Posted on 07/04/2012 4:33:47 PM PDT by kristinn
Caroline Horn@CNHorn
On @CBSEveningNews, @cbsjancrawford says Romney told her Roberts' opinion seemed political, not based on Constitution.
Wrong Williams. I saw it when it happened. Just happened to be watching Fox at the time, and what Romney came out with was the agreed upon sound bite: It may be constitutional but it isn’t good policy.
All over the media this morning, they were still giving Romney grief for not coming out of the gate faster. I remember seeing Michelle Malkin choking back harsh words, but still criticizing his inability to say that this decision was not constitutional.
Until he felt the direction of the wind, of course.
Nope. You’re wrong. Romney came out the gate with the approved soundbite saying that it was constitutional but still wasn’t good policy.
You need to stop calling names and actually listen to the words being used.
True.
In fact none of them did until they were PERSONALLY targeted by Romney, too late. First Perry, then Newt and then RS. They all spent too much time attacking each other until they specifically were targetted because I guess they always believed Romney would get it, Each one prized the ABBMR #1 spot more than beating him, until they got it and then MR nuked them.
i rarely if ever saw Paul go after Romney, imagine that.
So, did you have to spend a lot of time deciding whether or not it’s constitutional for congress to persecute with taxation over not buying something.
Can you cite for me where that is in the US Constitution?
Rush new it immediately, Levin knew it immediately, heck...even O’Reilly knew it right away.
And...most of the conservatives on FR knew it immediately.
I agree with that criticism. I want him to try to be more visible than he has been despite limited resources.
The real problem is the campaign has to focus on qualifying for state ballots instead of campaigning.
That is, imho, a real inequity in the sytem that a party that qualified for 40+ ballots last election has to start the process over each election. In my mind, the only way they should lose access if they fail to run candidates in ensuing elections.
So, he’s busy deciphering ballot law in about 30 states, all different, all obstructionist, and all bastions of the system as we know it.
So, I’m giving him a break until after the final convention...is that Dems this year??? With his financial resources, he can probably only afford a hard one month push anyway, so even that would be too much.
MA on a nation-wide level for anything?
Cue the liferafts and abandon ship.
“This is exactly why Romney is such a bad candidate to have now.”
Preaching to the choir on that point.
I am not saying I am in favor of it. They are a lot of things that are allowed at the state level that federal govt has no business getting into. The people of Massachusetts need to kill their healthcare law.
I am 100% opposed to any of it.
Many of us here pointed that out a loooooong time ago.
I hope you don’t think I like Romney, because I do not.
BTW : I am not one of those nutbags who claim we can now invade the GOP convention and replace Romney with some unspecified candidate who we cant even agree on (we all know who they mean.) I must live on the planet earth.
Romney campaign and allies must EFFECTIVELY beat Obama up and damage him. That is it.
Agreed!
I find it difficult to believe that somewhere in the NJ Romneycare there was not one or more things that didn’t pan out as intended by cause of various circumstances. Romney should list these things and then with political pie on his face make a forthright statement like ‘it just shows to go that sometimes there are unintended consequences which make a total overall necessary especially when the entire USA is involved’. This would indicate a man of analysis, perspective, and honest intents. Question? Has Romney the character to do such?
?????? What?
I see you pointed out how Romney-care sucks so you cant be all bad :)
I think the Romney-bots are mostly terminated. Now it is the fear-ridden ABBO’s vs those not joining them for various reasons.
It makes it interesting. The groupings really get mixed and remixed.
NOW, Romney is able to say that it’s “not based on the Constitution.”
Yes Mitt immediately came out and said that Obamacare was bad policy and that he would repeal it...and yes it wasn't until 4 or 5 days later that he said it was unconstitutional (which is really the primary point).
Meanwhile, Obama continues to be for it.
” My gal unelectable Bachmann would be calling Obama-care a dark curse on this nation about now pointing out how it chases jobs to China and Mexico. And she could say that Romney-care sucks too. “
YEP
I don’t want to give Obama a break on this at all. Obama’s positions have been worse than Romney’s, if the issue is speaking with a forked tongue.
Obama argued in congress that it wasn’t a tax, argued before scotus that is was a tax, agreed with the ruling (it is a tax), and is now arguing before the media (public) that it is not a tax.
Romney couldn’t say it was unconstitutional. Obama is all over the map.
“I see you pointed out how Romney-care sucks so you cant be all bad :)”
Thank you! I like to think I have somewhat of a handle on what’s going on.
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.