For all Those “Realists” Out There

Here’s some reality.  The reason the GOP is not up in the polls by 15 points against a President this weak in an economy this lousy is not due to a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy, or Evil Media, or Erin Manning or even the awesomely powerful Mark Shea and his hypnotic Svengali-like power over a docile American electorate, nearly .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of whom read my blog and robotically obey my will.  It’s because the GOP labored with might and main and could only come up with this cynical duplicitous liar as its standard bearer:

Such a liar inspires no trust but rather is himself a one man vote suppressor. So now, instead of being able to credibly turn to fencesitters on the Left (as, for instance, the revered but now ignored Reagan did) and persuade them to vote for Romney, the Thing that Used to be Conservatism is reduced to barking at members of its own ranks with a conscience to shut up and get in line, while ostracizing those heretics who refuse to do so–all while steadily refusing to devote its energies to forcing this cynical duplicitous liar to do as we will or face the furies of hell from an electorate that is sick of being lied to. So by tomorrow, we will not be seeing GOPers flooding Romney with demands he grow a moral center. Instead, we will all be told to ignore Romney’s complete and utter betrayal on the HHS Mandate:



Romney: “I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not. And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”

This is basically conceding the farm on the Mandate. It’s a line straight from the Obama playbook. According to the Administration, employers who don’t want to be forced to buy contraceptives are “telling women they cannot have contraception”. Romney is signaling he opposes employers who make that argument just as much as Obama does.

Complete and utter betrayal.

It is not “realism” to pretend that the problem is with people in the party ranks who have a conscience or with Undecideds who can see what sort of duplicitous lying cynic the GOP has chosen to put up against Obama. It is with an almost Soviet level of refusal to engage the reality of who the GOP has chosen as its standard bearer–due to its refusal to address reality.

It is not Third Party voters who are laboring to lose Romney this election. It is Willard Mitt Romney. Third Party voters are trying to do their conscience–just as those who are holding their nose and voting for Romney. Mitt Romney just stabbed both of them in the back.

UPDATE: My good friend, the honorable and charitable Steve Greydanus writes:

Mark: You could well be right about what Romney will actually do. I have very little confidence about that myself. Insofar as the question is what he is saying here, though, I believe the correct context is the rhetorical attacks that Romney wants employers or legislators to decide if women have “access” to contraception, and that he really is saying “Don’t be stupid, of course women will still have access to contraception.” This statement isn’t a pivot away from his previous statements against the HHS mandate. He may well execute such a pivot in office, but this statement isn’t what it’s been made out to be.

Nah. Romney’s statement is a “Me too”, ripped from the Obama playbook–in identical language to that of the Administration’s–to make clear that employers have no right to deny the gals on “Sex and the City” their contraceptive candy. Those employers include all the Catholic organizations being attacked by the HHS Mandate.

Romney could have made clear that he supports giving women their state-issued contraceptive candy without infringing on the religious liberty of employers. He didn’t, because he was manifestly struggling to keep up with Obama in courting the vote of Sarah Jessica Parker and Co.. Instead, he used *exactly* the same language of the Administration in order to say “me too!” to the demographic Obama was appealing to–a demographic which, at that moment, he obviously cared more about than he cared Catholics concerned about religious liberty.

Exactly the same language.

He will continue this pattern of spousal abuse of prolifers and conservative Catholics as long as we continue to make excuses for him instead of going after him with a rolling pin. Why shouldn’t he? He knows perfectly well the overwhelming number of prolifers will go on making excuses for him no matter what and condemning those who don’t as “unrealistic”, “perfectionists” and prissy self-regarding narcissists.

  • http://decentfilms.com SDG

    “Romney is signaling he opposes employers who make that argument just as much as Obama does.”

    No he isn’t. He’s signaling that he rejects the Administration’s argument that if contraceptives aren’t universally covered by healthcare, women don’t have “access.” He’s refuting the stupid lie that a Romney/Ryan administration would make the Pill illegal, or something.

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      Exactly. The HHS mandate is not about employers *telling* someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not; that’s Democrat spin. It’s about employers being forced to pay for it. Romney did not say he will force employers to pay for employees’ contraception. In fact he’s decried the Obama administration’s violation of freedom of religion in the past; like in this speech from last July:

      http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/18/romney-takes-on-obama-mandate-were-all-catholic-today/

      I heard almost the whole debate last night. Here Romney was just correcting Obama’s misrepresentation of his position on contraception. He was not expressing support for the Mandate.

