You’re one of the few people I have seen take such a negative comment, and try to spin it as a positive.
The correct answer to that question was no, it was not a mistake and give the answers and proof we all know.
We are looking for a leader, not a finger-in-the-wind politician looking for maneuvering room.
You are a funny guy!
SoCon you’ve hit the nail on the head about spinning negatives into positives. I’ve noticed here and at other websites rather creepy responses from the pro-Romney crowd when it comes to negative comments about him, especially about his religion. I wonder if the LDS has assigned monitor/spokesmen for all the top news websites? I wonder if they are planting articles? I wonder if they are double-teaming on the responses?
Well, it makes me wonder anyhoo......so, like, any of you Romney monitor/spokesmen wanna comment??
No, I’m one of the people around here who doesn’t just call the left names about the war but addresses the issue from a standpoint of personal responsibility and accountability.
If our nation decides to go to war as a nation, we act like a nation. Once the decision is made to go to war, we’re beyond the point of compromise or turning back.
>>>The correct answer to that question was no, it was not a mistake and give the answers and proof we all know.<<<
No, it’s not. That would be an incredibly dumb argument for a Republican candidate to make.
The point is not to even engage the left in this game. They’re looking for talking points, SoConPubbie. Flatly refuse to give them any. I thought 2006 would be lesson enough.
At this point, arguing about the war is a pointless exercise. If you don’t want the left to make this their own personal Vietnam, don’t give them the chance. Make the issue about winning. Not the merits of the war. The mainstream media would have fits with that kind of argument. Play the game on our terms—not theirs.
I think that would be strikingly obvious, but really, I think when it comes to Romney, a lot of logic flies out the door as we have a rush to criticize the man.