Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama and Romney misfire on guns (Romney flip-flops, repeats NRA support lie)
ABC NEWS ^ | February 4, 2008 | Jake Tapper, Senior National Correspondent

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 ...

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abcmisquote; jaketapper; nra; president; republican; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last
To: AFA-Michigan

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.

51 posted on 02/05/2008 4:12:46 PM PST by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan
1. approval or sanction

3. formal and explicit approval; "a Democrat usually gets the union's endorsement" [syn: sanction]

Those are the closet definition meanings to the usage of the term in political speech.


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.

52 posted on 02/05/2008 8:56:22 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: caffe

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!

53 posted on 02/05/2008 9:09:01 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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

54 posted on 02/05/2008 9:19:11 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

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.

55 posted on 02/05/2008 10:16:38 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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.”

56 posted on 02/06/2008 12:06:59 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

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.

57 posted on 02/06/2008 6:31:39 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan
McCain is a Soros puppet and Huck is a Rockefeller Republican. These people are the globlist. WAKE UP!!!!!
58 posted on 02/06/2008 6:34:13 AM PST by bmwcyle (the Beltway crowd is like a bunch of women who have started menstruating together)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

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.

59 posted on 02/06/2008 11:11:02 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

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.

60 posted on 02/06/2008 11:17:39 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan
What I am proving is that Romney did NOT say what you falsely claim he said.

I obviously cannot prove that he would NOT accept gays as scout leaders, because I do not have a quote where he says no. But you cannot prove that he WOULD accept gays as scout leaders, because you do not have a quote where he says he would.

"I think all citizens, naturalized or otherwise, should be allowed to participate in our government."

By your illogic, I just said we should violate the constitution and let naturalized citizens be President.

When in fact I do not want that.

Why you think you have the right to put words into other people's mouths, or to define their beliefs for them, I can't say, but you are not a mind-reader, so your attempts to claim that you KNOW what Romney MEANT, by using bad logic, fall flat.

Romney is responsible for his own words, not for your misstatements of them and your misinterpretations. He is also not responsible for opinions he has not expressed but that you insist on pinning to him.

Write to his campaign and ask him whether he would support gay scoutmasters. Post the results. That's called finding the truth.

But it's a lot easier for you to just make it up.

Do you have a math background at all? “Participate” is the larger set which incluces the subset of leaders

Yes, and if Romney said "gays should be scoutmasters", then it would be logical to insist that Romney believes gays should be allowed to participate in scouting.

But leaders is a subset of "participants". For example, boys can participate in scouts, but they can't be scoutmasters. Women can participate in scouts, but at least when I was a scout I thought they couldn't be scoutmasters. Parents can participate and be members of socuting without a background check, but they can't be in leadership.

In short, there are MANY ways to participate without being in leadership. And it also makes perfect sense to allow some people to be participants, but not leaders.

In fact, there are MANY real-life examples where people are allowed to participate, but in some class of people who do not have access to the full range of benefits.

This is so trivially obvious that I find it ludicrous that someone who owns a computer and can type words in english does not understand that "participate" is a superset of "leadership", and that while all leaders are participants, not all participants are leaders.

The owner of Free Republic is a participant. I think that all conservatives should be allowed to participate at FR. By your logic, all participants of Free Republic should be allowed to be the owner.

61 posted on 02/06/2008 7:40:24 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

The point is a vote for Huck is a vote for McCain.........get it?

62 posted on 02/06/2008 10:04:23 PM PST by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: caffe

Yeah, seems I’ve heard that Romney spin somewhere before.

How’s that working out for ya?

63 posted on 02/06/2008 11:25:25 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

Obama wants to band and confiscated handguns.

I bet he wants them all

black beret optional but black leather blazer required bro

64 posted on 02/06/2008 11:27:52 PM PST by wardaddy (Political Correctness is to Western Culture what the Aids virus is to the cake community)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: caffe

Unfortunately for Romney, the actual numbers say exactly the opposite:

Since Romney has proven that his Massachusetts brand of “conservatism” doesn’t sell south of the Mason-Dixon no matter how much money he spends, it’s time for Romney to withdraw and let the real two-man race commence.

65 posted on 02/06/2008 11:28:02 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

Have fun defending your candidate....because the GOP is now stuck with McMud. I won’t vote for congratulations for whatever you and yours think you have accomplished.

66 posted on 02/08/2008 7:26:18 AM PST by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: caffe

If you think I support McCain, you’re mistaken.

Though I will probably vote for him against Hillabama, unless he has Romney or somebody even more liberal as a running mate.

67 posted on 02/08/2008 2:28:03 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan

oh so you support The Huckster? I’m an independent baptist and I don’t know how he was qualified to be a pastor for the Southern Baptists? He has no understanding of scripture and wants to redistribute wealth. I believe the scriptures say “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and for the government to take my money and give it to someone else is not a christian foundation. He also wants to save the planet from Global Warming and make everyone as skinny and flabby as he is? So much for individual responsibility. He’s all for preventive health so that fat people would probably be fined if they tip the scale. The guy is a good talker thus he became a Pastor and then progressed to his natural man and is now just another greasy politician!

68 posted on 02/08/2008 4:32:00 PM PST by caffe (please, no more consensus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-68 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson