Apology for the 2012 Forum

[Politico]

I know I have been a shameless Romney hack the past few months. Part of it was to be funny, see how far I could push the absurdity while maintaining believability, even though I really do support Romney (although obviously NOBODY thinks THAT highly of ANY candidate with the possible exception of a certain poster from Pennsylvania, I suppose...). With that said, I am going to tone it down to virtually zero. I am not interested in being regarded as a troll. That was never my intent. I have been both an active and lurking member of this forum for years, before Politico Magazine existed to give you an idea of how long. I would like to remain on here.

That aside, I would like to apologize for the over-the-top and relentless attacks on Gingrich. Sometimes I kind of felt like George H.W. Bush's team piling on poor Michael Dukakis, but then I snapped out of it and realized that Gingrich deserved all of it. Ultimately, I simply gave a preview of what I thought the campaign would do, and most of it unfolded accordingly. Needless to say, Gingrich was thoroughly destroyed, but it was for the good of the nation. I am not going to apologize to Gingrich fans who are upset about his destruction, and I would appreciate it if they would stop brushing through all of my posts with a fine comb in an attempt to pile up my infraction points and get me banned. It was just politics. I was simply spreading the word on here. I was just a messenger.

With regards to Santorum, I think I took it lightly on him. I disagree with his tone, past actions, and quite a few social stances of his, but I somewhat respect him. He is a respectable alternative to Romney in comparison to Gingrich. The campaign took it even lighter on Santorum than I did.

In conclusion, from now on I will not be hackish and will therefore be less entertaining. You will not get any more material from me for The Michael A. Naso Institute of Comedy. That is the price of being objective, and the result of some folks reporting relatively harmless posts in an attempt to get me banned rather than simply ignoring me as they should have. They ruined it for those of us who enjoyed this gig. Objectivity is all you will get from Politico from now on if our dear moderators choose to take me off Moderator Review.

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

Where have I equated "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler"? I have done no such thing. You cannot just say, "WRONG," implying I did, without posting the direct quote and arguing that I equated all people who suffered from manic depression to Adolph Hitler. Bob did not equate "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Winston Churchill," did he? Of course not. It would be absurd to do either thing. I merely pointed out that, yes, Winston Churchill was a great leader who happened to suffer from bipolar disorder, but there are other examples of awful leaders who also suffered from bipolar disorder. In short, my point was this: Mental illness is NOT a favorable characteristic in a leader. That was the sole point of all those posts. I said there is no shame in having bipolar disorder. Do you think I would say that if I was equating it to being Hitler?

There is no shame in having bipolar disorder. It is an awful illness that people need help with, and it affects plenty of families. With that said, suffering from bipolar disorder does disqualify you from becoming POTUS, IMHO. I am sure if you did a national poll, you would find that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with me.

[Politico]

Don't bother apologizing, Politico.  You haven't done anything wrong, IMO,

You don't consider equating all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler to be wrong?

I have never said such a thing. There is only one person who is responsible for your misinterpretation of posts.

Wrong.

Where have I equated "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Adolph Hitler"? I have done no such thing. You cannot just say, "WRONG," implying I did, without posting the direct quote and arguing that I equated all people who suffered from manic depression to Adolph Hitler. Bob did not equate "all people whom happen to have a relative whom suffered from maniac depression to Winston Churchill," did he? Of course not. It would be absurd to do either thing. I merely pointed out that, yes, Winston Churchill was a great leader who happened to suffer from bipolar disorder, but there are other examples of awful leaders who also suffered from bipolar disorder. In short, my point was this: Mental illness is NOT a favorable characteristic in a leader. That was the sole point of all those posts. I said there is no shame in having bipolar disorder. Do you think I would say that if I was equating it to being Hitler?

I can believe many things, but, what I cannot believe is someone equating having manic depression with Adolph Hitler merely believes that manic depression "is not a favorable characteristic in a leader." Most folks would consider being like Adolph Hitler to be singularly disqualifying characteristic. That is why you equated Gingrich with Hitler.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, if having manic depression disqualifies someone from being POTUS, then, isn't the consistent application of your principle that Churchill was "disqualified" to be Prime Minister of England during WWII? Clearly, you are overreaching, and overreaching broadly.

Moreever, I will not let it pass that your objection to Gingrich was not that he suffers from manic depression, but, rather, that his mother suffered from manic depression. If you polled the American people, I would suspect that the vast majority of Americans will reject tainting a Presidential candidate by the health of his mother.

You're throwing mud and it ain't sticking, Bobby. I am putting this thread into Al Gore's lockbox.