Posted on 08/03/2012 3:33:17 PM PDT by Third Person
Via the Examiner, I understand why he punted here. His retort to Reid’s tax-evasion smear last night was that it’s an obvious, grotesque attempt to hand the media a new distraction from Obama’s record. He just got back from a foreign policy trip/photo op that was also submerged in distractions, most notably his Olympics comments in London and his aide’s “kiss my ass” comments to the press in Poland. He’s just begun pushing a more positive message keyed to his biography to convince undecideds that he’s up to the job. The last thing he wants right now is another distraction wrapped around his ankles, particularly on a day when the news is about the latest disappointing jobs report.
Given that the Chick-fil-A question here was packaged with another question about Bachmann and the Muslim Brotherhood, he had two dilemmas. One: If he weighs in on either, that’s a story and now suddenly he’s being asked about gay marriage and Islamism instead of jobs for the middle class. If you want a candidate who’s more interested in culture-war issues than economic growth, try Romney 2008. Two: If he weighs in only on Chick-fil-A, the easier of the two topics, then there’ll be a separate story on why he specifically ducked the question about Bachmann and he’ll hear it from her supporters and from the media for dodging. He probably figured he was better off playing it safe (as usual) and passing on both. Hey — if you wanted a nominee who’d inch out on the highwire to answer any question put to him, you should have nominated Newt.
Still, hurts to know that even a tool like Mike Bloomberg is capable of offering a righteous answer on CFA when called on to do so:
Critics trying to shut Chick-fil-A because its CEO opposes gay marriage are undermining the very essence of the Constitution, Mayor Bloomberg declared today in a stirring defense of the embattled fast food chain.
“It isn’t the right thing to do and it isn’t what America stands for,” Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show. “And those people who don’t like (Chick-fil-A) don’t understand their rights were protected by people who took a difficult position in the past and stood by it. They stood up so everybody else would be free.”…
“What’s for sure is that government cannot in the United States, in America, under the Constitution, be run where you have a litmus test for the personal views of somebody when they want something in the commercial world.”
Barney Frank also managed to say a word against government discrimination towards Chick-fil-A. Ah well. Maybe Mitt will get another question about this tomorrow and say something about free speech even if he ends up avoiding the subject of gay marriage. Speaking of which, enjoy the second clip below. Not sure what’s gotten into Stewart lately, but this is a rare week during which most of his big hits have been at the expense of Democrats.
Exit quotation via Mediaite: “Pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top 1.”
Looks, seriously people. We got snookered earlier this year. That’s no excuse for allowing the problem to remain. Either dump Romney at the convention, or dump Romney during the election and rally around someone else.
Otherwise, you’re just voting for Obama’s fraternal twin.
How do I increase my level of ilk? I’d like more ilky goodness in my diet.
Got ilk?
Thanks for the ping TOL!
And yet, to two or three sob sisters hereabouts with their hammy, vaudevillian boo-hoo-hooing, the true, unspeakable tragedy of this all has been that we (absolutely accurately) referred to this little itch as -- *gasp*! -- "n00b," in response.
Such "TrueBlue" loyalty, in one's friends. /sarc
LOL! Great message! I think he listened to it, too.
You’re welcome.
Nice! I particularly like the Hermione graphic.
Here there be trolls. We try, but we will never be rid of them all.
It’s like good and evil. Evil sees good, and evil must destroy it, or GET THE ZOT trying.
Tsk!
It will be a good day when the TBL idiots stay over on Mr. Churchill’s site and leave this CONSERVATIVE website in peace.
Until then, so long and thanks for all the fish.
Nice to see the quick repartee to an obvious noob...just wait a short while an the Mittster will rotate back into his 100% Gay Friendly self.
Ex82: Son of a gun got the most delegates--how did that happen exactly?
Bill Clinton NEVER got the majority of votes. Most Americans voted for someone else both times he won the presidency.
How did that happen exactly? And I'm all for the wisdom of the electoral college, by the way.
Incidentally, it's crucial to remember that the first time Clinton won on a plurality, he was forced to move right because his plurality win, with the majority of the popular vote "against" him, enabled the Republican Revolution, which probably would never have happened if Clinton had had a popular mandate.
The second time Clinton won on a plurality, he was impeached.
And Clinton was fairly popular. Obama is loathed and he is WEAK. He is in big trouble with his supporters. Many who voted for him last time will desert him at the ballot box this time; there is very little chance he could muster even 50% of the vote. Of all years and circumstances to gamble on using a plurality to weaken whichever bastard wins, THIS IS THE ONE.
I'm voting for a plurality. If my side "wins" -- and the beauty of it is that every single third party vote, whether it's cast by a weenie Greenie, an angry Libertarian, a disillusioned former Obama supporter, a Ron Paulite, or a disgusted-with-the-charade, refuse-to-vote-for-depravity principled conservative limk me, will count TOWARD creating a plurality -- whichever asshat statist gets the White House in 2012, Obama or Romney, may very well be as vulnerable to conservatives as Clinton was.
It's a risk and a gamble, but risk is the price you pay for opportunity. There is zero risk with Romney -- it is 100 percent certain that he will make liberalism stronger. Zero risk, thus zero opportunity to move this country RIGHT. Pray for a plurality, because if Romney gets a landslide, it will be willfully interpreted as a popular mandate FOR Romney's "progressive style of governing -- Americans voted for it in droves!" and the fact that it was actually a referendum against Obama fueled by desperation and hysteria, would be spinned away and soon forgotten.
This incident is simply further proof of who and what Myth really is.
"You say that like it's actually a bad thing, or something!"
/Mittbots
The list in #187 is the result of an admittedly brief, thoroughly repulsed scan. It may well, therefore, be incomplete. ;)
Hadn't thought of it before about Romney being a lousy liar, but I think you're exactly right on the money. Have back-read some of your posts and think you've nailed it. Romney is just bad news all the way around.
On a different topic (I noted some of your posts on it) ... just talked yesterday with a retired lifelong LAPD cop and a ballistics expert who is exasperated with the mindset that concealed carriers would have been powerless against the shooter in Colorado. According to him, neck and groin protectors or not, bullet-proof vest or not, a .45 slug full load 230 grain bullet hitting that armor, 950 feet per second, would be the equivalent force of a solid jam by a steel pipe; even just one hit on the body would probably have knocked him down, or at the least staggered him, and if a shot had been made on the mask, it would have turned his head into a canoe, to quote Wyatt. Muzzle flashes would give away his position. If there had been one or more concealed-carriers armed with .45s who quietly worked their way around and toward the perp, there's a very good chance that poor bastard nutcase would have stopped shooting much sooner and killed/mained a fraction of the number he did, all the more becasue he certainly would not be expecting anyone to shoot back. Just FYI. :^)
I am conservative through and through. I never wanted Romney to get the nomination and still wish that we had a conservative running. But , , , we don’t, at least not one with a snow ball’s chance in Hell of winning.
I am not voting for Romney thinking that he is conservative. I am voting for him to oust a radical Marxist Muslim who is intent on destroying my country.
Just because we failed to rally around a conservative during the primary doesn’t mean that we still shouldn’t vote to stop the Marxist any way we can. On inauguration day for Romney, we just have to work to pressure him to do right and failing that, coalesce behind a replacement for 2016.
Electing Romney is not the solution or the end of our prombles. It’s just the first step in is rescuing the nation by repudiating Obama and buying some time to finish our job.
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.