Mitt Romney has two entirely different personas in the virtual world of press releases.
First there are the serious, oh-so-respectable, even boring, releases that he puts out with his campaign logo at the top. Here’s one. The only complaint I have about them is that they are formatted so wide that I can’t see what they’re about in the preview window in my e-mail software. I don’t have that problem with any other candidate. But otherwise, they are unobjectionable, to the point of being too vanilla.
Then there are his attack e-mails, which are loud, lurid and vehement. You have to click on this link to see one, as I can’t reproduce the effect within the text of the blog.
These days, most of these — several a day, some days — are attacking Mike Huckabee. In the past, they were mostly aimed at Giuliani. He still gets the occasional lick in at Rudy, in fact — just to keep his hand in.
Occasionally, the campaign slips up and sends an attack under the "clean Mitt" logo, but that’s unusual.
These two styles of missives allow Mr. Romney to lead a double life — slick, unruffled, not a hair in his televangelist coif out of place in public, while a sea of resentful antipathy seethes beneath the surface.
It looks like I caught this thread early!
Anyway, while we’re on the subject (sort of), here is what FactCheck.org (in Newsweek) said about one of Romney’s attacks.
It’s interesting that this issue comes up in the context of drugs. Frankly, recreational drugs, especially marijuana should be legalized or at the very least significantly de-criminalized. The case for medicinal marijuana is even more clear cut, an issue that has no coherent count-argument. If marijuana helps alleviate pain or nasuea it should be allowed.
This is a very clear example of pragmatism vs partisanship. The partisan will say this is an area the government needs to be involved in because it’s in the interest of the people. The pragmatist, astounded by the very absurdity of that statement, understands that government meddling has only made this “problem” mush worse. It has created over-crowding in the prisons and added greatly to the crime rate. Big-governemtn partisans offer no compelling evidence that drugs, especially marijuana, should be illegal. Yet they persist in keeping this very benign drug illegal.
Even the prosecutors in Arkansas, hardly members of the counter-culture, recognized the need for leniency by supporting shorter sentences (with meth of course). Yet, as with everything else in the world of partisan politics, especially in the GOP, it’s all about being tough. Nevermind that the tough drug laws have failed utterly to improve the lives of Americans over the last 50 years. The same old worn-out arguments are still made. This is another area where the libertarians have been proven correct, yet they are branded as the extremists. It’s time to take back our country from the big-government partisans who want to shove government down our throats everywhere we turn. Perhaps the time has come for Ron Paul. Well, maybe not, but at least a good ole pot smoking liberal like Hillary Clinton (who probably did inhale) would be a welcome breath of fresh air.
Romney is the one republican I will NOT vote for regardless of the opponent. He will hand the keys to the kingdom to the multinational corporations that are destroying America. McCain will do the same thing but to a lesser degree. He will get something in return to cover his butt.
You have had a great deal of fun mocking the ” Paulista’s . ” So let us examine your fine candidate’s record. He is in favor of a war that is not worth the price even if we win. He backhands his would be supporters on immigration. He voted to limit free speech with his campaign/finance BS. As a result the dem’s have outraised the repub’s by two to one. He was in the middle of a nasty money scandal that he hopes you forget about. He is soft on Liberalism so as president he would go along to get along. The list of Mr. McCain’s problems is far too extensive to place on this or any other blog. It would require a library.
Contrast that to a great American like Dr. Paul who you ridicule for wanting to follow the constitution, save our sovereignity and put America back on a sound financial footing. I rest my case.
Okay, I encourage everyone to read the article referenced in my first comment.
But in response to bud, if we’re talking about meth, which is the pertinant issue in this case, then almost everyone agrees it’s a life-devastating drug that has become a real problem, particularly in rural communities in states like Arkansas and Iowa. This is why Arkansas’ penalties had gotten so tough in the first place (again, read the article), and why it’s being seized as an issue in the Iowa race.
Medical marijuana is one thing, but if we’re talking about the methamphetamine problem, well, then I would say any talk of legalization is rightly viewed as extremism.
