'Liar, liar'?: This Phoenix editorial strikes me as a wee bit harsh, no? Calling Mitt a liar, comparing him to the folks at Enron etc. And he hasn't even taken office or presented his budget. I mean, well, ... Though I obviousy disagree with the tone and most of the facts that the editorial presents as alleged evidence of Mitt being a liar, I do wish two things: A.) That Mitt didn't make his no-new-taxes pledge on the budget deficit. It's going to hurt him, though if he presents a legitimate no-new-taxes/restructuring budget and the Democratic legislature rejects it, I think he can argue that he's abided by his pledge to the best of his ability and can move on from there. (I have a hunch that's going to be his tactic to get around the pledge.) B.) That Mitt would clarify his position on patronage. I've bored readers enough with my Rutan arguments, but Mitt has an excellent, legal case -- as outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 1990 anti-patronage Rutan ruling -- that clarifies what is and what isn't patronage. So far, I haven't seen the type of patronage that would trigger a Rutan lawsuit, not that Mitt or anyone else in Massachusetts government is dimly aware of, let alone cares about, Rutan.   ¶ 4:30 PM