      If you want to vote third party go right ahead; it’s your vote. I don’t tell people how to vote; that’s none of my concern. I agree that Romney is not perfect but misinterpreting his words here won’t help make your argument.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        I should also point out that, at this point in the debate, both Obama and the moderator were trying to cut Romney off and prevent him from responding to Obama’s charge against him. Romney finally got that much of a rebuttal in edgewise and then the moderator moved on.

        Romney was not given enough time to expound further on his position; he almost didn’t even get to say those few sentences! Maybe he would have mentioned the question of religious liberty if given more time. I was listening, I was aware of the constraints of the debate, so I would really cut Romney some slack here.

    • http://hezekiahgarrett.wordpress.com Hezekiah Garrett

      I have the transcript in front of me.

      Let’s see, Obama accuses Romney of seeking to overturn Griswold? Hmm, scanning… using ‘find’ function…um… Nope.

      Surely Obama accused Romney of wanting to give employers the power to deny women access to drugstores? Let’s see… there’s…well… Nope.

      Romney is trying to present to the American voting public that he and Obama have no differences on these two points. But…but he says different… when he has us alone.

      If Romney reverses the HHS mandate, even by dismantling Obamacare in toto, I will be hugely shocked based on his public statements and public record. An etch a sketch can do almost anything, but…

      [Repellent "joke" deleted by Blog Ubergruppenfuehrer and good friend of Steve Greydanus. No more posting from you for 24 hours, Hez. Write on your own blog. Begin with a post where you write, "I will not post revolting personal insults about a good man's name" 100 times. After that, write, "I will stop making needlessly poisonous replies to decent people in Mark Shea's comboxes" And if you ever do it again, don't come back here. That was *way* the hell out of line.]

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Like I said, I listened to most of the debate and heard the part in question. I heard them trying to cut Romney off at that point, I heard the moderator move on after grudgingly letting Romney get in a few sentences. I even thought at the time that she didn’t give him enough time to respond fully*. Still, nothing he said actually contradicted previous statements in favor of religious liberty and against the mandate, both in his first debate with Obama and Paul Ryan’s with Biden. Just because Romney didn’t get a chance to say everything he could have said (which often happens in a debate) is no reason to accuse him of lying.

        * Crowley’s attempted “correction” of Romney re. the president allegedly calling the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” revealed her bias – and even that was wrong because Obama did not call that specific incident an “act of terror.”

      • http://decentfilms.com SDG

        Classy.

        The answers to your threadbare sophistry are obvious…but I will leave the rebuttal to those who like playing in the mud. Cheers.

        • http://decentfilms.com SDG

          P.S. I should have made it explicit that I was addressing Hezekiah Garrett in my last comment.

          • S. Murphy

            Take a look at Hez’ blog.

            • Thomas

              Long live Laughing Frog.

              -Jiminy Cricket

      • Allie

        <>
        I tend to agree with you. Although, I would be very much pleased to be proven wrong if he is elected.
        However, when looking through emails/notes I had sent myself during the primaries, it is hard for me not be a bit cynical. For example, I came across this article regarding the 1975 exemption that had been granted to MA Catholic Hospitals regarding abortions, contraceptives, etc that Romney’s legal counsel came up with an interpretation of that resulted in Catholic Hospitals NOT BEING EXEMPT from Plan B, etc. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/romney-pulled-the-rug-out-from-under-catholic-hospitals-adoption-agencies-m

        • Allie

          (I have to break up my comment because of spam filter- sorry)

          Then I remembered the ruckus he caused during the primaries by not attending any of the pro-life personhood events: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/mitt-romney-skips-third-pro-life-personhood-event
          and by not signing the SBA pro-life pledge: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gop-frontrunner-romney-shirks-pro-life-pledge-bachmann-santorum-criticize
          here is the link to the pledge he “refused to sign”: http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge?s=0617SBAP)
          I completely understand why people do not want Obama re-elected (I don’t either) but, I think the above examples should give pause to those who ridicule anyone who may not be so willing to submit to the mob mentality that we MUST vote for Romney because he is our only hope against abortion and socialism and our failing economy and everything that is evil in our country.

