The Bryan Fischer Award is given to those who exhibit psychological projection on a mind-blowing scale. Gail Gitcho, a spokesman for Mitt Romney, gives us a spectacular example of this in an email sent to reporters in Michigan:
All –
If you are reporting on Senator Santorum’s
response to the Rasmussen numbersspeech today, in which he will reportedly issue desperate and false attacks against Mitt Romney in an attempt to prop up his campaign, please use this quote from me.“Rick Santorum is a Washington insider who is lashing out at Mitt Romney because he had a terrible debate performance. Back in 2008, Sen. Santorum endorsed Mitt Romney for president because of Mitt’s ‘conservative’ record. Now, Rick’s changed his tune. This sounds like another case of Rick Santorum abandoning his principles for his own political advantage.” – Gail Gitcho, Romney Communications Director
Gail Gitcho
Romney for President
Communications Director
Yes, a spokesman for Mitt Freaking Romney just criticized someone else for abandoning principles for political advantage. Seriously, you can’t make this shit up.
9 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
MikeMa
February 29, 2012 at 9:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That is the nice thing about projection. You are not necessarily telling a lie and manage to sound incredibly ignorant regardless. Well done Gail. You deserve a raise by GOP standards.
timothyeisele
February 29, 2012 at 9:22 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Of course, who better to recognize a behavior than someone who does it themselves? Set a thief to catch a thief, right?
d cwilson
February 29, 2012 at 9:31 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In fairness to Romney, first he’d have to have principles before he could abandon them.
Michael Heath
February 29, 2012 at 9:35 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What I also find hilarious is that Michael Warren, who posts a critique of this letter at the linked Weekly Standard article, never addresses the most obvious irony which motivates Ed to publish this blog post. Perhaps to not leave a paper trail for the general election where he or his magazine acknowledges Romney’s demonstrated far worse lack of principles on this matter.
So it’s reasonable and arguably obvious to predict The Weekly Standard will criticize the president in the general for not adhering to his own stated principles. Where they’ll frame their criticisms of the president within a context where Romney’s own defects on this matter are avoided .
Didaktylos
February 29, 2012 at 9:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dear Pot
Thank-you for your insightful comments.
Yours, as ever
Kettle
lofgren
February 29, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t understand why Romney doesn’t run his campaign on a populist message rather than a committed ideologue message. Nobody else is nearly as well posed to say to the populace, “I’ll do whatever the fuck you want. Seriously, I am totally unprincipled. A vote for Romney is a vote for pure democracy!”
That, or he could be running on “Look how bad I fucked up Massachusetts with my liberal ideas! That place is a cesspool, all thanks to me. Don’t you want somebody who learned from his experiences with liberalism!” Fundies love a good conversion story. Just ask Christine “I dabbled in witchcraft” o’Donnell.
omnicrom
February 29, 2012 at 2:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Holy crap, I just got whiplash.
Aquaria
February 29, 2012 at 2:26 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How big a mirror does this twit need?
aussieseculardad
February 29, 2012 at 5:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To anyone who might want to use this as proof that truth is stranger than fiction, I have an ontological proof to the contrary:
Step 1. Think of the strangest thing that’s true.
Step 2. Now add a monkey dressed as Hitler.
(from SMBC)