Posted on 08/04/2012 5:19:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.”
Update: Evidently the “evolution” is over:
Obama, already in favor of gay marriage, has little to gain by weighing in against a private company that operates primarily in red states on an issue that has already inflamed social conservatives. He has treaded lightly on the issue on the campaign trail, touting the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but avoided new calls for legalizing gay marriage since announcing he supported it in May.
Several officials in Obama’s White House and campaign did not respond Friday to requests for comment about Chick-fil-A. And there’s reason for the president to keep the issues away from the center of his reelection campaign. Obama can’t afford to alienate religious conservatives in the black community or give blue-collar Democratic whites in Ohio and Virginia another reason to vote against him.
Not a word from the president of the United States in defense of a business owner’s right to hold the political views he prefers without fear of government retribution?
Drivel and balderdash don’t begin to describe your post. It is beyond the pale
Funnnnnyyyyyy
What a surprise.
Just guessing he doesn't have any experience with either concept.
“Yeah we call them Romney voters because.....”
I will vote for Romney because he is on the ticket and running against Obama. The “masters” are the people who vote. (see Ted Cruz victory)
So either people will vote with the majority in the national election and then work with what they have or continue to split the party, split the vote and split this Country down the seams.
I am no one’s puppet - but I will be a team player. I never was one of those people who were chosen last for a team.
Your tin foil hat is showing, but at least you’re vaguely amusing.
Being noncommital when it comes to FREE SPEECH is rather unusual in our society. Even Obama has a position ~ he would like for us all to shut up, so we know where he stands.
You really can't be lukewarm on this particular fundamental right in this country.
Even though I find nothing whatsoever appealing with this dude, I am still startled when he seems to have no position on the elements in the Bill of Rights.
No way a knowledgeable businessman could be so unaware of such matters ~ unless, of course, he was just a face man.
That means anywhere from 85% to 92% of the Republican party is a member of one of the various Conservative factions inside the party.
We really can afford to LOSE every single member of the GOP-e and still function as a major political party, and then where are you people going to go? Will you become another Democrat faction "Officially"?
How about you wait to see who Romney decides to nominate as VP to decide if he’s forgotten about conservatives.
OK?
I’m personally for Palin, who in my opinion would do a (lot) toward capturing all the conservatives currently looking for, every reason to rebel.
At least wait for his VP selection.
Screw Romney. I already wasted my vote on McCain the same way.
Face it, Romney will lose and it will be his own liberal fault. Period.
Oh, so he can pull a Juan McCain? No thanks. No votes for moderates, RINOs, CINOs, or anything in between from me. Principles must come before victory. “Just Win” isn’t enough. It has to be winning while holding to certain standards, and picking a conservative VP doesn’t get it done.
Romney has shown nothing but contempt for conservatives and I fail to understand why anyone thinks he’ll see the light in the white house.
Wonder how his deals in China are working out ~ will he still be on the street to make campaign donations in the near future?
Seriously? You are drunk on GOP kool-aid. If all you want is the GOP to win in November fine, but that won’t save America. We need real conservative leaders for that, and Mitt Romney is not a conservative.
What is he thinking here? Is he trying to after that 2% gay vote by pissing off the consevative base. Is he trying to lose?
Do you think we will get a conservative justice out of Romney? He will nominate the most liberal justice he can find just to stick it to conservatives, he hates us. And he just proved it again with the Chick-Fil-A issue.
“The party split is simple and not at all intimidating. The GOP-e is at most 15% of our voting strength....”
“We really can afford to LOSE every single member of the GOP-e and still function as a major political party,”
Then why in the world is everyone screaming about the GOP-e?
“and then where are you people going to go?”
You people? I didn’t vote for Romney in the primaries....what do you mean by “you people?”
“Will you become another Democrat faction “Officially”?”
I hardly think so....
Think of it as a carry back loss!
I will vote for Romney - call that support if you wish.
Think of it as kicking Obama out of office.
I honestly think it was a good idea for Romney not to associate with the protesters.
And here's why. If Romney came out in favor of them, you know what the media would do? They'd tack Romney on the front of every single Chik-fil-a news story. “The Romney-backed protesters,” “supporters of Governor Romney filled the restaurants,” and so on.
The protests wouldn't be about standing up to leftist bullying any more. They'd be cemented in the public eye as nothing but a political stunt during an election year, and things wouldn't change at all. But because Romney's NOT talking about it, it's not political. It's a grassroots movement telling the tyrants that we're not going to be good little peons.
