It appears someone has "replied" to one of my posts. My aged computer is incapable of opening the "reply" window beneath my post. To the person who "replied", if you want to pass me a message, you're going to have to put it in a comment box.

Because it's relevant, that's "the hateful Gore/NAACP ad". (New Paragraph) Bush wanted to execute the monsters who murdered James Byrd. Gore and the liberal liars and demagogues said "Bush killed" James Byrd all over again. The Democrats own the most vile, hateful, campaign ad in history and, understandably, Scot cherry-picked one aspect of all my posts to address; he, too, ignored the reference to Gore and the NAACP's ugly distortion - why stay on topic, eh?

JLErwin3, There was a time liberal extremists didn't think concern for our troops in harm's way was "tedious"; how regrettable that such concern is labeled such; how regrettable you offer nothing but a personal attack; you've contributed greatly to the coarsening of the National dialogue; Barney Frank would be so proud of you. The hateful Gore/NAACP didn't compel the liberal extremists to do a distortion column; the Romney ad gets three mentions in two days! L - O - L!! The system worked!! When do you think the liberally-extreme Editorial Board of the liberally-extreme Boston Globe should do a column on Afghanistan? Does one U.S. KIA per day in Afghanistan bother you at all? Even a little? Or, did your concern for our troops in harm's way end on January 20, 2009, too?

We removed JLErwin3's comment

Scot, And another thing on "tedious", think of me as an Occupy Lehigh protester and maybe you won't think I'm "tedious", you might even come to love me like the liberals at the Globe love the unwashed and persistent and "principled" on the Greenway. Well, except, the real Okkupiers are asking 99% of the Country to hate 1% of the Country (How threatening can a movement be that attacks only 1% of the Country, the Editorial Board recently asked) and since our military represents just less than 1% of the Country, I'm kinda supporting the underdog, so a little different. Maybe you can use your influence on the Editorial Board and simply ask why the Board is ignoring Afghanistan? If more than one U.S. troop being killed per day does not concern you, then, by all means, continue your silence in the strategy meetings. Stalin's daughter passing gets space, Obama's costly Afghanistan strategy is ignored? How hysterical must have been that conversation when one topic was elected over the other!! Waaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy too funny. The system worked. L - O - L!!

Scot, (New Paragraph) You sit on the liberally-extreme Editorial Board of the liberally-extreme Boston Globe, when is the last time the Board even considered an editorial on A - F - G - H - A - N - I - S - T - A - N? I accept you are no expert but do you sit around the discussion table and truly ignore the most important issue facing the Country? You and MgGrory attacked Romney yesterday and the liberally-extreme Editorial Board thought another attack editorial was appropriate for today? Did you sit in on the session? Were you embarrassed that the other members didn't think your column was enough? You didn't suggest, "Hey, I'm not the expert, but don't you guys think it's time we asked why so many U.S. soldiers are being killed in A - F - G - H - A - N - I - S - T - A - N?" When was the last time the word A - F - G - H - A - N - I - S - T - A - N was mentioned in a strategy session? When? If not since 1/20/09, doesn't that tell you something? If since 1/20/09 but the liberal extremists decided to pass, doesn't that tell you something? There really is no curiosity by the Board? Waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too funny. L - O - L!!

Guess I couldn't end my day totally agreeing with Scot. Mike Dukakis, one of the best governors? This from the guy who wrote THE defining columns about him, for the Phoenix, when he was running for president? Go back and read them! Geez, "Massachusetts miracle", lying about revenues, hiding Medicade bills, sneering at his opponents: "gutless wonders", and that was Democrat legislators! Worst governor evah!!! But I agree about Bill Weld. Ed King was a good governor too. Hey, just watched hour-long interview with Newt on Hannity, he was terrific! Adequately addressed earlier immaturities, has great ideas for the campaign. I may not need to consider Huntsman.... and just saw Van Hollen and Ryan agree to do the line item veto. Things are looking up!

Either Romney falls into the dope category himself, or he's made the cynical calculation that a majority of voters do. --------------------- It's definitely the latter, and he and the GOP are often proved right in this regard. They know that if they just keep repeating that Obama apologized, a big percentage of the people will come to believe it. And, of course, GOP voices will be aided by the screeching from rightwing AM hate radio and Faux News. By comparision, a tiny, tiny minority of people will have heard or read about the fact checkers conclusions.

Yikes, my last post seems barely literate. I meant to say: I think I noted the DNC's dishonesty ...

Barbara, Thanks for your posts today. I think your interpretation is right on this: it's a post facto rationalization. Richmond: I think I note the DNC dishonest high up in the column, no? Petescall: Please, specify the lies. I'm always amused by empty allegations like yours. JL: Huntsman was at the Globe on Tuesday and, at least for my money, was quite impressive. He's a conservative non-conservatives can respect, I think. For my money, he deserves a closer look in this. I continue to think that only he and Romney would really run well against Obama (that, admittedly, is from a center-left perspective). Waytoo: As I've said many times before, I'm really not the foreign policy columnist, so to complain after every column that it's not about Afghanistan is a little tedious. Redglare: I don't think he gave up, I think he caught Potomac fever. In fairness to Romney, though, he was a passing fair governor. For my money, the two best governors of the my time in Massachusetts were Bill Weld and Mike Dukakis, though for every different reasons. Both did very important things. Romney was no Weld in terms of systemic change, but he did some smart stuff. Scot

I didn't notice any "outright lies" in the column, Petes. Can you name them? Aside from that, wow, your overconfidence is scary.

What a joke article by Lehigh. I can see several outright lies in the text...all intended to get Obama elected again. 2012 will be a romp for Romney. Most "normal" Americans are horrified by Obama's deceipt, arrogance and incompetence. Add in the worst ecomomy since Jimmy Carter, and you can guess what's going to happen in 2012. Aloha!

