Posted on 12/25/2007 5:33:32 PM PST by Mobile Vulgus
On December 23rd, Romney showed his true colors on a campaign stop at Nonni’s Italian Eatery in Hillsborough, NH, where a well-placed contact initiated the following exchange:
To Mitt Romney: “It’s been widely reported that the candidate leading the race for the presidency of the United States is a spousal abuser. Numerous reputable sources have reported that Hillary Clinton has thrown lamps, ash trays, and other objects at her husband’s head, and that he has been injured by his wife in domestic disputes.
“In addition, a New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman, based on a woman’s claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic-violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly, with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states.
“Will you pledge to oppose reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic-violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?”
Romney said he wouldn’t and then asked the questioner what he’d do about it. Answer: “I’d veto further VAWA and VAWA-related legislation unless it: 1) incorporates provisions and funding to address the way in which false claims are being used to exploit the legislation, and 2) is reformed and funded to reflect the well-documented female commission of domestic violence at higher rates than men.”
According to the account, Mitt Romney got bored, started looking around the room, and, while walking away, said: “False accusations; that’s tough.”
“False accusations; that’s tough.” This is Mitt Romney’s answer? It’s insulting ... and revealing. A false accusation is a crime. Did Romney not learn this at Harvard Law School? Did he not enforce it as governor of Massachusetts? His response was akin to saying: “Men should just take abuse and get over it.” Now, if one of Romney’s son’s gets nailed with a false rape accusation, I’ll bet he’ll change his I-don’t-care-about-men tune in a heartbeat. The sad part is that Romney’s rivals are no better. So, any American man who believes he has representation in exchange for his taxation is a naive fool.
Re: the open primary, thanks for the clarification.
The extent to which some people are nit-picking at these unimportant details about Mitt's record astonishes me. Some people have way to much time on their hands.
Mitt never had a license at all and apologized for it. Though it is not clear about Utah, since they don't reveal that information, but Mitt cannot turn one up.
It’s not nit-picking if he says things to make me like him or trust him that turn out to require a bit more explanation, a bit of nuance, or a paragraph or two of clarification by his staff.
So Mitt tells me that he’s a gun owner and a hunter all his life, to make me want to vote for him (after all, he’s like me) and upon investigation, he once fired a rifle at a rabbit and once went quail hunting with other politicians for a photo op. In fact, he does not own as gun as he claimed, and never had a license to hunt anywhere. That’s not nit-picking; that’s due diligence. I check the tread on the tires of used cars too.
Romney is a tremendous person with lots of talent, but if he’s going to fib to convince me to vote for him, I’ll lobby the eventual conservative republican president to make Mitt chief of staff. He’d be stellar in that role.
I don't own a shotgun, but I go trap shooting with one of my Dad's guns all the time. In fact, I'm the only one who uses that gun, so even though it's not legally mine, it's still mine in a sense. Again, what's the difference? And why would anyone care?
So Romney hunts in a state where you don't need a license to hunt varmints. What's the big deal?
Why is everyone turning into such a detail freak lately?
So if you were running for president, that’s what you’d say! That’s a no-brainer, and there’d be lots of people at the field to say you were there, when reporters or FReepers showed up to do due diligence on your assertion that you were a regular skeet shooter.
You would not say it was your shotgun, would not claim to be a duck hunter or highpower competitor, you’d tell the truth and you’d never have to explain that you were not in fact a gun owner or hunter. You would not have to say that you often hunted rodents in states that did not require a rodent hunting license, and then clam up as to where and when and with who or with what firearm. You are honest. That’s an admirable trait!
What it boils down to is that many people, myself included, doubt that Mitt took time off from saving the Olympics or running Bain Capitol or as Governor Of Massachusetts to go somewhere where he didn’t need a license or permit with a borrowed gun to go rodent hunting often and apparently alone. If he did, then fine, show me.
Even Hillary Clinton was able to come up with specifics as to where, when, and with whom she went duck hunting, what gun she used and what she shot. John Kerry waved shotguns around at every chance, went goose and pheasant hunting as part of his campaign, and had loads of people talk about hunting with him.
In the real world, however, when talking about shooting sports, most people speak casually and don't act as if they are under oath.
This attempt to parse every detail of what's said in a casual statement is, fankly, a big waste of time.
El Rush-Bo called him Reaganesque. Is he a RomneyBot now too? Michael Reagan and Ann Coulter think he is Reaganesque as well. Romneybots too?
When I heard Romney had rescued some people from drowning I thought he might be trying a just little too hard. But hey since when has it been an offense to try to be like Reagen?
Romney, Sons Rescue Boaters - Craft Starting Taking On Water Saturday - abc news Boston
Only liberals rescue people from drowning. True conservatives, like Fred, let them drown. Mitt’s a lib. /s
Nope, only if you were a gun grabber trying to assure me that you were the same as me by telling me you owned a gun, by implication had filed a 4473. In the nonlegal sense, if we headed out to the five-stand field and you told me it was “your” shotgun, I’d say “cool, neat engraving!”
A casual statement is different from a political message trying to convince someone of their stand on an issue. No politician running for national office ever issues a casual statement, every word is for effect (I’m a fan of Edward Bernays, and that’s something he said frequently).
If I said “I have always opposed abortion on demand” to you at a barbecue, that does not mean too much- unless I’m running for office. In the casual case, what difference does it make except for the close and personal? But if I’m seeking your political support, then it carries considerable weight and it had better be correct and true. If I had not always thought so as a politician, I'd be deliberately misleading you to get your support, to vote for me.
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.