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.
I never thought I'd see the day when a GOP RINO whose taken umpteen positions on abortion, embryonic stem cell research & forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual lifestyled-employees--all while claiming to be either a god-in-embryo or a future god--would be supported by a wide array of supposedly "conservative" Republicans.
(Next thing ya know, the GOP leader will be a Moonie from the most liberal state who believes that when those Moonies do those mass weddings, that it would just legally be considered as one massive "civil union"--the parallel being Romney's pro-civil unions for alternative sexual lifestyles...)
(Next thing ya know, the 2016 GOP nominee will be a religious-liberties focused Scientologist, or an enchanting Wiccan. Live long enough and you see anything I suppose)
Yeah, well, er, maybe Romney makes his lobbyist campaign advisors kneel at his feet and never lets them near his elbows. Didja think of that, huh?
This isn’t about the first amendment. Where I come from poor manners can be corrected. If one of these cretins were verbally harassing you would you meekly submit to their abuse?
Ah. He was telling a lie while secretly thinking a purported truth.
[snicker]
It was a press conference where Romney got caught lying by the press. Now his shills are pissing, moaning and playing the victim for him.
It isn’t necessarily a lie. That suggests that Romney intended to deceive knowing it was false.
Usually when people start screaming about a person as a liar, there is an agenda. These people cannot fathom the thought it might be a misunderstanding or miscommunication. Rather, they wait in the wing for a misstep and scream LIAR at the earliest opportunity (not really caring to know all the facts).
Go smoke on your double standards!
Fred Thompson Thrived as [EVIL implied] Lobbyist
NewsMax ^ | June 25, 2007 2:49 p.m. EDT | Ass. Press
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856049/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1894922/posts
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIwYTk5MjU2OWQ1MDBlODQxMmIxMWZjMzMwZDkwNzg=
Lawyers, lobbyists and anti-tort-reformers are often part of the problem, not the solution.
You're just (elbow) ribbin' me, right? Well, that's just a bunch of (elbow) macaroni!
Sooner or later your preferred candidate will be subjected to the same garbage and I just wonder what your reaction will be then? All politicians lie, every damn one of them, and whether or not Romney was intentionally untruthful in this particular situation isn’t the point. The point is that some of you will defend the devil if it helps your candidate and that is as disgusting as a politician not being truthful.
You're hysterical. How is calling Romney on his lies and hypocrisy a double standard?
It won't be shilling and spinning.
So how does it feel being a shill for the msm.
Did he just forget about his lobbyist fund raisers and lobbyist campaign advisers?
You tell me. You seem to share their aversion to documented facts.
Did I miss any criticism you have of Johnson? In your eyes did he do nothing wrong?
What's wrong about telling the truth, documenting the facts and exposing Romney's lies?
You are being extremely disingenuous.
Having friends who volunteer on your campaign who happen to be lobbyists is not the same thing as a lobbyist "running" a campaign.
Having friends who volunteer on your campaign who happen to be lobbyists is not even close to working in Washington for decades and being beholden to lobbyists and special interest groups.
The point is accurate -- his campaign is not one over-run with old Washington insiders. Can one ever run a campaign totally devoid of any such influence? Of course, not. But if you cannot see the difference, then that's your problem.
Of all the viables, Romney has the least baggage on this issue and it is really a losing argument when compared to the other candidates' checkered pasts.
Next baseless and shameless attack.
He was telling lies while secretly thinking the truth? Sorry, that doesn't pass the snicker test.
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.