          • Allie

            my original comment was in response to Hezekiah’s comment: “If Romney reverses the HHS mandate, even by dismantling Obamacare in toto, I will be hugely shocked based on his public statements and public record. An etch a sketch can do almost anything, but…”

            comment box not working out well for me today :)

  • Karla

    ‘Nothing in this statement is incompatible with opposition to the HHS Mandate rightly understood. Even if employers don’t pay for contraception, there are many ways for women to get it. The fact that Romney didn’t change his position is further reinforced by his last sentence (“And—and the—and the president’s statement of my policy is completely and totally wrong.”). He rejects Obama’s description of his policy—opposition to the mandate—while sticking to the policy itself.

    _____

    Romney’s contraception answer will reassure these low-information voters, but it will not make staffers at Emily’s List think Romney has come to their side. Voters worried about the HHS mandate, by the same token, should reread his statement and consider his intended audience before accusing Romney of betrayal.’

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/10/17/did-romney-just-betray-social-conservatives

    • Andy

      Nothing in this statement is incompatible with opposition to the HHS Mandate rightly understood.
      If I have to decipher what a candidate says to try and see what he really means then I can’t trust the candidate. He had the opportunity to say he would overturn the HHS mandate – in very stark terms – he elected not to. To say that we have to be aware of his audience is equally as problematic – if overturning HHS was at his core he would say so and to hell with the audience. I have no truck with Obama, but at least in this area I know what he believes – his actions match his statements. With Romney his statements are all over the place and at least half of tehm do not agree with how he behaved as governor.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        >>>He had the opportunity to say he would overturn the HHS mandate – in very stark terms – he elected not to.

        Actually, he barely had the opportunity to say even what Mark quoted. Obama and the moderator were trying to cut him off at that point. He insisted and finally got a brief rebuttal of Obama’s false statements in but then the moderator moved the debate on. In the heat of a debate (and it was heated) you don’t always get a chance to say all you wish to say. This was not a leisurely speech where he could have said everything that he wanted.

        • Andy

          My concern is that I have to interpret or “get inside his head” to know what the words mean. He seems all over the place in terms of HHS and many other things. His performance as governor of Mass. says to me that these issues – HHS, abortion and the like mean little if anything to him. His focus is on money – not social issues. He could have guessed or his handlers could have predicted that contraception would come up and he could have been prepared to make a direct statement.
          Although heated, each man essentially delivered one part or another of his stump speech. They rarely answered questions directly. To blame the moderator for wanting to move the debate along for his not answering like he wanted to, I think is wrong. She did that both men.
          I go back to my basic distrust of Romney and most politicians for that matter – they say what they think will wither energize their base or present the least objectionable face to those who have not decided. My basic cynical attitude about politicians in America is that they are like snake-oil salesmen – saying what they need to make us buy their potions. Romney for me falls into that caricature more readily – social moderate as governor and in his life apparently, until the pushed in primaries, became a severe conservative through the primaries and earlier parts of the campaign – social moderate now. WIll the real Mitt Romney please stand up. I think the real Obama as much as I do not like it has stood up.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            I’m cynical about politicians, too, Romney included. But I also don’t like people misinterpreting what other people say, and this is a clear misinterpretation of what he said. Especially in light of what he’s said in the past. But I guess time will tell for certain who’s right, if he is elected.

  • Teri

    … and he will change the mexico city policy whereby the USA pays for abortions outside the USA.
    Saving lives, another reason to vote for Romney. Besides, we will get a real catholic for vice-president.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Actually, the Mexico City Policy prevents abortions being funded by the USA in other countries. It was overturned by Obama.

      • Raul De La Garza III

        Executive orders. Yet another method to allow dictatorial-like actions from the Office of the President effectively bypassing the other two branches of the federal government as well as the will of the American people. These orders are like candles in the wind but have the capacity to cause great harm to our Constitutional Republic. It is high time that we throw these devices out or at least greatly minimize their ability to harm.

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Worse yet, in this case it’s a political football. Republicans enact the MCP, and then cry that Democrats overturn it when they take office. Except they really want the Dems to overturn it so they can use it as ammunition to keep pro-lifers on the plantation in the next cycle.

          If they were really serious about the content of the Mexico City Policy, they’d try to put it into actual legislation.

