” .... making a fairly debunkable claim that he has no ties to lobbyists?”
That’s not what he said. He said his campaign wasn’t being run by lobbyists. Any candidate who doesn’t have lobbyists working for his campaign would be a naive fool. The extend of a lobbyist on a campaign is a whole other question.
It would be nice to see one media outlet where they understand what is said, instead of twisting and spinning to achieve their ends.
you meant to say: “The extent of a lobbyist’s influence on a campaign ...” doofus
From http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/01/17/semantics/ :
Romney specifically said “I don’t have lobbyists that are TIED to my –” before being interrupted. Obviously the missing word is “campaign.”
Romney then admitted that Ron Kaufman is TIED to his campaign by when he acknowledged that Kaufman is an “adviser,” and again later when he agreed that Kaufman has been in debate preparation(s).
But then, Romney tried to pretend he only said “running,” when everyone in the room, and now every video viewer, clearly saw him say “tied to.”
AP reporter Johnson is right. He caught Romney red-handed.
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.