Would Romney's fecal cost/benefit analysis be influenced if he owned a lot of shares of Ex-Lax?
As already noted, of course it wasn't an oversight. I wrote a longer comment at another blog on this, but my initial take is that Romney had two objectives. 1) Give the MSM some soundbites about how he respects the separation of church and state, and 2) pander to the right-wing, and assure them that he'll take on them Europe-loving, godless liburals. His supposed championing of the Constitution is incompatible with his overt and implied attacks on non-belief and non-believers (and I'm glad Barry Lynn heard it, too), but I'm betting many reporters won't pick up on it. Certainly the AP rush story and video excerpts didn't. Mission accomplished.
"Romney won't so much as take a shit without a cost/benefit analysis" is a classic, though.
That Goldberg, whom you might recall is Jewish, and Ponnoru, whom you might recall is one of them heathen multitheistic Hindus, would wink and nod at this is tragic.
Me, if I was Jewish or worshipped Babaganoosh and Republican, would be manning the guns.
Of course it is, Ted. I suspect even Jonah knows that.
I can't believe these guys. It's not an oversight, it's baked into the whole speech. The speech doesn't make any sense if he includes nonbelievers in the tent. If there's no freedom without religion, if he's going to represent everyone who has ever bended their knee in prayer, if the "religion of secularism" is wrong, etc., he has to exclude atheists and agnostics.
Commenting by HaloScan