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    Those supporting Romney and opposed to the HHS mandate see the fact that he didn’t speak about forcing institutions to cover contraception as a plus, in addition they turn to his promise to jettison all of Obamacare anyway, which would take care of the mandate. And that’s worth remembering. The position of the Church seemed to be that Obamcare was A-OK as long as Obama didn’t force the employers to cover contraception and abortions. The rest of it is fine. So naturally, speaking to that one issue is important to Catholics since that appears to be the only issue the Church cares about. Others, however, opposed the mandate for a host of other reasons including, but not limited to, the HHS mandate. As Romney has repeatedly said he will jettison all of Obamacare (the good, the bad, everything), to those who want that and support Romney, it’s not important that he zero in on this one part when he’s said time and again (and had it confirmed by Obama last night) that he will move to eliminate all of Obamacare, and with it the HHS mandate, upon election.

  • vickie

    My concern, as soon as it becomes politically inexpedient, Romney will forget all about the promise to drop the HHS mandate on day one. (I think Ryan said this). In Massachusetts, his attempts at protection for the Church on homosexual adoption and plan B, was pretty weak. It doesn’t seem it was a line in the sand issue. Which is the point, what is his line in the sand issue/

    • Rosemarie

      +J.M.J+

      I’m not inside my head so I can’t say for sure what Romney will do. However, like Dale Price pointed out, It would take “no political courage” for Romney to overturn the HHS mandate but “it will needlessly alienate social conservatives if he doesn’t.” That’s reason to believe that he will do what he promises.

      Regardless of that, however, the fact remains that Romney was *not* expressing support for the mandate in the debate last night. He was quickly replying to Obama’s distortions of his position and the biased moderator did not give him time to expound further on his true position, though she gave Obama 9% more time to talk than Romney had during the whole debate. Nothing Romney said in that quote indicates support from the mandate which both he and Ryan have repeatedly said they will drop if elected.

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Sorry, that should read “I’m not inside his (Romney’s) head…”

        • vickie

          Looking over the transcript, I agree that Obama made his attack on Romney about the contraception and PP funding while answering a question about opportunities for women. Romney had to fight to get time to answer at all. Still with the concern around the blog sphere it would be good if he would clarifiy: ie: ” I do not want the government dictating whether a woman can use contracetion but I also do not want the government forcing people to pay for what they believe to be evil against there conscience.” That would settle it.

          • Rosemarie

            +J.M.J+

            I also wish he had clarified, but just because he didn’t doesn’t mean he’s betrayed us.

  • http://www.brandonvogt.com Brandon Vogt

    I’m with the commenters above, Mark. I’m no Romney fan, but his statement is clearly compatitable with his resistance to the HHS mandate. He was just clarifying that he wasn’t aiming to *outlaw* contraception and prevent women from freely choosing to access it.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    I would say that Romney stated his position very cleverly, so as to allow the Left to think that he’s no danger on contraception. I don’t agree that he caved on the HHS mandate, but it seems that the statement was cleverly crafted to let all sides believe what they want….and that’s the core of Romney.

    • Jared

      And why would this type of cleverness earn my vote?

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        I’m not saying it should! If I do vote for the RomBot2012, it would only be because of the slim hope that Paul Ryan could be President somehow…well, that, and the fact that Obama is so horrible that it might be worth a shot in the dark that Romney would be better. I’m not a Romney apologist, though, by any means.

  • S. Murphy

    Bottom line is, nothing we know about Romney has changed. He wants to repeal Obamacare, and he wants the conservative/pro-life Catholic vote, so he’ll probably take the HHS mandate off the table. Unless the Wasserman-Schultz/Kos/Jezebel/Feministing left screams ‘Handmaid’s Tale’ loud enough to shake the etch-a-sketch. He’s still the lesser of two weevils, burrowing into the hardtack biscuit of our national political discourse. Except that real weevils were at least sort of a protein source. So, Mark is right that we have to let him know we’re going to hold him accountable.
    So, I guess, everybody who is going to vote for him, write and let him know you’ll be happy to go 3rd party next time, if he screws us over on religious freedom. And by screw us over, we mean not only leaving the mandate in place, but doing something as lame as leaving it to be a political football like the Mexico City policy, which one administration sets in place and the next repeals, ad infinitum. Find a way to take it off the table, permanently – by finding a way to detach insurance from employment, detach routine BC from insurance – there has to be a way.

    • vickie

      Great point. We want to move the football off the five yard line for once.

  • Josh

    Mark, do you ever find joy in any of these horse race blog posts? If so, I don’t see it. I get that you are worried about the corrosive effect a poorly or wrongly considered vote can have on a person’s soul. But can’t we presume that most of the people in the combox have pastors and bishops who have the responsibility for providing the primary care for these souls? Please don’t think that I’m asking you to shut up or that your contribution isn’t valid. It is. But you’ve got partners in your struggle. There are lovely, dedicated priests who have given their lives for the caring of souls. Don’t let this stuff allow you to become embittered or tempt you to say “raca” to your brother. If there is a happy warrior inside, let him out once in a while. Have you noticed that both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney really love their kids? Don’t you kind of appreciate Barack Obama’s wry delivery of a punchline? Yeah, there are real life/death issues with both candidates. Issues that need to be addressed. Both are coping with disordered desires and in need of conversion. Both have stony areas in their hearts crying out to be made flesh.

  • Peggy R

    KJ Lopez, admittedly a devotee of Romney’s, has this to say about Romney’s stopping short (Mr. Costanza!) last night. KJL has links to more specific statements on the campaign trail. Crowley interrupted Romney as Radditz did Ryan when Ryan was going to say more about the lawsuits against HHS. Crowley interrupted Romney 3x more than she interrupted Barry.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/330720/do-americans-even-know-about-choice-they-are-about-make-religious-freedom-kathryn-jean

  • Chris M

    It’s interesting, if a bit disheartening, that while Obama & Co. can gleefully shout from the rooftops that they’re perfectly ok with taxpayer funded abortion on demand (even if it’s a “tragedy” and “safelegal&rare!”) we have to break out the Drogan’s Decoder Ring or go ask Sybill Trelawney to figure out if Rombot is going to support ANY real pro-life measures (SHH! Keep that Jesus freak nonsense on the DL if you wanna win the election, Mitt!)

    • Pathfinder

      Well that is Mitt’s fault. If he had a core made of something other than tofu (to steal a line), then he wouldn’t have people dragging their decoder rings out.
      Obama is a creep — a creep who loves a Margaret Sanger vision of the world (or at least buys into it), especially for the “little people”. This we all know (even his supporters, although many of them consider it a good thing — that is between them and their individual conscience). It is very easy to combat an evil you know, even if it is a daunting evil.
      But Romney is another matter: nobody really knows where he stands — on anything, except maybe the covenants he made to his church, which he doesn’t talk about. His words say one thing (sometimes multiple things), his record says another (sometimes), and nobody knows what he is up to — so support of him is really a leap of faith. Well, one bad thing about leaps of faith: you’d better make sure you’re leaping in the right direction. On a non-spiritual front: politically it will be very difficult to pin him down on anything….so how one can get to the point of holding his feet to the flames is anybody’s guess. My own hunch is this fellow will pander and sell snake oil all day long while triangulating more than Clinton (or at least just as bad) — and those who thought Clinton’s triangulation (as opposed to true bipartisan compromise and referendum) was a good thing need to rethink just how much of the damage we are suffering today got a good kickstart during the Clinton administration. That’s just a hunch, but I base it off of what I’ve seen so far of the guy (and an alarming number of his supporters — that isn’t a pretty picture at all).

      So what is being presented appears to be overwhelming, daunting, and known evil vs. slippery, shapeshifting, potentially daunting evil (maybe…except on alternating Wednesdays, Fridays, and half of each Sunday). Is it any wonder people want the blasted decoder ring? And is it any wonder that a number of people are just saying “no thanks” to both of them?

  • Irenist

    Romney’s whole history is to make statements that are “clearly compatible” with a pro-choice or pro-life parsing, so he can avoid losing any votes on either side. That he straddled that line again last night confirms this sociopathic-like tendency of his. I KNOW in my mind that Romney is a good man personally, having read about his church work and so forth. But when he does things like this, he SOUNDS so sociopathic that my gut response is to not want to be alone in an alley with him with money in my pocket. I KNOW that’s unfair. But if Romney doesn’t want to evoke that reaction, he needs to stop being so creepily equivocating. I’m ashamed Romney brings out that reaction in me. But if I were his campaign manager, I’d be ashamed of it, too!

    • Peggy R

      Irenist. That is quite close to my view of Romney also. He clearly is a decent and good man in many regards. But he is so out to lunch on these social issues. It doesn’t compute.

      • S. Murphy

        I think the Wm Saletan article Mark linked to clarifies Romney’s views on abortion. It seems that they are straight Mormon – the LDS Church tolerate abortion for rape and life-of-the mother exceptions, and not for convenience/personal desire not to have children. Romney followed that line as a bishop. OTOH, his sister’s sister-in-law died of an illegal abortion, and his pro-choice stance as gov of Massachussetts reflects the emotional impact of that tragedy. The logic isn’t perfect on either count, but you can see where he’s coming from. So, probably the real Romney is closer to the “safe, legal and rare – preferably only in the emergencies of rape, incest, or mother’s life in danger, but let’s not force people to go back to alleys and coathangers” kind of prolife/prochoice mush that goes on in a lot of people’s minds. Thus, his views are probably closer to the mainstream of US opinion than Obama’s – Obama having transcended choice and gone pro-abortion with his vote on the Born-Alive Infant Protection act, let alone his ardent commitment to Banned Parenthood.
        ( On religious freedom, he may think employers ought to provide BC, but see the utility of courting the Catholic vote, or he may genuinely see that the HHS mandate is a religious freedom issue for Catholics – and maybe he would have in MA, if the Church had stood up to him then and there. Only he knows what’s in his head on that score.)

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00805469860229478026 Irksome1

    I, and the rest of the  .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% will be occupying Mark’s front lawn.

    • Irenist

      AFAIK, relative to the biomass of 300 million American humans, the .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% occupy Mark’s lawn roughly every time a single molecule from a single cell from one of his beard hairs falls onto it.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Yeah, what an exaggerator Mark is! It’s probably more like .000001%!

      • Mark Shea

        My use of hyperbole is THE MOST AWESOME THING IN THE MULTIVERSE!!!!!

        • Irenist

          No, Mark, that’s your beard. Fun Internet fact: Did you know that until quite recently, your Wikipedia page had this uncited sentence?
          “Many claim that the great Elder God Cthulhu resides within the depts of his luscious beard.”
          Lovecraftian horror within the departments of your beard! Wow. And your beard has departments! Like France! Whichever of your friends wrote that after losing a bet is an entertaining editor….
          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_P._Shea&diff=516550596&oldid=515505078

          • ivan_the_mad

            This made my week.

          • http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/ Zippy

            I needed a coffee sinus rinse. Thanks.

          • Mark Shea

            I believe that was our 15 year old, Sean. Yes, I am proud.

            • Irenist

              As you should be. I generally frown on Wikipedia pranks, but the Rule of Awesome is pretty hard to argue with!

              • Mark Shea

                What amazes me is that somebody apparently vigilantly monitors that entry to make sure Sean doesn’t add hilarity to it. There have been several previous entries all scrubbed very quickly. I don’t know if I should be grateful or creeped out. :)

                • Irenist

                  Ah. Here’s a glimpse into a very nerdy subculture for your anthropological interest:
                  I think lots of Wikipedians (i.e., Wikipedia editors), upon spotting vandalism in a Wikipedia article, revert the edit and then add the article to their “watchlist,” which is a software “bot” that automatically lets them know if it’s been edited and shows what’s been added/deleted. It’s sort of a Dudley Do-right bit of cyber-citizenship for nerds, helping to keep the most-used info source on the Web at least somewhat reliable. My watchlist, e.g., is mostly articles about medieval and American history that I take an interest in editing now and again when I have time–sort of like gardening for lazy people: I pull vandals’ weeds and plant properly cited facts.
                  A few weekends ago, I tried to google this blog on my wife’s iPhone and ended up clicking on your Wikipedia page by fat-fingered mistake. I noticed the Cthulhu edit, enjoyed it immensely, and then did my duty by deleting it and updating your rather sparsely-maintained page to add more current info about “The Heart of Catholic Prayer” and your other books. Then I instinctively added it to my watchlist since I figured it might get vandalized again and that’s what I always do. So from this Wikipedia-scrubber, no need for gratitude, but hopefully no out-creepedness on your part either. For any other Wikipedians, I can’t speak. Cheers.

  • Nonymous

    Dale Price’s argument for nose-holding on Romney was a good, perhaps the only good, argument for voting for The Tofu. Unfortunately it’s gone now.

  • Ted Seeber

    175,000,000 voters. I’d like to think that you have at least
    .000000001% of them reading this blog.

    Zeros count.

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Even .000000001% only equals 0.00175 of a voter.

  • Will

    I think Romney is not up by a large amount is that he went “right” during the primary season. Now that he is attempting to get back to the “middle” his numbers are up. Of course, some might say he is flip-flopping.

    • Will

      Correction:

      I think the reason that Romney is not up by a large amount is that he went “right” during the primary season.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X