I hate political ads. They are always telling half the story, and then if we LIKE the half they tell, we think they are great, and if we don’t, we cite the other half the story and call them lies.
A lot of people in 2008 took Rush Limbaugh’s lead, and voted in democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton.
If one of those people runs for office in 20 years, and says “I always voted Republican when I could”, are we going to call them liars? I mean, there was no point in voting in the republican primaries, McCain was our nominee. And they couldn’t vote in BOTH primaries, so certainly it is not a lie to say that they voted republican “when they could”. Even though yes, technically, the COULD have ignored Rush, and voted in the republican primary.
The “lie” Romney told wasn’t that he “voted republican when he could”. He did — he decided to vote in the democratic primary because Bush was the incumbent and going to be our nominee, and having shown up to vote in the democratic primary, he had to vote for a democrat, and couldn’t vote for a republican.
The “lie” was that he says he did so to pick the “worst democrat”. In fact, he probably picked the democrat he most thought would be a good president, if they actually won. And he voted for a home-town guy. He didn’t vote for Clinton.
As to the “blind trust” issue, it is true that a mutual fund isn’t blind, and that a person could look at a mutual fund, see what they invested in, and then, what? Take actions to help out industries that are invested in? Well OK, EXCEPT that Romney wasn’t in office. There was nothing he could do for which that would be influence.
So the argument that he would know what he owned in the mutual fund is pointless. The argument suggest that he CHOSE to invest in Freddie and Fannie, and that clearly is false, because just as he had no say in how his blind trust was invested, he also had no say in how the mutual fund manager decided to invest.
And it’s also a rediculous argument for us to be having. Aren’t there real issues, like our country is going bankrupt? Am I supposed to care instead that you can hardly find a big-cap mutual fund that didn’t invest in Freddie and Fannie at that time? Am I supposed to think that by putting money into a mutual fund, Romney was actively supporting Freddie and Fannie?
Of course, I’m still trying to figure out why it is a bad thing for a private citizen, be it Gingrich OR Romney, to make money by investing in a company that has a good return on investment, when that company couldn’t be influenced by the investment. We know that Freddie and Fannie were “part of the problem”, because of government and their ties, but investing in them didn’t empower them. If we are going to disqualify everybody who ever made money from a mutual fund that ever bought a company we no longer like, we won’t have any candidates left.
There are a million things to attack Romney for. Why do we keep attacking him for things like getting investment income, as if that is a bad thing that we’d like to stop?
You asked and you shall receive WHY Romney is a loser because not even he will defend his pot of gold.... except he was doing the ‘work’ just like Obama did in bailing out the auto industry... ‘cash’ for clunkers was part of that bailout... Romney is a clunker.
So true. Why are our candidates so DUMB that they let the MSM steer them into these non-issues.
I thought Newt was smarter than that.