Posted on 01/19/2008 7:29:06 AM PST by jdm
Earlier this week, AP reporter Glen Johnson acted unprofessionally by essentially heckling Mitt Romney during a press conference when Romney said that he would not be beholden to lobbyists if elected President. Even a bystander called Johnson "rude and ugly", a moment caught on YouTube. However, the Boston Herald -- a paper with a rightward bent -- believes that Johnson may have won on the facts while losing on the visuals (via Joe Gandelman at TMV):
Former Bay State Gov. Mitt Romney, who has cast himself as a Washington outsider and blasted his opponents’ ties to lobbyists, has more than a dozen federally registered lobbyists raising money for him and several others advising his campaign, records show.
At a Nashua event the day before the New Hampshire primary, Romney said, “I don’t have years and years of favors to repay, lobbyists who have raised all sorts of money for me.”
But at least 13 lobbyists work as so-called bundlers - those responsible for prodding deep-pocketed donors and generating vast sums of money for the candidate - according to records compiled by nonprofit Washington watchdog Public Citizen.
Does this make Johnson look any better? No, but it makes Romney look a little worse. Politicians like to deride lobbyists and claim that they will have no favors to repay when they get to Washington, but it's hard to make that argument when more than a dozen of them raise funds for the candidate. Regardless of whether they "run" the campaign, these lobbyists have helped fund it, and that makes the anti-lobbyist rhetoric somewhat hypocritical, regardless of the parsing of the word "run".
It would be refreshing, if politically suicidal, for a candidate to point out what lobbyists do. They represent legitimate interests of people around the country on policies that impact them. Lobbying is not inherently unethical or dishonest. Just like any other profession that exists at the intersection of power and money, enormous opportunities exist for corruption that have to have vigilant oversight to prevent.
Mitt, with his massive self-financing, had the standing to make that point rather than the banal attack on lobbyists in general that left him vulnerable to yet another data point for those who consider him disingenuous. Of all of the candidates, he has relied least on outside financing, which makes him less beholden to special interests in terms of grubby paybacks. Why not say that, rather than making a fairly debunkable claim that he has no ties to lobbyists?
Even better yet, why not say this: "Because of the massive size and intrusive scope of the federal government, it requires a lobbying industry to make sure that everyone's voice gets heard on the blizzard of legislation and enforcement initiatives that arise in Washington each year. Those lobbyists working for my campaign want to reduce the federal government and shrink that burden. We want a Washington DC that doesn't require an entire industry of lobbyists, one which the individual voice can reach to the Beltway and effect change. If you want that kind of federal government, one that stops interfering with states, communities, and individuals and focuses on its actual assigned responsibilities, vote for me!"
That would be a winning and honest message.
When are you and Johnson expecting your love child? You seem to be incapable of any criticism of him.
I wouldn’t trust anything this clown wrote and it’s a documented fact he’s a jerk.
Faced with irrefutable documented facts, the Romney shills have nothing but ad hominem moaning left to fall back on.
I wonder what FreeRepublic is going to do when they finally realize that Mitt Romney’s ultimate success may depend on Fred Thompson. Will FR prefer Huckabee or McCain or Giuliani to Mitt Romney? I think not. FR’s fierce hatred of Mitt Romney is way out of balance with reality. And I am beginning to like Fred more and more.
I’ve already told you once that I’m supporting Thompson and if Hunter had any shot he would be my next choice so you tell me why I’m attacking a boorish left wing reporter with poor etiquette? What is it I hope to gain?
You are making no sense.
Who knows? Who cares?
On this thread you've been shilling for Romney and acting as an apologists for his lies about his lobbyists.
BARBARA STREISAND
I haven’t said one thing good about Romney in this thread.
You’ve been spewing Barbra Streisand making ad hominem attacks on the reporter who exposed Romneys lies, without daring to address any of the documented facts.
I repeat. All this shouting about finding a “gotcha” is ridiculous. Instead it reveals to me how Romney is tapping a lot of high level sources of information for fleshing out his policy positions. I like it.
Lobbyists are not running Romney’s campaign. Your eagerness for a “gotcha” is distorting your view of the situation.
Or even "tied" to it. Just because they're holding positions in the campaign, advising Romney, traveling with Romney, bundling donations for Romney...
He deserves worse but in your admiration of him you can’t see it. Criticism of Johnson’s behavior has nothing to do with Romney’s truthfulness and isn’t an ad hominem attack on Johnson.
It’s comical. Your hatred of Romney is so intense that you will go to extremes defending a left winger like Johnson. And on a Conservative web site.
You get the DoubleSpeak Award of the day.
Not only do you not understand the meaning of an Ad Hominem attack. You now demonstrate you don’t understand the meaning of “Double Speak.”
If Johnson had kicked a dog on his way out of the Staples would he have been immune to criticism and would that have had anything to do with Romney’s truthfulness? Johnson’s behavior and manners that day are subject to criticism regardless of whether or not Romney was truthful. Johnson doesn’t get a free ride on his faults just because he agrees with you on Romney.
He didn't. He exposed a leftist liar and hypocrite named Romney.
You have to interpret what he meant and understood. That is pretty hard to do with just parsed reports.
The old false but accurate defense? I'll go by what he said.
Certainly sounds like it. That’s the point No one would “lie” about something that is so easy to prove.
Absurd.
Shouldn’t the question actually be what lobbyists are having what influence on what candidates to block good decisions?
For example, what candidates are listening to ADM as did Humphrey and Dole to perpetuate the myth that ethanol will help us gain energy independence and is better for the environmen and thus we should continue the ridiculous tax breaks and subsidies for ethanol.
Sorry, but on the substance, any neutral observer would conclude that "the lying leftist sack of shit" (your words, not mine) was apparently right.
So he didn’t say, “I don’t have years and years of favors to repay, lobbyists who have raised all sorts of money for me.”???
Sounds very much like he said he doesn’t have lobbyists who have raised all sorts of money for him.
But that’s just me.
I don’t favor a candidate whose statements I have to constantly parse. Everyone makes a few of those every now and again, but Romney and Huckster seem to fill that category every day or three. No thank you.
From the conflicting comments on this thread, it looks like Grungeboy drew blood after all. It’s a shame that stunts like this by otherwise mediocre types seem to drive American politics these days, but when the media pushes it and folks on both sides react to it what are you supposed to do?
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.