Buuuut I imagine no one’s going to care about what I say, just because they hate Romney so much and will take every chance to slam him.
Live with it.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually attempt a macho pout, before this. ;)
Sorry, but Romney and Obama are not the same.
Sorry, but Romney and Obama are not the same.
They could be twins. Are you kidding me? Both love government mandated medical for the country. Both love gay marriage. Both love abortion. Sheesh they could easily came out of the same mother. I feel sorry for your ignorance. How sad for you that you fall for a fraud. You would have voted for Hitler most likely in the 30’s and 40’s. Sad state of affairs.
So as long as obama does it - it's OK with the liberal set, Mitt's supporters. Mitt has NO LEADERSHIP skills - where NEWT and SARAH are born leaders!
Romney is a curse on America and is/was on Barry, his blood brother.
Where did same sex marriage in MA come from - ROMNEY! So all his supporters are faggots.
“The hottest parts of Hell are reserved for those, who in times of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”
Why in the hell are so mant into Newt? was’nt he involved in the Fannie Mae scandel & supported the AWB? Like how many marriages? Am i missing something?
There’s an old saying “no Newts is good Newts”
Are you related to that guy that went to Chick-fil-a and posted the video on Youtube??
I never said Romney was my first choice for a candidate. I don’t even think he would be my 20th choice. But when looking at ALL the issues, he’s a dang sight better than Obama. And if you can’t see that, you have my pity.
the lds did not stay bloodless, unfortunately for them and for those that met mormons run amok
Oh, I don't know -- maybe because he has brains and actual ideas; maybe because he can "work with" Dems -- not in the GOPe sense of "cave completely" -- it's at least arguable that the vaunted post-94 "Clinton economy" should be called the "Gingrich economy"! Remember Newt masterminded the first GOP takeover of the House. He can own up to being wrong (as about AGW), unlike Romney who staunchly maintains RomneyCare is a good thing and IIRC a "free market solution."
was’nt he involved in the Fannie Mae scandel
I have no idea why you think this; even that notorious liar Mitt Romney only claims that Newt "lobbied" for Fannie Mae. Newt did do consulting work for them; they ignored his advice. (Though a couple of Mitt supporters -- I don't know if they were formally associated with his campaign at the time -- did in fact lobby Congress for Fannie Mae to halt an investigation.)
If you're one of those who claim that "no one pays that much money for advice" (as opposed to lobbying), you might recall that Bain & Co. (as opposed to Bain Capital) is and has been from its inception a "management consulting" firm -- i.e., that's how it made its money.
And frankly Newt would be my last choice for a lobbyist. After the Dems and GOPe got him out of the speakership and he left Congress, do you think any of them would have taken a phone call from him, much less lunch or whatever?
OTOH, I believe he did owe $8,000 to the House Bank when that scandal erupted, but instead of shutting down the investigation (which might have helped him), he pushed it. (AFAIK, nothing about the House Bank was actually illegal, just highly unseemly.)
Or maybe you're confusing Fannie Mae with Romney's despicable lie that Newt's "own party" got rid of him for corruption. You do recall the Dem's hundreds (?) of trumped-up ethics charges, all of which proved false?
& supported the AWB?
I don't recall anything about Newt and AWB; I do know, however, that Mitt actually signed an assault weapons ban in MA -- and was apparently as pleased and proud about it as he remains about RomneyCare.
Like how many marriages?
Newt has an unfortunate marital history, true. Rather than recount the ameliorating specifics here, I would just point out that Netanyahu has a similarly messy marital history -- two divorces, three marriages, a publicly admitted extramarital affair. Yet I can't think of any Israeli political figure who would possibly be a better, stronger leader for Israel than Netanyahu. Your mileage may vary.
Am i missing something?
I think you're missing a whole lot!
Finny, livius -- am I missing anything here? ;-)
I think you’ve hit all the highlights!
I was originally hopeful that whoever ended up being the candidate would have relied on Newt as an idea person and attack dog, but so far as I can see, Romney is keeping him at arm’s length. He’s been out on the speaking circuit, but clearly doesn’t represent Romney.
Newt was never the favorite of the GOP-e, and it was his own party that teamed up with the Dems and forced him out of the speakership because they were actually embarrassed by his success (too divisive, you know).
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.