Ok so abusing Meth is dangerous. So is abusing cigarettes, gasoline, water and practically every other human activity. But we selectively outlaw some things but not other. Statistically speaking far fewer people die from meth than from alcohol or cigarettes.
So, what you’re saying is, just use meth in moderation, right?
Do you get other attack emails from other clients? If so can we see examples? Bud, I agree with you about mary jane, maybe coke, and maybe horse. Legalize it like liquor; confirm the strength, check for illegal additives, and tax it enough to make lots of money (and make it prohibitive to children)but not enuf to make it worth getting on the black market. Can’t agree on Meth and PCP. Have seen the results of both. Meth permanently (as far as I can see) destroys too much brain, and is permanently personality altering, quickly. PCP–well frankly, anyone on PCP scares me, based on several very scary experiences. You are right, far fewer die from meth than alcohol and cigarettes, but far fewer take meth. I’ve seen lots of drunks and cigarette junkies who managed to get off or get control, or just plain remain tolerable humans despite their addiction (and addiction is by no means guaranteed with alcohol), but all regular meth users I’ve met have gone permanently south, rapidly.
How did my apology about the word “clients” get on another post entirely?
I don’t know. Folks, here’s what Karen said:
“Sorry, Brad. Did not mean ‘clients’ in previous post. Meant “other candidates.” Work went on too long today. ”
We should just treat it all for what it really is, a disease. Not convinced? To paraphrase the AMA, disease is a condition which, left untreated, leads to death. Doesn’t really matter what the substance is, most will kill you in addiction. Society’s solution? Put sick people in prison, where cigarettes are currency and drugs are commodities. Makes sense.
Ok, I’m convinced, meth is a horrible problem in this country. It ruins people’s lives, kills people. So how does throwing people in jail for many years help this problem? When I was a kid moonshine was the big boogey man. Then it was pot, heroin and later cocaine and LSD. The jails are filled with folks who never committed any crime other than abusing some kind of drug. And where has that gotten us? High crime rates and billions spent on enforcing these laws.
Let’s try something differnt from brute force law enforcement for a change. After all, cigarette smoking is down 50% since the early 1960s and the things are still legal. Many restaraunts are now totally smoke free. The entire cigarette industry is considered evil. What has happened is social pressure. What we need to do is be honest with folks about drugs. Watch Refer Madness sometime to see how ridiculous marijuana was portrayed in the 40s. Once people understand just how danger meth is the problem solves itself. But we have to start by being honest. Once people found out that pot was really fairly mild no amount of law enforcement was going to make the “problem” go away. Once people learn that meth is much more serious than pot they are likely to avoid it whether or not the laws are tough.
I think it’s instrumental to compare Massachusetts with Arkansas. In Massachusetts the laws are weak and meth use is rare. In Arkansas the laws are tough and meth use is high. Shouldn’t that tell you something?
I’m glad that Newsweek noted how inaccurate the ad was. I wish that these misrepresentations would tar the candidates that initiate them, because I have no use for liars in high places. I don’t want a president who has already sold out his honor completely. I truly understand that all politics must involve compromise, but to cheat and lie in order to promote one’s self does not strengthen one’s presidential qualification in my view.
“I think it’s instrumental to compare Massachusetts with Arkansas. In Massachusetts the laws are weak and meth use is rare. In Arkansas the laws are tough and meth use is high. Shouldn’t that tell you something?”
bud … you ever been to Arkansas? There are other factors at work here. Hell, Huckabee was born in the same hick town as Bill Clinton, and look what they had to become to get out. … It’s gotta be killing you, too, that Huckabee’s leading Hillary in Arkansas, too. Fire up another one.
Ding, ding, ding. Gordon gets it. Of course there are “other factors at work”. That’s exactly my point. Draconian law enforcement never had and never will solve any “drug” problem. Prohibition should have taught us that lesson. So why all the fuss over who is tougher on the meth lab folks?
Gordon, by that definition of disease, Life itself is an incurable, untreatable disease.