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.”
He considers Chick-fil-A a refueling stop. Here's what he said to Truett Cathy last May at Liberty University's commencement ceremony, in which Mr. Cathy was being awarded an honorary doctorate:
The Romney campaign comes to a sudden stop when we spot a Chick-fil-A. Your chicken sandwiches were our comfort food through the primary season, and heaven knows there were days that we needed a lot of comfort. So, Truett, thank you and congratulations on your well-deserved honor today.
Thanks Tn Nana for catching slick willards double speak.
The Amendments listed below, coupled with recent legislative innovations like Motor Voter and the good old Voting Rights act of 1965, have in effect established “Universal Suffrage” in the USSA.
The Founders specifically did not put a right to vote in the Constitution, and warned against expanding the Franchise to the poor, women, and those under 21, these groups being exactly the ones that these days vote for domestic marxists.
Their warnings were not heeded.
The Fifteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on race or former status of involuntary servitude.
The Nineteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination of the right to vote based on sex.
The Twenty Fourth Amendment prohibited the use of a poll tax.
The Twenty Sixth Amendment allowed all citizens over the age of 18 who are not otherwise disqualified the right to vote.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_of_the_27_amendments_expanded_voting_rights#ixzz22X9mKFKr
Wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Here comes the “mark my words, no more _____” Strong-Man of the Central Committee Government Party.
Extortionists.
You’re laughing at me saying Obama’s second term will be a disaster for America?
Then commenting about universal suffrage, a horse that left the barn 92 years ago?
Pardon me for not engaging in the groupthink here.
There is something much larger at stake with this election.
A second term for Obama will be a direct cause for either a second Civil War or a second American Revolution-—with unintended consequences for ALL of us.
Every candidate for the GOP nomination has been excoriated on this forum over the past year. Name the candidate and there were people here all over them.They ALL have faults. None is the ideal.
Mine were Sarah, then Cain and then Gingrich. I’m zero for three.
Whomever emerges from Tampa as the GOP candidate is getting my vote, because, even though I did not get the candidate I wanted, Obama MUST be defeated.
This election is the most like 1860 in our history, with an element of 1980 thrown in. There are vast anti-American forces arrayed within our own government, in place and poised to destroy the country you and I grew up in. The evidence piles up daily.
If I can avoid that by a peaceful vote, I will do it.
Because what will be unleashed by an unstoppable Obama and his Dem cohorts will shock even the most jaded of us here.
What we have seen to date by this White House and its demented leaders in Congress is but a benevolent preview.
What once was theory will become fact—there will be a time for choosing.
The clear and present danger is upon us. And there are only 95 days left to stop it for the safety and future of our families and nation.
We can participate in a circular firing squad, or face the enemy. The choice is ours.
No one here choose Romney, but somehow, the majority of Republican voters did.
In what primary did Romney win a majority of the votes?
Again Romney shows no sign of conviction and the sheeple will see this as weakness.
Son of a gun got the most delegates--how did that happen exactly?
I can't recast history.It is what it is.
;)
And as usual, over 100 posts, and still hardly one (even one??) post with the Sheep’s Clothing specific agenda.
Unless “he” finally comes out and begins to identify with the REAL majority, then we are once again witnessing the Strong-Man plan of THE Government Party....In which case, contrary to some posters here, may be worse than the Undocumented Coffee Server.
According to the Wall Street Journal, it was the Texas primary that put him over the top (May 29).
marriage. The liberal rinos love this man. Yay, for that!
We are at the fringes of the party. Primary results are available here.
You just have to ignore some of the “old-timers” around here. A few of them have really low self-esteem so they have to call people names and act like their FR join date makes them some sort of special.
I’m not voting for this POS Romney.
This n00b thing is ridiculous-— its nice to know some Freepers agree with me.
I’ve been around a while and remember vividly getting
pilloried for a comment I made when I was new,and the insults were horrendous-—just because of my sign-up date.
well said, gw.
Well it's a good thing that Romney evidently surrounds himself with smart people because to do have done so would be a major campaign blunder. A blunder that the Obama campaign was probably hoping he'd make.
Here's how it would have went down if Romney decided to pop into a Chick-Fil-A with his huge entourage of press, handlers and secret-service agents to ceremoniously chow down on a fried chicken sandwich.
It would have knocked Obama's woes off the front pages for a few days (i.e. 8.3% unemployment) and would have provided Obama fodder for campaign attack ads.
For example, an Obama ad would show Romney chomping down on his sandwich while an ominous voice in the background solemnly intones Romney's support for homosexual marriage back when he was running for office in Massachusetts. So Romney would have been exposed as a hypocrite for "cashing in" politically on the Chick-Fil-A phenomenon when he is on record as previously supporting homosexuals.
Sure, Romney could have tried to say that he was supporting the owner's right to free speech and not necessarily his position on homosexual marriage but that would have done no good at all and everybody here is smart enough to know that. So by stating that this controversy "plays no part in his campaign" is a gutsy, savvy move on Romney's part as he denies the Obama campaign and all the yakking heads in the media a huge opportunity to embarrass and make sport of him.
For those who feel strongly about the homosexual marriage issue, let's focus on electing more Tea Party people like Cruz and West to congress and in state legislatures. Get Tea Party in control of the legislatures and homosexual marriage will have no chance of passage no matter who our president is and no matter what our president thinks of homosexual marriage.
As for those here who continue to post photos of Sarah Palin at the Chick-Fil-A, in an obvious attempt to shame Romney, well Sarah Palin, as much as I like her, does not have the responsibility that Romney has for unseating Obama. She obviously has time to go out for chicken dinners and good for her. It could have been her that was running against Obama and we wouldn't even be talking about Romney, but she made her choices and now she has plenty of time for peach shakes and chicken sandwiches. So let her hang out at the Chick-Fil-A and let Romney focus on beating the sitting president who is nothing less than a domestic enemy of the United States of America.
That kind of crap reminds me of all the “Old Corps” comments I heard when I first joined the Marines.
It’s the kind of statement someone makes when they know they don’t have anything useful to contribute.
This is an issue for the “little people.” Certainly it is not worthy of distracting Prince willard.
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.