Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Anti-Bubba182

I think it’s a distortion and a weak attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a general statement. I don’t disagree with it. Mitt came back and addressed the specifics satisfactorily.

I know that is disappointing for those with an agenda but those who are rational will not get worked up. Don’t take the bait.


10 posted on 10/04/2007 1:59:41 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (Catholic4Mitt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Canticle_of_Deborah
This is what Romney said: "Governor Romney would disagree with the negative characterization of those men and women who serve with honor and distinction in the United States Military. There may be disagreements with individual opinions, but no one would ever dispute the fact that those members of the military who disagree with the war have earned the right to express that opinion."and this is what you said:

I think it’s a distortion and a weak attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill. It’s a general statement. I don’t disagree with it. Mitt came back and addressed the specifics satisfactorily.

Only a true believer would think this is a general statement. Romney jumped on the Dems bandwagon without checking out what Rush really said. Rush discussed this on his show and said that Romney had thrown him under the Bus but that Thompson had stood up for him. He was absolutely correct. If Romney changed his tune later it was only because he saw what a fool he had made of himself and that he was bound to lose support.

The only weak attempt here is yours in trying to make excuses for this poor specimen of a candidate.

16 posted on 10/04/2007 2:30:04 AM PDT by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Initially, Romney’s campaign did not defend Limbaugh... it fell for the MediaMatters smear. Limbaugh stated it himself on Wednesday’s show.
23 posted on 10/04/2007 3:34:26 AM PDT by johnny7 ("But that one on the far left... he had crazy eyes")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

My problem with all of this is the vehicle he used to get his comments out. Why the Huffington Post? The only more liberal blog would have been something over at DU.


31 posted on 10/04/2007 5:39:57 AM PDT by anoldafvet (To liberals, building a wall across the Mexican border is a violation of the Voting Rights Act.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Somebody shoud have come out swinging like Mike Gundy

41 posted on 10/04/2007 8:03:11 AM PDT by Loud Mime (Life was better when cigarette companies could advertise and lawyers could not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

I know that is disappointing for those with an agenda but those who are rational will not get worked up. Don’t take the bait.

He abandoned rush on the word of MSM/Democrat party slander piece and then after he was informed of how badly it reflects on him he tries to cover it up and restate his position. Also one of the companies he founded is going to open the Door to our secure military networks for the ChiComs for the sake of some money.
He instinctively takes the side of liberals and his business legacy is collusion with our enemies. I believe that is anything but staunch conservative principles.


49 posted on 10/04/2007 9:23:12 AM PDT by TheKidster (you can only trust government to grow, consolidate power and infringe upon your liberties.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson