Posted on 02/05/2008 12:00:01 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
Mitt Romney was asked about the assault weapons ban on Meet the Press on December 16, 2007.
"I would have supported the original assault weapon ban," Romney said. "I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus."
Asked Tim Russert: "So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?"
"Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I," said Romney.
In the last few hours, Romney contradicted that in a podcast interview with Glenn Reynolds and Helen Smith of Instapundit fame.
"I know that a lot of the gun rights folks aren’t sure about your position on gun rights," asked Smith. "Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across your desk as President?"
"Yeah," Romney said. "Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that when I ran for Governor, I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now."
In addition to that apparent flip flop, it should be noted that the NRA did NOT endorse Romney when he ran for governor, as his campaign acknowledged when he said it last December.
This is a rank untruth Mr. Romney continues to peddle.
Said Mr. Reynolds: "I'm beginning to question his sincerity."
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
“I didn’t see any personal attack.”
Let me help you out.
“...an out right lie. And you repeating it shows how low the McCain people will stoop.”
Both a personal attack, and a false McCain conspiracy theory.
Actually, death, I was referring to Romney’s record of endorsing Roe, abortion on demand, gays in the military, Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation, homosexual Scoutmasters, gun control, opposing a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state constitution, voting in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary, dissing Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms, being endorsed by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans and the Majority for Choice PAC, etc., etc., etc.
That left-wing record.
None of which raised my taxes. Why did McCain oppose Bush’s tax cuts? Also, why does McCain believe that the terrorists at Gitmo should have access to the U.S. courts?
No clue. I don’t support McCain, who opposes a Marriage Protection Amendment, supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (the destruction of human life), and believes it should be criminal for citizen organizations to tell their supporters the truth about politicians’ records.
As the LA Times reported over a year ago, I was invited to meet McCain and refused so long as he opposes constitutionally protecting marriage.
All that said, I trust him more than I do Mitt Romney. I don’t believe much of anything Romney says, except of course that he’s the candidate of “change” (on abortion, some of the homosexual agenda, multiple other issues).
As an NRA man I researched NRA’s archive history of McCain. He gave us McCain-Feingold law that cut off NRA free speech; he gave us McCain-Reed law that closed the gun show “loophole”; and...oh yes...he was..is?... a big supporter of the Federal Assault firearms ban.
These are facts guy...not misstatements.
With heroes like the Mac who needs enemies!
Romney also supports the federal Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill.
Do you honestly think people might change their mind and support McCain over Romney ? How much are you paid by McCain?
I could care less what Romney said in Massaslewchutts. The guy if nominated and elected as President will know it was the conservatives who got him the job. I atleast like a candidate who understands he better flip to the conservative side than flop to the libs like McCain.
1. approval or sanctionThose are the closet definition meanings to the usage of the term in political speech.3. formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement" [syn: sanction]
support:
7a.To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign. 7b.To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.That's the best definition related to politics.
So as you can see, "endorsement" is a formal term for an expression of generally exclusive approval of a candidate, implying that people of like mind should vote for the candidate.
Support is an action taken to advance the cause of a candidate, without an explicit request to vote for the candidate.
This is not a meaningless distinction. There are organizations who cannot "endorse" a candidate, but who can provide support.
For example, We all know that Rush Limbaugh has NOT endorsed any candidate. But Mitt Romney would be correct to note that Rush has supported his candidacy, as would Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani.
Rush supports all the candidates who agree with his idea of conservatism, and endorses none of them.
The ABC quote is wrong, but by tomorrow I'll be correcting people who will say "But this time Romney said "endorse"", when he actually didn't.
A candidate would never use the term "support" if he got an actual endorsement, because "endorsement" is the term for a formal statement of acceptance. So while it is true that "endorsement" is a form of support, there are other forms of support which fall short of an endorsement.
In libel law, one of the criteria for determining if something is a lie is to determine the probability that people would have misunderstood. Since in this case the endorsement would be common public knowledge, and the campaign specifically said they did not mean "endorsement", it is clear that "support" was not meant as "endorse".
It is also clear that Romney now is quite interested in claiming the NRA's approval, when he previously did not. That would have been a rational argument to make, but this "he claimed an endorsement" is just silly.
Caffe, you need to trade out your talking point sheet. I support the governor who swept the South tonight.
And given that I’ve not hesitated to point out to the media that McCain voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment, supports federal funding of medical experimentation on prenatal children in their embryonic stage, and wants to suppress First Amendment free speech rights, McCain inexplicably has thus far paid me...nothing!
And in December, Romney used both words...”support” and “endorsement.” (see post 3 above for exact quotes and link to original story)
He wasn’t telling the truth in December.
And he wasn’t telling the truth this past Saturday, given that he had neither the NRA’s “support” or “endorsement” when he was running for governor.
So all your attempts in the previous post to spin an impenetrable web of convoluted irrelevancies in hopes of distracting readers away from the fact that he once again stated something that’s false...fail.
He used those words for two different things. He used “support” to indicate what they did for him when he was running, and he used “endorsed” to describe their action regarding the gun bill he signed.
Both of those were accurate, as the NRA officially called for the gun bill to pass.
Some WP blogger couldn’t understand english (as usual) and the mitt-haters took his lie and used it.
“What I did AS governor” is not “running for Governor”. It’s not “parsing words”, it’s looking at their clear meaning.
Funny how you embrace “plain meaning” when you (incorrectly) think it makes your case.
But reject “plain meaning” when it comes to other words such as “all” and “people” and “participate.”
I still can’t believe you don’t understand the simple set theory.
all leaders participate.
NOT all participants lead.
Arnold Shwarzenegger can participate in the Presidential Elections. Arnold Shwarzennegger cannot LEAD the country.
Really? I wasn’t aware that Rockefeller supported a Human Life Amendment and a Marriage Protection amendment and full 2nd Amendment rights.
That’s a newsflash, for sure.
I still can’t believe the way you’re willing to make yourself look foolish to relieve Romney of responsibility for his own statements and actions.
“Participate” is the larger set which incluces the subset of leaders.
Romney said “all people” — including homosexuals — should be allowed to “participate” in Scouting, and he did not exclude from his endorsement of such participation that subset of participants who serve as adult leaders.
Because he chooses his words as meticulously as Bill Clnton, and because he did not exclude them, homosexual adults participating as leaders is logically included in his endorsement.
And simply put, you cannot prove otherwise except by claiming to be able to read his mind. You can only make yourself continue to look foolish by trying.
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.