Mitt Romney is Weird. Really, REALLY WEIRD: The Continuing Saga of Media Malfeasance

WHAT DOES MITT ROMNEY'S VIRAL, TOXIC, AND DANGEROUS WEIRDNESS have to do with the Media, or should I say, “the press” so labeled, ironically, by derisive Mitt surrogate Mark Halperin in a moment of gamechanging candor? Let us count the ways:

First, we learn from the always quotable Chris Matthews Show that partner-in-crime Howard Fineman, who henceforth had been surprisingly resolute at playing responsible media editor dude at the Huffington Post, unleashed this maximus maxim: “One way the coverage for Romney will improve is that he has a better chance of being President.” Which begs the question, how can it NOT “improve”?! Unfortunately, what I think Howard (the sellout? — Say it ain't so, bro) meant is that coverage of Romney will be even more positive and misleading than it has been to date, presupposing Mark Halperin's planted suggestion that “the press” had been “unfair” in its coverage of Romney.

Before I forget. Howard, there's a toxic lake of LIES we'd like you to jump into. (There he goes! — Another Media sacred cow skinny-dipping in the Romney collaborationist pool of PATHOLOGICAL LIES.) Evidently, Howard is looking forward to more New York Times puff pieces like Ann Romney, the fashion plate, or his perfect “running mate” etc. Pass the BARF BAG, here comes the Fineman puff piece memo to his Huff Post subordinates. Let us help you, Howard and Chris, with some useful links from (slaps cheeks) your own publication and non-sellout competitor, The Atlantic (misidentified; NY Mag, John Heilemann is an aberration), here and here. Jonathan Chait, to be exact, one in the dwindling number of extant journalists covering politics.

Why, for example, have Howard Fineman/Huffington Post (a) largely ignored Mitt Romney's multiple Vietnam War deferments when a sweetheart arrangement between the Mormon Church and the Pentagon shielded him from the Draft in beautiful Paris, France as an exalted "missionary?" The canned excuse is that the Boston papers already covered this ground during Romney's runs for senator and governor. But now Mitt Romney is running for president. Don't you think his and his family's history of non-service in the military is relevant when he proposes to open two new fronts in Iran and Syria and spews neocon Cold War nonsense about the nature of our global threats, belying a stunning ignorance of the real world? (Rhetorical question.)

Why (b) is the Mormon Church's influence on Romney not seriously examined, in light of this piece by Dr. Justin Frank in Time Magazine which postulates that Mormonism may be responsible for Mitt Romney's SERIAL LYING? And why hasn't the Mormon Church, and Mitt Romney's secretiveness surrounding his religion and his campaign, been given the level of scrutiny that prompted JFK to give a speech explaining his Catholic faith and his role as a Catholic in governing, and President Obama to deliver a similar faith-based speech on questions of race and his relationship with the Reverend Wright? (What's that Mitt Romney said about "sauce" for the "goose" and "gander"?! — As Howard examines a swarm of *CRICKETS* with a look of bemused [?], repulsed [?] fascination.)

And finally, Howard, why pray tell should Media coverage of Mitt Romney “improve” (I ask again: Could it be any worse?! Answer: CLEARLY, YES!) when so many questions abound concerning who this mega-rich individual we're supposed to be electing president really is. Here is noted progressive talk show host and author Thom Hartmann with some food for thought:



From where I sit, Howard and Chris, Romney money and influence talk loud and clear above your strained and unnaturally DEAFENING silence. (What's that you said, Howard? "Check Huff Post Spanish edition for answers to our questions" ...? Oh, Okay. I get it. Thanks. Over and OUT goes the Media ...)