Posted on 09/11/2007 8:50:15 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I bow to your superior logic.
I would have done it and PROUDLY put my paid for by on it.
Good for you. At least that would have been honest, as opposed to pulling it as soon as the connection was found and then denying anything to do with it.
I find it kinda funny that a Mitt Romney supporter would label Thompson as “Fancy Fred” and “Flip-Flop Fred”. That takes some brass ones. At least he didn’t use “Slick Fred”
And “Moron Fred” sounds a lot like “Mormon Fred”.
I don’t doubt that Romney had nothing to do with this site, and would not approve of it if he had known.
So yes, if there was one thing that gets me turned on about Mitt Romney, on his experience and positions on budget policy, monetary policy and his experience in turning around broken institutions.
A flat tax is not a consumption tax. It’s a flat tax, without graduation, and a removal of loop holes.
A sales tax is a consumption tax.
Perhaps you're right. We have one standard for the old, pre-flipflop Mitt, and the other standard is for the new, post-flipflop Mitt....
I meant the fair tax. Sorry.
Reagan's 11th Commandment is violated on nearly an hourly basis here against Mitt by the Fredheads (they do it to Duncan Hunter too). So I cannot find much sympathy or remorse about another private citizen expressing personal opinions about Fred in a similar fashion on another website.
I don't like it, but it is their right. Do I wish the level of discourse could be raised? Of course.
Is it not my personal choice or style to resort to mud-slinging, and the stuff that goes on here is equally as juvenile and boorish, but it goes with the territory, I guess.
When you say "traces back", are you referring to incidents similar to this one? Do a collection of "friends of employees" or "friends of friends of employees" links add up to guilt on Romney's part?
Has it occurred to you that some people who know Romney's campaign staff might truly, honestly think he's the best candidate, and that they truly, honestly think Thompson has problems that should be exposed, and that some of these people might want to exercise their right to free speech and individually oppose some of their candidate's biggest competition?
I just don't get how this adds up to a scandal. Even if all the "Thompson smears" are being perpetrated by "friends of friends of Romney", there are plenty of less-than-sinister explanations for how that can happen.
If anything, this incident and those like it can give us an insight into the leadership style of Mitt Romney. He doesn't rule with an iron fist. He hires people he trusts and expects them to behave appropriately. Sometimes those people betray that trust. Sometimes it's just people who know the workers he has hired.
In conclusion, I just don't see this reflecting badly on Mitt in any way at this point.
Willard himself shattered the 11th commandment to smithereens when he lied about Reagan’s pro-life record.
But the guy who built this website isn't in Romney's organization!
That's my point.
Specious argument. These wasn't the kid a child ran with. This was the business partner of a paid adviser to a presidential candidate. And that business partner used the business resources he held in common with the paid adviser to create/publish the website. Big difference.
It's not specious at all. The key point is that both cases concern responsibility for someone who is not directly your concern. The business partner of the Romney adviser and the hypothetical friend of your child are both outside direct control, therefore outside primary responsibility.
It's a comparison of two "friend of" or "acquaintance of" situations. The analogy is accurate.
I didn’t see an apology to Rudy for the claim, but maybe they are working on it.
Of course not, he didn’t have anything to do with it, unlike the business partner of the paid campaign consultant for the Romney campaign.
Why apologize for something you didn’t have anything to do with?
Funny religious garb ping!
This is one of the unfortunate incidents that put a brown stain on the holy underwear of Romney’s campaign.
That's my point.
But he is a business partner of a paid adviser to the Romney campaign, a business, BTW, that is organized around political campaigns. Romney's campaign, having contracted with this adviser to perform a service, is responsible for the quality of the service performed on behalf of the campaign.
The key point is that both cases concern responsibility for someone who is not directly your concern.
It IS a specious argument. In the case of childhood friends gone wrong, it's just that; a friendship. No one would expect you to be held responsible or accountable for something an acquaintance or friend did without your knowledge. But there is a far more direct link here than friendship. The business partner of the man who's responsible for the website is a paid adviser to the Romney campaign. That's not just a friendship or loose relationship; it's a business partnership. Again: Specious argument on your part.
It's a comparison of two "friend of" or "acquaintance of" situations. The analogy is accurate.
Already answered.
I don't know what business you're in, or your level of experience/elevation in the business world. But your understanding of responsibility and accountability that goes into business relationships is alarmingly wanting. Let me give you an example: Last winter some dog food companies caught a lot of grief because one of their pet food manufacturers used an ingredient obtained from China that contained melamine. This contaminant poisoned a fairly large number of pets before it was discovered. Not only was the food manufacturer held responsible, but so were the dog food companies. And rightly so. The manufacturer should have had better quality control (if not to say they should never have obtained ingredients from China to begin with), and the pet food companies should have exercised better control over their subcontractors.
The same applies to this situation. The adviser's business represents their client; the Romney campaign. The Romney campaign, in return is ultimately responsible for the output of that subcontractor. It's the old 'The Buck Stops Here' routine. And the buck (in this instance) stops at Romney's desk.
You missed the point. BloggersForFredThompson accused Rudy Giuliani of being behind the site. Now they know he was NOT, but they (BloggersForFredThompson) have NOT YET APOLOGIZED for falsely accusing Rudy Giuliani.
But they are screaming that Romney should apologize for something (that apparently wasn’t fabricated) that a person NOT associated with his campaign did.
No I got the point very clearly.
The person is associated with the campaign whether you want to admit it or not. Common perception indicates this is true or there would be no story.
If one of the bloggersforfredthompson is posting these allegations while being a business partner of a firm that one of Fred’s paid advisers is also a partner of, and that person is using the resources both own via the business then they should apologize.
Unlike the Romney thing though, they ARE independently posting things or slinging mud. They aren’t associated with the campaign.
Ha, ha, ha and everyone who beleives that stand ou your head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.