Can You Hear Me Now?
Certain progressive bloggers in their natural state of paranoia are amusing to behold, and the conspiracy du jour is no different, as one of the more excitable ones interprets an event during last night's Republican debate as evidence that candidate Mitt Romney was cheating.
Allahpundit has the video over at Hot Air of NBC's Tim Russert asking Mitt Romney a vaguely-worded question, and then someone whispering "raise taxes," to which Romney replied, "I'm not going to raise taxes." Romney obviously heard the whisper and responded to it, but the origin of the whisper seems to be found at the network, as an MSNBC blog posted on the subject, and then mysteriously pulled down the blog entry without explanation. As Allah notes, Dan Riehl is probably correct that the whisper was from an NBC staffer attempting to coach Russert into explaining his poorly worded question, and that Romney, hearing the question as well, responded to it. It is also quite possible that feed simply could have been picked up from another candidate's mike. Other than being a minor gaffe for NBC's technical crew, this should be a non-story. Things, of course, are never quite that simple for those who see a conspiracy behind every, err, bush. At democrats.com, Bob Fertik wails "Romney cheats with an Earpiece!" despite, of course, having no such evidence of said claim, and the slightly troubling fact that if there was an earpiece, nobody else would have heard it. Of course, Fertik and fellow conspiracy theorists still insist that President Bush was wearing an earpiece during a 2004 debate because of a bulge in the back of his jacket. They can't quite seem to grasp that the most logical explanation is that the bulge would been caused by body armor, not an obsolete transmitter the size of a deck of playing cards paired with an earpiece equipped with a futuristic Predator-type cloaking device that leaves the ear canal exposed. Fun guy, Bob Fertik. You'll know him when you see him, franticly searching the sky for black helicopters and Denny Kucinich's UFO. Update: Rolling Stone seems to be watching the skies as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:33 PM
Comments
1
Progressive are paranoid?!?! Oh, how rich.
This coming from people who inspect every single AP and other "Soros-funded liberal MSM traitor" media photos for "fauxtography."
This from the party of Tancredo who thought that Bush was trying to create a North American Union to supersede the sovereignty of the United States.
This from the party of Huckabee who thought that AIDS patients needed to be quarantined.
This from the party of Cheney who inferred that a John Kerry victory would lead to more 9/11-style attacks.
This from the party who thinks allowing gay marriage will lead to man-dog relationships.
Give us a break, Bob.
This coming from people who inspect every single AP and other "Soros-funded liberal MSM traitor" media photos for "fauxtography."
This from the party of Tancredo who thought that Bush was trying to create a North American Union to supersede the sovereignty of the United States.
This from the party of Huckabee who thought that AIDS patients needed to be quarantined.
This from the party of Cheney who inferred that a John Kerry victory would lead to more 9/11-style attacks.
This from the party who thinks allowing gay marriage will lead to man-dog relationships.
Give us a break, Bob.
Posted by: doh at January 25, 2008 03:04 PM (MyDKI)
2
So, we're having tu quoque for lunch, doh?
Posted by: Pablo at January 25, 2008 03:09 PM (yTndK)
3
a John Kerry victory would lead to more 9/11-style attacks
Can you prove otherwise? I didn't think so.
Can you prove otherwise? I didn't think so.
Posted by: Boss429 at January 25, 2008 03:59 PM (dFemX)
4
This whole kerfuffle is more than a little amusing in terms of how it illustrates what a bunch of whack jobs exist over on the loony left. Andrew Sullivan, the blogosphere's own crazy old aunt in the attic, has posted twice on it, each time providing Links to lefty sites with all sorts of wild speculation, to which Sullivan says "what's the web for?"
Stephen Spruiel probably has the right response to the moonbat speculation that Romney was wearing an earpiece: "Can you imagine if Romney was wearing an earpiece turned up so loud his microphone picked up the sound? It would have melted his brain worse than Van Halen."
Stephen Spruiel probably has the right response to the moonbat speculation that Romney was wearing an earpiece: "Can you imagine if Romney was wearing an earpiece turned up so loud his microphone picked up the sound? It would have melted his brain worse than Van Halen."
Posted by: Aaron at January 25, 2008 04:31 PM (d/RyS)
5
Hey, "doh," how far did either Tancredo or Huckabee get in the nomination process?
Now, if you wanna say that even also-rans are worthy examples of what a party believes, shall we take a quick look at Rep. Dennis Kucinich?
Hmmm?
I anticipate an echoing silence, so I will say GOOD DAY, sir.
Now, if you wanna say that even also-rans are worthy examples of what a party believes, shall we take a quick look at Rep. Dennis Kucinich?
Hmmm?
I anticipate an echoing silence, so I will say GOOD DAY, sir.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 25, 2008 07:40 PM (HVE86)
6
I wonder what TV reporters themselves think about this allegation, and the "bulge in the back" gnashing of teeth during the Bush debates four years ago.
