"He made particularly disparaging comments about President Obama. And as the Republican nominee for president, I just couldn't subscribe to that in a federal judge. This was not a matter of qualifications or politics. This was something specifically to that issue as a former nominee of our party."

Said the U.S. Senator who refers to himself as "the Republican nominee for President" because, I guess, there's some idea of forefronting your highest or most elite accomplishment, and Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee for President. He's a Senator now, elected by the people of a state, but he was a nominee for a higher office, and that's apparently more important, even though he didn't win, and he's not even the party's "standard bearer" (not the most recent nominee). But Romney is apparently proud of his distinction, and there's only one other person on the face of the earth whose highest level was Republican nominee for President (and he's 95 years old). Maybe the idea is that Trump is illegitimate, so exclude him, and that leaves Romney as the leader of his party.

But he didn't beat Obama. He showed he could beat Obama if he wanted. He came on strong in the first debate. But he stood down in the second debate, and his party lost. Now, he's voted against one of Trump's judicial nominees, and he was the only Republican Senator who voted no, and he voted no because the person, Michael Truncale, once called Obama an "un-American impostor." Truncale testified that he was "merely expressing frustration by what I perceived as a lack of overt patriotism on behalf of President Obama" and did not mean to suggest that Obama was not a natural born citizen.

I'm reading about this in Politico, where the text is he "believed Obama was born in Hawaii and did not subscribe to 'birtherism,' a racist theory that the president was not an American citizen." The Politico text is shocking for 2 reasons. First, the question under the Constitution wasn't whether Obama was an American citizen. Citizenship isn't enough to qualify a person to be President. He must be born a citizen. Big difference. Second, a news organization shouldn't casually toss in the opinion that this suspicion about Obama is a "racist theory." That's not decent journalism. I accept the use of the term "birtherism" because I think Truncale used it in testifying. If Truncale himself called birtherism "a racist theory," it would be good journalism to quote him, but you can see that it's not in quotes.

I actually don't have a problem with Romney's voting against Truncale. But Romney's stated reason — if this is all he said — is inarticulate. He could have said that he lacked sufficient confidence in Truncale's judicial temperament. There were other things about Truncale that were disturbing, and not just the one thing Romney is quoted as citing — "disparaging comments about President Obama." I'm seeing in The Salt Lake Tribune that Truncale was quoted as saying "With regard to immigration, we must not continue to have the maggots coming in" and later that the word was not "maggots" but "magnets." I can see not bringing that up, because of confusion over whether Truncale said "maggots" (though I note that in immigration discussions, the word "magnet" is applied not to the immigrants but to the United States (for example, candidate Trump said he wanted to "turn off the jobs and benefits magnet")).

By citing only the "disparaging comments about President Obama" and stressing his own status as the one-time Republican Party nominee, Romney elevated himself. He's special.

ADDED: On rereading, I question my assertion that "Romney's stated reason... is inarticulate." I was assuming that Romney looked at everything about Truncale and formed the opinion that he didn't have what it takes to be a judge — that he was too political and intemperate. There are clearer ways to say that. But the statement Romney did make was, I think, rather revealing of his psychology and his plans for himself as a Senator. It's more revealing perhaps, than he intended to be. I wouldn't call that inarticulate, because "inarticulate" connotes that he meant to say something and couldn't come up with the right words, and I don't think Romney meant to reveal that much. What then is the right word? Maybe — ironically — it's "intemperate."

IN THE COMMENTS: Nobody points to a Slate article correcting the FALSE assertion that Truncale  said "maggots." The video there — at 1:25 — shows him saying "we've got to stop the magnet that draws people over." Not only is it clear that he's saying "magnet" not "maggots," he's using the word "magnet" in the standard context, referring to government benefits. He's not calling the immigrants "magnets." He's saying they are drawn to the metaphorical magnet that is welfare benefits. The "maggots" slur is truly evil. Shame on The Salt Lake Tribune.

ALSO: I wrote this in the comments but I want to frontpage it:

Making up racial hatred is truly evil.

I was careful to write, in the original post, " I'm seeing in The Salt Lake Tribune that Truncale was quoted as saying..." Was quoted. I avoided saying that he said it, because how do I know? I only said what I knew, that the SL Tribute presented that statement as a quote.

But with the video there and available for weeks, there's no excuse for passing along the "maggots" quote.

It reminds me of the continued reporting that Trump said Nazis were "fine people." The corrective material is available and plain, and there are some horrible journalists and politicians who want to make people feel that there's some deep ugliness out there -- want people to feel hurt and diminished and afraid. It's disgusting to have a personal stake in doing that to people.

