Romney on Chick-fil-A: That’s not something that’s part of my campaign; Obama ducks too

Hotair ^ | August 3, 2012 | AllahPundit

[maryz]

He’s been out on the speaking circuit, but clearly doesn’t represent Romney.

Exactly! From the coverage I catch, Newt is strong on how bad Obama is and passionate for a conservative House and Congress. But even pressed to the wall, he can't seem to come up with anything good about Romney. Of course, no one else can either, including Romney!

Newt did have that great piece in Politico, defending Michele Bachmann on Huma and the Muslim Brotherhood. Did that come out before Mitt was asked about Chick-Fil-A and the Huma/Muslim Brotherhood thing -- and said neither of them were part of his campaign (First Amendment and national security are beneath his notice?)? It seems like Newt is still generating lively and good ideas -- and Romney delicately steps around them like a city slicker in a cow pasture!

Aaaargh!

[SoConPubbie]

No way should any Presidential candidate touch this issue. This is a private business and the people handled the situation. There is absolutely no reason an current or potential leader of the Federal Government should insert themselves her. Anyone who thinks they should must love big government.

So you don't think that a political candidate should not help to protect, at least rhetorically, a private business whom the left in all it's forms is trying to destroy because of an adherence to a conservative principle?

You don't think a GOP candidate for the Presidency should not reaffirm his party's support for anti-Gay Marriage every chance he or she gets?

[SoConPubbie]

Some people are as bad as the Left.

What comes to mind first of all is Romney and a lot of his supporters.

[SoConPubbie]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually attempt a macho pout, before this. ;)

He He He!

Too funny!

[Finny]

Brian, Newt ticked me off royally with his gullible falling for AGW, and to this day it makes me think his vaunted intelligence is overrated because plain ordinary MATH reveals that mankind wouldn't be able to even identify, let alone manipulate, a planet-altering climate change if it bit us on the butt. However, I know that Newt a) admitted his error regarding AGW and b) argued ELOQUENTLY (and successfully, IIRC) in front of a congressional committee to be highly skeptical of the "science."

On the other hand, Romney embraces the AGW fraud wholesale as per Forbes, as well as per his CPAC speech of 2008 when he urged that a carbon plan was needed and that it should be "a worldwide solution, not an American one" -- in other words, Romney believes America should surrender its sovereignty to global oversight in terms of energy and food production and consumption. You are on the verge of voting FOR that, buddy.

Romney was also ultimately responsible for the closing of Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts because law Romney supported and saw passed as governor, forces adoption agencies to cooperate with homosexual couples who want to play "married with children." The Catholic adoption agenciees opted to close altogether rather than have any part of such depraved social engineering.

You can tell yourself that your vote for Romney is really a vote "against" Obama, but that's just talk, soothing, comforting, talk, like saying you're voting "against" killing the pretty unicorns: totally imaginary. The REALITY is that if you vote for Romney, you will be voting FOR making the Republican party embrace the same liberal things Romney does.

Mary, I think you did an exceptional job with your post. WELL DONE.

And BrianE, the last time a president was elected on a plurality, he was IMPEACHED. The time before when a president was elected on a plurality, he was forced to the right by an ensuing Republican Revolution. Pluralities seem to favor conservatives, and presidents elected on pluralities are vulnerable.

YOU are on the verge of voting for government tyranny in the name of ABO. I will be voting FOR a plurality in the name of helping conservatives oppose and dominate whichever bastard wins, Obama or Romnney. And Obama is weak and loathed -- there's very little chance he could muster 50% of the vote. It's a damned good gamble to vote third party in order to vote "for" a plurality. On the other hand, seeing as how Romney is a DOCUMENTED liberal Democrat registered in the Republican party, it is a piss-poor and even stupid bet that he'd do anything but hurt conservatism and advance the liberal agenda in ways Obama could only dream about.

[Aetius]

Yeah, it’s really hard to believe that Romney wouldn’t at least take the opportunity to defend Chick Fil A on free speech grounds, and to point out how outrageous it is for far-left extremist Democrats to threaten to use the power of the state against them.

He could make a larger point about how it is the Left which would use the power of govt to silence debate and punish those who dare disagree.

[subterfuge]

Spot on W1. People on a forum think they know how to run a campaign. Not every issue that is near and dear to someone’s heart is fit for disecting on a national level. Some of you whiners are hurting THIS forum.

[muawiyah]

Here’s your cr*p sandwich ~ check out what’s going on in Egypt today at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ ~ this business of Socon issues is NOT PART OF ROMNEY”S CAMPAIGN ~ so he’s going to pass up the opportunity for slamming Obama for teaming up with people who are now crucifying Christians.

[muawiyah]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ ~ this is a SOCON issue your boy said isn’t part of his campaign. YOU are hurting everybody with this sociopathic concept.