I mention TV reporters because I would bet they would acknowledge that it is very difficult to speak at all coherently when someone is yapping directly into their ear. We've all seen them on occasion reach up and yank the thing out when they are on air. I'll bet a paycheck that none of these conspiro-freeks could even begin to hold a normal conversation with me while an earpeice talks directly to them. It is very, very difficult, and all it would take is the smallest lapse by someone not used to doing it (which an reporter is, and Romney and Bush are not) and who is trying to hide the fact they are doing it (which an reporter does NOT have to do, but Romney and Bush would) and they will blow the whole deal and expose themselves, with catastrophic political implications.
Oh.... oh..... I'm sorry. That was using basic common sense, something not allowed in the conspiro-sphere.
Never mind.
I mention TV reporters because I would bet they would acknowledge that it is very difficult to speak at all coherently when someone is yapping directly into their ear. We've all seen them on occasion reach up and yank the thing out when they are on air. I'll bet a paycheck that none of these conspiro-freeks could even begin to hold a normal conversation with me while an earpeice talks directly to them. It is very, very difficult, and all it would take is the smallest lapse by someone not used to doing it (which an reporter is, and Romney and Bush are not) and who is trying to hide the fact they are doing it (which an reporter does NOT have to do, but Romney and Bush would) and they will blow the whole deal and expose themselves, with catastrophic political implications.
Oh.... oh..... I'm sorry. That was using basic common sense, something not allowed in the conspiro-sphere.
Never mind.
Posted by: Andrew X at January 26, 2008 05:38 PM (Np2ME)
7
Good going Andrew, you probably made a half dozen moonbat heads explode with that post.
Posted by: Conservative CBU at January 27, 2008 12:05 AM (La7YV)
8
Let's not overlook the obvious: If this were someone talking to Romney through an earpiece, we wouldn't have heard it. The mikes wouldn't have picked it up. That's the point behind the whole earpiece thing. Only the person with the earpiece hears what you're saying to them.
Posted by: Pablo at January 27, 2008 10:51 AM (yTndK)
9
C-C-G
My favorite was the deflation of the one true conservative Fred!
He could never poll more than 15% even within his own party.
As far as Kucinich is concerned lets not forget he has a wife 30 years younger than himself AND 6 inches taller. No wonder you hate him
My favorite was the deflation of the one true conservative Fred!
He could never poll more than 15% even within his own party.
As far as Kucinich is concerned lets not forget he has a wife 30 years younger than himself AND 6 inches taller. No wonder you hate him
Posted by: John Ryan at January 27, 2008 12:57 PM (TcoRJ)
10
Who said anything about hate, John? My guess is that you're projecting.
Posted by: Pablo at January 27, 2008 01:55 PM (yTndK)
11
Indeed, Pablo, I don't hate anyone. Besides, a wife 30 years younger than me would be about 12, and I am not a Muslim, to take a child bride.
Oh, John Ryan, we all know what you're doing, so you can stop spinning now. You got your head handed to you, again, so now you're changing the subject with a personal attack.
Lefties are so predictable.
Oh, John Ryan, we all know what you're doing, so you can stop spinning now. You got your head handed to you, again, so now you're changing the subject with a personal attack.
Lefties are so predictable.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 04:40 PM (HVE86)
12
Indeed, Pablo, I don't hate anyone. Besides, a wife 30 years younger than me would be about 12, and I am not a Muslim, to take a child bride.
Oh, John Ryan, we all know what you're doing, so you can stop spinning now. You got your head handed to you, again, so now you're changing the subject with a personal attack.
Lefties are so predictable.
Oh, John Ryan, we all know what you're doing, so you can stop spinning now. You got your head handed to you, again, so now you're changing the subject with a personal attack.
Lefties are so predictable.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 04:41 PM (HVE86)
13
"...the most logical explanation is that the bulge would been caused by body armor"
... body armor designed to cover only the middle thoracic vertebra? That's pretty stupid.
... body armor designed to cover only the middle thoracic vertebra? That's pretty stupid.
Posted by: passerby at January 27, 2008 06:18 PM (FihGT)
14
Where can I buy one of these earpiece megaphones?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at January 27, 2008 08:01 PM (ERV3B)
15
I smell troll.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 11:11 PM (HVE86)
16
Hmmm, the troll is gone, but my comment remains.
For the record, I wasn't referring to Passerby or Purple as the troll.
For the record, I wasn't referring to Passerby or Purple as the troll.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 27, 2008 11:46 PM (HVE86)
Posted by: stumpy at January 28, 2008 06:30 AM (tan/b)
18
And if McCain is elected, we'll nuke Iran.
Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so.
And if Obama is elected, we'll nuke Pakistan. He already said he'd bomb them in certain conditions.
Can you prove otherwise?
Can you see how silly this whole line of questioning is? No? Didn't think so.
Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so.
And if Obama is elected, we'll nuke Pakistan. He already said he'd bomb them in certain conditions.
Can you prove otherwise?
Can you see how silly this whole line of questioning is? No? Didn't think so.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 28, 2008 09:09 AM (HVE86)
19
And if McCain is elected, we'll nuke Iran.
Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so.
And if Obama is elected, we'll nuke Pakistan.