"whiffling."

The hardest word to remember when memorizing (and retaining the memorization of) "Jabberwocky."

Your experience may vary. Indeed,  you may have chosen to memorize some other poem. But if, like me, you chose "Jabberwocky," as you go back and check to see if you still have the memorization down, isn't "whiffling" the hardest word to remember?

Interestingly enough, "whiffle," unlike some other words in "Jabberwocky," is a real English word — and not just a word that became a word because of "Jabberwocky."*

It means (according to the OED), "To blow in puffs or slight gusts; hence, to veer or shift about... To vacillate, to be variable or evasive.... To move lightly as if blown by a puff of air; to flicker or flutter as if stirred by the wind."

There's writing of "wyffling windes" way back in 1568. And The Nation wrote (in 1881), "Who like a manly man, will not whiffle, or quibble, or evade."

And the OED takes note of "Whiffle ball," "n. (a proprietary name for) a light, hollow, perforated ball used to play a variety of baseball." Example from 1970, a caption in Time: "[David Eisenhower] passing the afternoon playing wiffle ball on the south lawn of his father-in-law's White House." In happier times.**

David Eisenhower was 22 and he was the "Fortunate Son" of the Creedence Clearwater recording that played on the radio as he whiffled on the lawn.


_____________________

* The prime example is "chortle," the word I saw just now, which prompted me to check once again to see if my memorization had deteriorated. I saw the word in the comments this morning, in "The 'Elizabeth Warren can't get any traction' conversation at Meadhouse," when Nobody said:

I think she lost because she chortled while telling miners to learn to code.

Other words with OED entries that originated in "Jabberwocky":

"Bandersnatch" — "A fleet, furious, fuming, fabulous creature, of dangerous propensities, immune to bribery and too fast to flee from; later, used vaguely to suggest any creature with such qualities." Used by C.S. Lewis: "Always, at the critical moment, a strange knight, a swift ship, a bandersnatch or a boojum, breaks in."

"Galumph" — "Originally: to march on exultingly with irregular bounding movements. Now usually: to gallop heavily; to bound or move clumsily or noisily." Later example: "In the hall was a galumphing lass with a lot of jerseys and a po face," from "Friends in Low Places," a 1965 novel by Simon Raven. And I thought Garth Brooks thought up the bon mot "friends in low places." That's a riff on "friends in high places," which has been a stock phrase since the 17th century.

"Mimsy" — that's defined as "Unhappy" and appearing "Only in Carroll and later allusions," so it doesn't really belong on the list. It's no "chortle," that's for sure. But I'd like to suggest "Mimsy" as a name for Harry and Meghan's new baby. I heard they wanted something unusual. I know, Mimsy seems like a girl's name, but I heard they were looking for something gender neutral. So... just an idea for the Prince who can be President! Prince Mimsy! President Mimsy W. Windsor!

** Less mimsy times.

Ridiculous conversation about me and Trump.

From the comments section of a post of mine that went up this morning — the title is a quote from someone else — "Time’s up, baby boomers. It’s Gen X’s turn now":

COMMENTER: "Why do you show so much interest in the Democratic primary? It seems your goal is to do anything that will keep Trump in office."

ME: "What in this post seems to be in service to that goal? Do I seem to be helping Biden and you think Biden is a weak opponent for Trump? If that's your idea, click on the 'biden' tag and read the last 10 posts I wrote about Biden and make sense of your theory. Or does 'seems' just mean you looked at one thing and a whole flood of imaginative ideas came into your head?

COMMENTER (addressing my first question, "What in this post seems to be in service to that goal?"): "Not this one. The preponderance of all the others. They seem to convey an appreciative sort of invincibility about him."

ME, without reading on to see how he answered my other questions: "Do you have any sense of how ludicrous that is?"

And let me also quote this, from Nobody:

You know that anybody who wants to undermine Trump with Althouse’s readers could easily do so by getting specific in the comments with actual cases of Trump “corruption” and then defending them against objections. But when the anti Trump comments all and I mean ALL amount to either trivialities, or hyperbolic denunciations reeking of kerosene breath, or vague smears that the commenter refuses to back up with facts, then it seems like the trolls here are doing more to support Trump than Althouse is. She is giving you the forum, all of you, and yet you don’t take it on. How can we not draw the conclusion that you guys have nothing?

Going on pearl clutching about pee pee tapes for two years, and then showing zero humility when it all turned out to be bullshit is just one thing.