David Javerbaum’s “A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney”

One of the best lines I’ve read re: the presumptive nominee:

. . .any person who tells you he or she truly ‘understands’ Mitt Romney is either lying or a corporation.”

You can read the whole thing here.


2 Responses to “David Javerbaum’s “A Quantum Theory of Mitt Romney””

  1. 1 Miss Bessy
    April 5, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    How about two lies in one sentence, now that is hard to understand. Who makes these kind of gaffs?

    On Monday, Obama said, “Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

    The first lie was an attack on the Constitution that gives the court the right to overturn laws.
    According to the Congressional Research Service, the court through 2010 had ruled 165 times that laws passed by Congress were unconstitutional.
    Obama himself agreed with some of those decisions, including 2008’s Boumediene v. Bush, in which the court ruled 5-4 that the Military Commissions Act’s suspension of the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay detainees was unconstitutional.

    The second lie was his “strong majority” statement.
    Obamacare passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010, by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats voting against the bill. mmm thats strong?

    An attempt to lie to rewrite history is bad enough.

    But attacking the very thing that holds this country together is the major league, it makes all of the normal truth stretching that takes place during elections look tame indeed.

    If only Hillary was President. Bill was right about Obama.

    • April 5, 2012 at 10:24 pm

      Seems to me like you need to start your own blog so you can talk about what you’d like, rather than trying to shoehorn your views into posts about something else entirely.

      I believe I was commenting on an article about Mitt Romney. And the author of said article wasn’t talking about him rewriting history, but about the fact that so much of what he claims to “stand” for he was once vehemently against, and vice versa. Guess he’s counting on most of the American electorate not to be paying that much attention so as to notice, or else to subscribe so entirely to their reflexive, not-all-that-well-thought-out-opinions that they don’t care. Probably a safe bet either way.

      And you’re holding the Clinton’s up as an example of verisimilitude? Interesting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Reader Appreciation Award

Share This

Share |

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 177 other followers

Follow me on Twitter: sheriji1

Blog Stats

  • 114,539 hits

%d bloggers like this: