the opposition–corporate fascism in the flesh.

    With all the above, why are conservatives so against Obama, unless, of course, the reason is that he is black and threatens the white male dominance in this country, which Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck, as well as others, are so worried about. Please, someone enlighten me.

    As far as treason, how about a president and vice-president who lied about weapons of mass destruction and took this country to war? What about the 4,000 plus soldiers who lost their lives because of these lies? How about the obstruction by Congress of legislative issues for purely political purposes that are destroying the middle class of this country? Perhaps this is not treason, but why aren’t these people, especially Bush and Cheney, being held accountable for their actions? Is it because they are conservative, white men who catered to corporate interests?


  1. An Historical Paradigm | Still Skeptical After All These Years
%d bloggers like this: