Sometimes a paper puts out an editorial that is so absurd that it makes your head spin. The Las Vegas Sun wins the prize this week for a surreal ability to read something into nothing. The Sun took Mitt Romney's CPAC concession speech and turned it from a gracious and inspiring address into a screed where the Sun amazingly heard Romney call Mike Huckabee a terrorist! It just makes ya go "HUH?"
In an unsigned editorial, the Sun gives us "Romney's twisted world," but it seems to me that what is twisted is the mind of the Sun editorial board. To have gotten the interpretation they got out of Romney's speech is one for the ages, but they are positive, it seems, that what Romney said is "dangerously irresponsible."
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in announcing last week that he would no longer seek the Republican presidential nomination, said something so ridiculous and dangerously irresponsible that we couldn’t let it pass without comment.
Wow. Quite a claim, isn't it? So, ol' Mitt is being "dangerous," eh? Wait until you see how...
Mitt said in his speech that he was suspending his campaign because we are a nation at war. He felt that he should step aside and let McCain take the lead so that we might coalesce behind a candidate that might be good for the war effort. For stepping aside Romney said, "And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
And here is how the Sun turned that somewhat selfless desire not to be a candidate of division and to bow out gracefully into a claim that everyone else are terror lovers:
Come again?
Does that mean Mike Huckabee, who has decided to stay in the race, is somehow furthering the cause of terrorism? For that matter, are the good people of Kansas and Louisiana who voted in their presidential nominating contests and provided Huckabee with wins in both states aiding and abetting terrorism because John McCain’s coronation as the Republican nominee has been postponed for a few weeks?
In Romney’s world, the Kansans who voted for Huckabee, 60 percent of the state’s Republican caucusgoers, are nothing better than fellow travelers of al-Qaida. And, if Romney had his way, all the Republicans in the other states who have not yet had a chance to vote would be denied a choice.
I am not kidding! This is what the Sun imagined that Romney was really saying! Come on. No one could have listened to Romney and imagined he is saying anyone that doesn't vote for McCain is a terrorist. It is just an absurd limb to climb out upon.
Then the Sun went on to make the claim that "Bush diverted his attention from the real war on terrorism, which was located in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan" when he went into Iraq. This claim shows that the Sun has little grasp on why Bush went into Iraq in the first place. One can certainly say the policy was not a good one, but one cannot say that it had nothing to do with the Global War on Terror.
In any case, I am no Mitt Romney fan but this twisting of his words is way off base and makes the editorial board of the Sun look a bit foolish.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Romney
February 13, 2008 - 13:50 ET by Six String SpiffWow... These people are either really, REALLY stupid, or they are kicking a man while he is down. Either way, it was a rediculous and wrong thing to say. Then again, we could say about virtually all of the MSM.
WTH...a bit foolish...that
February 13, 2008 - 13:50 ET by bigtimerWTH...a bit foolish...that is putting it mildly.
Well...
February 13, 2008 - 13:55 ET by Warner Todd HustonI wuz tryin' to be nice.
WTH... ...and you did
February 13, 2008 - 14:05 ET by bigtimerWTH...
...and you did real good.
I had to stop posting when I did too...to be nice, plus not get banned...lol.
Twist and spin is all the msm knows, even though Romney is gone now they just didn't quite stick it to him enough it seems...they understood very well exactly what he meant with those words, I imagine they are just preparing for the future regarding Romney...all in all...disgusting, never any accountability either.
Ift his was reversed, say oh Edwards for example who bowed out...the leftist msm would never write such obviously spun tripe, if someone on the right did we would hear the howls......endlessly.
Hypocrisy is never-ending or having to say you're sorry.
Maybe Romney was calling Hillary a terrorist
February 13, 2008 - 14:05 ET by Lame CherryStrange the Freudian Sun would jump to the conclusion that Romney was thinking about Huckabee who was not doing well at all........and Kansas had yet to vote when he had spoken.
Of course Nevada had with Clintons stealing and bribing the delegates of that noble state of citizens of high regard.
So maybe the Sun should ask if Romney was calling criminal Hillary and crooked Nevadans as terrorists in their illegal attempts to thwart the ever Camelot Obama whose name is Barak Hussein Obama..........sounds more real to me.
But then the Sun editor was probably taking tokes of the magic smoke in writing what they thought they heard.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
No one could have listened
February 13, 2008 - 14:12 ET by balboaNo one could have listened to Romney and imagined he is saying anyone that doesn't vote for McCain is a terrorist.
No, he was saying that a vote for anyone across the aisle is a support for terrorism.
well they want to pull out
February 13, 2008 - 14:19 ET by MrSnuggleswell they want to pull out of iraq and give the terrorists in guantanamo constitutional rights. and prohibit anything remotely similar to torture. and block any sort of wiretapping done on terrorists. id say thats a vote for terrorism.
Yeah, that's the kind of
February 13, 2008 - 14:21 ET by balboaYeah, that's the kind of logic that makes me love the right.
And your "logic"
February 13, 2008 - 14:35 ET by RJmakes the terrorists love the left.
What a crock. If you want
February 13, 2008 - 14:42 ET by balboaWhat a crock. If you want to look for why there's such a division between parties, that kind of garbage is point #1.
yeah balboa - and saying that Republicans are war mongers
February 13, 2008 - 16:26 ET by Dee Bunktarget civilians and go to war for oil has nothing to do with it right? Liberals are the ones who were obnoxious and hateful in their opposition and caused the division.
Neither side is the sole
February 13, 2008 - 16:53 ET by balboaNeither side is the sole reason for a division. Both sides make outrageous claims about the other in order to set their side apart.
Left says right is a bunch of warmongers.
Right says left is unpatriotic and pro-terrorist for not agreeing with the right.
The yelling and screaming of war mongering came from the
February 13, 2008 - 17:45 ET by Dee Bunkleft while the rest of us were still stunned and hugging and praying for each other. The left brought the division and brought it on strong.
Now it's on both sides, but the left has nasty name calling in the top ranks of their political machines. With the right, it's mostly just the rank and file who are mad as hell about the name calling and have responded in kind. For the most part, Republican officials have been professional.
enlighten me Bal, The left
February 13, 2008 - 16:14 ET by jezebelleenlighten me Bal, The left push for all of this...
"well they want to pull out of iraq and
give the terrorists in guantanamo constitutional rights. and prohibit
anything remotely similar to torture. and block any sort of wiretapping
done on terrorists. id say thats a vote for terrorism."
What is your logic as to why?
First, not all of the left
February 13, 2008 - 16:25 ET by balboaFirst, not all of the left pushes for all of that. There are shades. And in answering, understand that this is what I think would be their argument. I'm no authority.
Why do people want to pull out of Iraq? Because they believe we shouldn't have gone in the first place.
Why do they want to give terrorists constitutional rights? Because they believe not all detained are terrorists.
Why do they want to prohibit anything remotely similar to torture? Because they believe we're better than that.
Why do they want to block wiretapping? Because they don't trust the government to keep their taps on only what they claim to be seeking.
I half agree with you
February 13, 2008 - 17:15 ET by KhyrisYou disagree with the logic above because you think it misunderstands the true motives of the left, but at the same time I think it is a misunderstanding of the true motives of the right that makes you disagree with the logic in the first place. (That and the un-nuanced and by my opinion poorly stated presentation. Poorly stated doesn't make it illogical though)
The right is not confusing the fact that a lack of finding WMD's is not the sole consideration of whether we should pull out of Iraq now. The assumption that consideration is more important than general safety just confuses us.
The right does not want to deny rights to non-terrorists. In fact we give suspected terrorists LOTS of rights, as outlined in the Military Commissions act if you've read the full text.... just not EXACTLY the same ones as citizen criminial suspects, or uniformed foreign servicemen. The assumption that we're just throwing innocent civilians into dark holes and forgetting them is misleading.
The right wants to return the definition of torture to sane and reasonable terms... we just don't think that loud music or making people wet fits the criteria of "inflicting as much pain as possible without killing." The definition of torture has warped so much over the last 50 years... to now include such things as "mental discomfort," that technically me calling someone a poopie-head could be considered "torture". No one is talking about using the rack or the iron maiden, or chopping off finger joints. The assumption that saving as many American lives as possible isn't "better" than making foreign criminals break a sweat doesn't help us to have a moral and pragmatic discussion.
What other things exactly do people worry the government is "seeking" when they are only monitoring international communications with specific suspected terrorists? People have not had their private communications abused ... except for that cell phone call to Newt Gingrich which was "accidentally" publicized (unrelated to FISA)... but the point is that even in that case, the misuse of eavesdropping WAS punished in our court system. The assumptions that this is a universal surveillance program encompassing all domestic communications, and that there are no safeguards against abuse are patently false.
If that is in fact what he was saying
February 13, 2008 - 14:27 ET by kdizzydazeThen he'd be right
Unbelievable! I guess it
February 13, 2008 - 14:13 ET by Gary P JacksonUnbelievable! I guess it shows just how strong the MSM thinks Romney is. This is bound to be the formation of a template for 2012.
It amazes me just how this paper can take a guy dropping out, because he felt it was better for the party and the country, at a time of war, and spin it into this steaming pile of do-do!
No Wonder it's unsigned
February 13, 2008 - 14:17 ET by blackngoldfanThey dig dig dig to try to find something to critique, and when nothing is worth criticizing, you make something up! I have a hard time believing they are that stupid to have really meant it! No, wait...no I don't....uhhh, wait, Yeah I do! They have to know that Romney would have said the exact same thing had Huckabee been the front runner!
Re: Mitt’s
February 13, 2008 - 14:22 ET by maggieqpublicRe: Mitt’s “dangerously irresponsible” statement.
I refuse to believe that the editors at the Las Vegas Sun are that stupid… looks like a sensationalist ploy to stir up a controversy and sell papers.
The Las Vegas Sun...
February 13, 2008 - 15:13 ET by juspassinthru...is a 6 page insert of the conservative newspaper Las Vegas Review Journal under a JOA (Joint Operating Agreement) that happened after the Sun was going belly-up cuz no one was buying the liberal bile they were spewing. So selling papers is not on their agenda as their circulation increased being delivered by the R-J.
The Sun editors approved
February 13, 2008 - 18:16 ET by maggieqpublicThe Sun editors approved this editorial, and it wasn’t just a gimmick. The distaste for Mitt Romney runs deeper than I could have imagined.
And he would be right
February 13, 2008 - 14:25 ET by kdizzydazeOh yes, he would be right.
Twisted World?
February 13, 2008 - 15:16 ET by mattmIn order to twist Romney's comments to that extent, they'd have to be either, stupid, or joking, purposely deceptive, or they're off their rockers. There is no other rational (key word) explanation.
I can agree with that...
February 13, 2008 - 15:25 ET by sarcasmoBut I'm still perplexed by Romney's explanation of what he did. I can't see how a few weeks more or less of Republican "unity" can possibly help a candidate like McCain against the Democrats. Also, Romney must have known of McCain's legendary temper, which again would have put time on his side. It makes the decision tough to explain -- especially in light of the predictable conservative discontent. It's weird.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
I concur. I don't think he
February 13, 2008 - 15:49 ET by mattmI concur. I don't think he told us the real reason. I believe he wants to save his money for a future political campaign...
I have one word...
February 13, 2008 - 15:25 ET by Warner Todd Hustonhave one word to describe what happened in that editorial room...
Hashish
Dear Mr Huston It appears
February 13, 2008 - 15:33 ET by KeithDear Mr Huston
It appears that you are blaming the wrong people for the misunderstanding. Once again ROMNEY THE LIAR is at fault. He gave a speech that was both "rousing" and filled with LIES and you're blaming people for taking him at his word. Something that is indeed perilous when it comes to Mitt Romney.
He did indeed say
"“If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Sen. Clinton or Obama would win,” Romney said. “And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Now, he meant this as a dig to Senators Obama and Clinton, but he did say that his continuance in the race made it more likely that ONE OF THEM would WIN. He then said that if ONE OF THEM WON , this would be tantamount to a "surrender to terror". If his own continuing in the race would make it more likely that someone who would "surrender to terror" would win, how is it in any way obscene to postulate that he must think the same of ANYONE ELSE who continues in the race? Wouldn't Mike Huckabee's continuance also "forestall the launch of a National Campaign"?
The problem isn't the liberals at the Las Vegas Sun or their anger at what Romney was rightly implying about their preferred candidates. The problem is that ROMNEY WAS ONCE AGAIN LYING WHEN HE SAID this was his reason for quitting!!!! If you believe that Mitt Romney got out of the race FOR ANY OTHER REASON than the fact that the numbers were against him and the cost of continuing, even with his deep pockets, was prohibitive, you are naive to say the least and stupid to say the most.
But Romney the liar, had to try and cloak his departure in the mantle of patriotism. He couldn't even be honest about that. So he went out with an ill phrased barb at the democrats about how his fight would ultimately help their cause and thus aid the terrorists. Nevertheless, the logical deduction from his statement would be that he would regard ANYONE still remaining in the race as contributing to a Democrat win and thus aiding and abetting said terrorists. If he really believed that, that is. But as we know from past experience with Slick Mitt, what he said is often at variance with what he believes. You are wrong to blame the paper for properly interpreting the stupid statements of Mitt Romney, sir. You do yourself a disservice by failing to see who is really at fault here.
keith... Do you like
February 13, 2008 - 15:37 ET by bigtimerkeith...
Do you like Mitt?
bt, I'm starting to think Keith doesn't even like himself.
February 13, 2008 - 17:46 ET by R D HelmLots of hate in that rant of his.
Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com
Wow, just wow.
February 13, 2008 - 15:55 ET by Gary P JacksonWow, just wow.
Keith, Did Romney run over your dog or something?
February 13, 2008 - 17:31 ET by IamTinmanI think you seriously need some rubber room time. The meds aren't working any more.
"Wouldn't Mike Huckabee's
February 13, 2008 - 18:06 ET by Khyris"Wouldn't Mike Huckabee's continuance also "forestall the launch of a National Campaign"?"
NO.
That's the answer that seems to elude you and the people at the Sun.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.
WOW!
February 14, 2008 - 08:09 ET by voodoodaddyAnd I thought the Sun had a wild imagination. Seek help now my friend. You are in dire need of some. Those voices in your head are getting louder and louder.
Ever Wonder Why?
February 13, 2008 - 16:20 ET by okiehawk44More qualified and decent people don't run for leadership roles in our society anymore? Would you want to subject yourself to this type vitriol from what is, by all appearances, one of that Las Vegas paper's highest placed editors? Journalists are the least educated graduates coming out of institutes of higher education. The J-School is just a tiny bit ahead of the School of Education in having the least capable students on almost every campus in America.
NO ONE TAKES THE LV SUN
February 13, 2008 - 17:41 ET by 10thAmendmentNO ONE TAKES THE LV SUN SERIOUSLY as a newspaper. It is owned by the Greenspun family. Whenever the Clintons come to Southern Nevada they stay with the Greenspun family.
The LV SUN is so bad that they aren't even a real newspaper anymore. They are a few pages inserted into the Review-Journal (the real daily paper).
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Apparently they are no longer teaching
February 13, 2008 - 21:10 ET by c5thenreading comprehension in journalism schools.
These must be the same people who read the Constitution and see "... shall not..." And say that it's Ok as long as there is a good reason, or it's just a little bit.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Dear Mitt
February 14, 2008 - 01:00 ET by WesenDear Mitt;
Does this mean I don't get your delegates?
Huck
"Bush diverted his
February 14, 2008 - 00:09 ET by R D Helm"Bush diverted his attention from the real war on terrorism, which was located in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan"
Actually, the war on terrorism is a global conflict. Why is that so difficult for the MSM to understand?
When we are finished in those two unfortunate countries, the GWOT will still be going on.
Obama: Elect me and I'll lose the war AND raise your taxes! - Bryan/HotAir.com