He's already said he'd bomb them under certain conditions.
Can you prove otherwise?
Can you comprehend how silly this type of question is? No? Didn't think so.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!
Can you prove otherwise? Didn't think so.
And if Obama is elected, we'll nuke Pakistan.
He's already said he'd bomb them under certain conditions.
Can you prove otherwise?
Can you comprehend how silly this type of question is? No? Didn't think so.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY!
Posted by: C-C-G at January 28, 2008 09:11 AM (HVE86)
20
If Frank J. is elected, we'll nuke the moon! And we'll punch hippies!
Can you prove otherwise? If so, please don't. I wanna keep living the dream.
Can you prove otherwise? If so, please don't. I wanna keep living the dream.
Posted by: Pablo at January 28, 2008 03:34 PM (yTndK)
21
Paranoia ?? WMD !!!
C-C-G you seem to also declare victory a bit early. And exactly what was the personal attack against you ??
Did I malign you by saying that you hate Kucinich ?
It seems all the right is getting a bit testy now, polls don't look good future is in doubt.
Paranoia ?? WMD !!!
C-C-G you seem to also declare victory a bit early. And exactly what was the personal attack against you ??
Did I malign you by saying that you hate Kucinich ?
It seems all the right is getting a bit testy now, polls don't look good future is in doubt.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 28, 2008 04:12 PM (TcoRJ)
22
Of course paranoia is fear, and the right definitely seems to be shall we say "less than optimistic" about the future ?
Some of the biggest support from the right comes from those born in the 60s issues with their hippie parents and coming of age with Rambo and Missing in Action being their recollections of the glory that was the Vietnam War.
Some of the biggest support from the right comes from those born in the 60s issues with their hippie parents and coming of age with Rambo and Missing in Action being their recollections of the glory that was the Vietnam War.
Posted by: John Ryan at January 28, 2008 04:25 PM (TcoRJ)
23
John, you did malign me by stating that I hate anyone. For the record, I'd be happy to invite Mr. Kucinich to join me at, say, a Star Trek convention. (Yes, I have attended Trek cons. Met Majel Barrett, a/k/a Mrs. Gene Roddenberry, at one. A more gracious lady you'd be hard pressed to find.)
You see, we on the right can disagree without making it personal. See my disagreement with Pablo on the merits of Wikipedia in another thread. But those on the left always seem to want to demonize their opponents, thus showing a level of hatred that really does not exist on the right.
I have publicly stated before that, though I disagree with virtually all of his domestic program, I think that if considering only his actions as a war president, FDR is clearly among the top tier. But look what happened when Obama spoke kindly about Mr. Reagan. That right there, in a nutshell, illustrates the difference between the right and the left.
The left simply cannot admit anything good about any conservative. It's part and parcel of their worldview... that they are "good people" because of what they believe, therefore anyone that disagrees must be not only wrong, but actively evil.
You see, we on the right can disagree without making it personal. See my disagreement with Pablo on the merits of Wikipedia in another thread. But those on the left always seem to want to demonize their opponents, thus showing a level of hatred that really does not exist on the right.
I have publicly stated before that, though I disagree with virtually all of his domestic program, I think that if considering only his actions as a war president, FDR is clearly among the top tier. But look what happened when Obama spoke kindly about Mr. Reagan. That right there, in a nutshell, illustrates the difference between the right and the left.
The left simply cannot admit anything good about any conservative. It's part and parcel of their worldview... that they are "good people" because of what they believe, therefore anyone that disagrees must be not only wrong, but actively evil.
Posted by: C-C-G at January 28, 2008 07:44 PM (HVE86)
24
Most people born in the 60's aren't hung up on Vietnam, John. And those that are familiar with it and are on the right are more concerned with the actual slaughter of millions of human beings that took place after we left.
No one learned of the glory of Vietnam from Rambo, because First Blood wasn't a Vietnam movie. IIRC, it was set entirely in Washington state. The Vietnam movies I was watching in my formative years were The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, with Platoon coming along later in the game.
Where do you come up with these little psuedopsyciatric gems?
C-C-G, Obama just said something nice about Bush vis a vis AIDS spending. How long 'til the knives come out for him?
No one learned of the glory of Vietnam from Rambo, because First Blood wasn't a Vietnam movie. IIRC, it was set entirely in Washington state. The Vietnam movies I was watching in my formative years were The Deer Hunter and Apocalypse Now, with Platoon coming along later in the game.
Where do you come up with these little psuedopsyciatric gems?
C-C-G, Obama just said something nice about Bush vis a vis AIDS spending. How long 'til the knives come out for him?
Posted by: Pablo at January 28, 2008 11:04 PM (yTndK)
25
Pablo, Bill and Hill are already gunning for him. What more could the left do? Ask Teddy Kennedy to take him for a drive on Chappaquiddick Island? -LOL-
Posted by: C-C-G at January 28, 2008 11:24 PM (HVE86)
Posted by: Robert in BA at January 29, 2008 03:42 PM (SO61Y)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.012 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0074 seconds, 34 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.