"The 2012 campaign is under way and the outcome will depend not on what I do, but what you do." - The undistorted words of Abdicator-in-Chief Barack Hussein Obama in one of his campaign ads released this week. (New Paragraph) L - O - L!! L - O - L!! No kidding, Barack!! The last campaign wasn't dependent on anything you did either, well, because you didn't do anything and your cheerleaders in the liberal media could not have cared less. L - O - L!! (New Paragraph) Today is like every other day at the Boston Globe, the Globe committed to doing everything it can to impact the outcome of next year's election in Obama's favor. The Globe must have had advance copy of the Obama ad. L - O - L!! (New Paragraph) 400 U.S. KIA in Afghanistan so far this year and the Globe could not care any less. L - O - L!! The system continues to work. L - O - L!! No, the outcome of next year's election won't have anything to do with the blood of U.S. troops on Obama's hands, it will have everything to do with anything but that which Obama is responsible for. The system works! And that's no distortion! L - O - L!!

I stand by my assessment that Romney got so bored and frustrated that he couldn't be the CEO of Mass that he gave up and quit. It's very different to be an elected governor or president than it is to be a business leader who controls the whole company. There are checks and balances in the legislature that one doesn't have to deal with in a private company. Romney never grasped that, nor do I believe that he has yet. That's apart from his fundamental inability to be honest about his positions, if he even has any. He just wants the job of President so very, very badly that he'll say or do anything to get it.

Romney didn't quit, he filled his full four years, had never committed to run for second term. It was all we could do to talk him into coming back from Utah to run the first time. Then he left a very competent Lt. Gov to run for the office; voters chose Deval instead, while Romney moved on to run for a higher office that is more important to Massachusetts' well being than being governor. Can't fault him for that; grateful that people are willing to put themselves out there. Also, getting along with the Democratic Legislature isn't necessarily a virtue. I less than fondly remember Bill Weld supporting their 55% payraise! Mitt's biggest issue problem right now is that he got along with them enough to pass RomneyCare.

I, too, saw Romney in action as Governor of Massachusetts and he was essentially irrelevant for all of the years of his self-abbreviated tenure. He thought he was the CEO of Massachusetts, but he found that the Democrat legislature routinely ignored him and virtually all of his ideas. Unlike Weld, who had some real people skills, Romney couldn't get along with the legislative leaders, because he couldn't just "tell" them what to do and have them do it, like the former CEO Romney had once been. Eventually he became frustated and bored and he quit. Yeah, HE QUIT! <<<<< Romney's naked ambition to be President stems partly from his need to be in charge of SOMETHING, but mainly it stems from his deeply personal need to do what his father couldn't do, to get elected to the highest office in the land. Save us from another candidate with dad issues, who feels he needs to "set the record straight" for pater.

People have been trying to tell me for years about flip-flopping and insincerity etc. Baloney! I saw the guy in action as Governor of Massachusetts and he was excellent. You're trying to convince someone who saw him in action. Romney was the most competent LEADER we've had in Massachusetts in years, and that's saying something considering I loved Weld/Cellucci. Romney was even better. But keep lying to me, maybe I'll eventually buy it, right?

Actually, null, I suspect they did what they thought was a clever ad and then started to get a strong reaction, so the "boasting" was really playing defense, pretending their mistake had a plan. Begolfing, you are so right: they didn't have to do it. Could have showed the complete Obama statement, then a laugh track, with comment like "who doesn't want to talk about the economy NOW?" and I'm looking at Hunstsman now too, JL. Newt has shown that being at the back of the pack isn't necessarily the end of the race.

When Slick Mitt complains about Obama "apologizing" for America all I can think about is the speeches then Governor Romney gave all over the country apologizing for Massachusetts. He was our chief executive. His job was to promote and protect our interests. Instead we were nothing more than a punch line for his lame jokes as he ran around the country interviewing for the next job he wanted. Go back and look at those speeches he gave while Governor of Massachusetts and ask yourself if the place he talks about is a place that you would want to move your business to.

begolfing, It's spelled "A - F - G - H - A - N - I - S - T - A - N" in a Lehigh thread. Eight U.S. troops have been killed in A - F - G - H - A - N - I - S - T - A - N since Lehigh's last column. The war continues to be ignored by the liberally-extreme Boston Globe, how is that for a gross distortion? We're losing one U.S. service member per day and the liberally-extreme Boston Globe would have its readers think the war doesn't exist. L - O - L!! The system continues to work for the Distorters! L - O - L!! How about another Globe editorial on the potato qualifying as a veggie for school lunches? L - O - L!!

This is about as down and dirty as Romney will get. Obama and his operatives have routinely opened to the public, impounded divorce records to embarrass rivals off the ballot, and willy nilly drop the racism charge on the Tea Party, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro and anyone else who stands in his way. Heck, he even implied McCain was senile. No matter what Romney and Gingrich, if he is the nominee, do from here on out, they'll both appear as Boy Scouts, compared to the routine thuggery of the Chicago/Obama machine.

the funny thing is he does not even need to do this - Obama's record is so lousy there is a plethora of things to choose from. Here's a few ideas: Fast and FUrious, Solyndra (and other green "deals"), Black Panthers, unemployment rate, healthcare, foreign policy, Rev Wright, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Stimulus, jobs bill, leadership around "super" committee, leadership in general, UK relationships, etc, Please feel free to add your own ideas

Barbara, you are quite right. The best hope for any candidate, Republican or Democrat, is to seek the moral high ground. That's one of the reasons why, as an independent, I like Huntsman among the Republican challengers.

Obama is doing the same thing but no outrage. what a shock