Romney said keeping hand in GOP '12 race (Desperate Mitt Alert)

UPI ^ | 30 AUGUST 2009 | UPI

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

BOSTON, Aug. 30 (UPI) -- Republican former U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is quietly raising millions of dollars as he prepares for the 2012 campaign, analysts say.

Observers say that since he lost the GOP presidential primaries last year, the former Massachusetts governor has shown his usual competitiveness and discipline in keeping his presidential aspirations in play, The Boston Globe reported Sunday.

"He lost a tough race," New Hampshire state Sen. Jeb Bradley, a Republican former member of the U.S. House, told the newspaper. "After that, Mitt could have done anything he wanted with his life: back to the non-profit world or start a new business. But what has he been doing? He's kept at it. He's been busting his butt since losing more than anyone I have ever seen."

[CharlesWayneCT]

So I take it you’re a lawyer ?

No.

You certainly don’t like answering direct questions, Charles. Why is that ?

Your premise is false. Therefore, your question cannot be answered. I love answering questions, especially direct ones, and questions relevant to the discussion.

It helps if the questions are not rhetorical, or phrased in the form of a statement, especially a false statement.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Do you know what an “ad hominen” is (I’m using your version of english grammar so you don’t think I’m simply arguing over the improper use of english).

[CharlesWayneCT]

Frankly, I haven't been saying anything positive about him in this discussion. I haven't been particularly interested in saying anything positive about Romney since he was no longer a candidate, and especially since we started the health care discussion and I disagree with the opinions he is expressing now on the subject.

I'm simply correcting missstatements of fact and other fallacies, and arguing with the opinion of others regarding the evil nature they ascribe to Romney. Arguing that Romney is not the antichrist is hardly the same as saying positive things about him.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"I did not work for the Romney campaign, in either a paid or unpaid capacity, either on the internet or off the internet."

"In September of 2008, I collected a page of signatures to put Romney’s name on the ballot in Virginia."

Needless to say, you contradicted yourself here. Either you helped out, or you didn't. You did. The timing, however, is puzzling. Why would you seek to put him on the ballot in September 2008 ?

[fieldmarshaldj]

I had several questions in my posts, you can go and review them.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Because you and Romney have no legal foundation for his imposing gay marriage, you change the subject and ignore the Mass. Constitution.

And we can see that this absurd statement is true, because the well-funded groups with top-rate lawyers who want to defend marriage filed suit in Massachussets pointing out the non-legality of Romney's actions.

Oh wait, they didn't, becuase they, unlike you, are real lawyers and know that what you assert is false.

[fieldmarshaldj]

So you’re not a lawyer ? Were you a lawyer at any point in your career ?

And it was correct you didn’t answer direct questions until you finally answered one after being pressed several times.

[CharlesWayneCT]

So you’re not a lawyer ?

No

Were you a lawyer at any point in your career ?

No.

And it was correct you didn’t answer direct questions until you finally answered one after being pressed several times.

I am reviewing the posts you made earlier, to see if I missed any direct questions. I answered questions as soon as it was stated that I had not answered one.

[CharlesWayneCT]

And to clarify, I was answering direct questions throughout this discussion. FOr examnple, in your comment 105 you asked two direct questions, and I answered both of them.

[Antoninus]

Go Mitt Go — AWAY.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Frankly, I haven't been saying anything positive about him in this discussion. I haven't been particularly interested in saying anything positive about Romney since he was no longer a candidate, and especially since we started the health care discussion and I disagree with the opinions he is expressing now on the subject."

Well, frankly, you offer up a defense of him like a pro, why our presumption you are, or have been, an attorney. Where you are mistaken is your presumption he is not a candidate for the Executive Branch. He has never stopped running. He wouldn't have his trolls and agents out there spamming for his candidacy. It's nice to see you take issue with him on his Socialist agenda for health care. So therefore one of my main planks for opposing his failed administration you have affirmed, Charles.

"I'm simply correcting missstatements of fact and other fallacies, and arguing with the opinion of others regarding the evil nature they ascribe to Romney."

The problem is, Charles, you haven't corrected anything. You've repeated false, debunked points and the like. You've also attempted to use propaganda-style rhetoric "evil, etc." in order to trap us and thereby discredit any criticisms we have of said person as "extremist" or "emotional extremism." It's very clever, but it won't work. Facts is still facts.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Most of us know who he is, what he is, and what he has done, and what he will do, yet you (willfully ?) choose to ignore it all (or play it down), despite the mountains of evidence, links, articles, personal experiences and the like. Again, I ask, why ?

Your premise is false, and therefore your question cannot be answered, and is not a direct question. However, I did respond previously, explaining why I found your premise false, which would be an answer to this question.

TO answer the implied question, I am not ignoring the evidence, I am weighing what is presented and judging it, and I have not found it compelling.

I will note that while your question seems to imply that I have some other motive, it certainly wasn't a direct question as to whether I worked for Romney, and your later implication that I had been directly asked that would not be supported by this question.

[Diogenesis]

CharlesWayneCT (myopic RomneyBOT): "And we can see that this absurd statement is true,
because the well-funded groups with top-rate lawyers who want to defend marriage filed suit in Massachussets pointing out the non-legality of Romney's actions.

Oh wait, they didn't, becuase they, unlike you,
are real lawyers and know that what you assert is false."

Your posts indicate a paucity of knowledge on your part,
delivered with a large dollop of falsehoods (like Romney).

They also reveal an undying love of/for Mitt Romney,
consistent with a confused mind, ignoring truth and substituting ad hominem.

You still have failed to explain Romney's exposed exercise of illegal legislative authority.

Instead, you try to change the subject, lamely.

The fact is, Romney uses corrupt procedure. Want another example?

---

Romney aide’s bogus badges: Sources detail ‘illegal’ security tactic

" Boston Herald - Friday, July 20, 2007
In an apparent violation of the law, a controverisal aide to ex-Gov. Mitt Romney
created phony law enforcement badges that he and other staffers used on the campaign trail
to strong-arm reporters, avoid paying tolls and trick security guards
into giving them immediate access to campaign venues, sources told the Herald.
“They (the aides) knew the badges were fake and probably illegal,”
said a presidential campaign source who asked for anonymity
because the story could damage the individual’s career.
Two additional sources confirmed that the badges - described as bright silver plates with a state seal attached -
were first created and used by Garrity while Romney was still governor."

FAKE TROOPER (and Chief of Operations)

More here

More here - Romney aide is the focus of probe

Romney aide accused of faking badges

[CharlesWayneCT]

Again, Charles, follow the money. We were here all the time going over those one by one, every day, picking them apart. Where were you ?

I was right here, reading the same articles being posted, and sometimes commenting on them.

(I am going through all the posts, and striving to answer any statement that ended with a question mark)

[ladyjane]

I try to avoid the Romney threads like the plague so I apologize if I misinterpreted anyone’s posts.

I’m just so disgusted with what is going on in the current administration that I’m ready to support people I don’t even like. I’d rather have Romney or even McCain in the White House than Obama. Life is seldom perfect.

[Diogenesis]

You still have failed to explain Romney's exposed exercise of illegal legislative authority.

Instead, you try to change the subject, lamely.

The fact is, Romney uses corrupt procedure. Want another example?

---

"But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.
Massachusetts's animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone
from carrying an animal "in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel
or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the
animal carried thereon." An officer for the Massachusetts Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation
saying "it's definitely something I'd want to check out." The officer,
Nadia Branca, declined to give a definitive opinion on whether Romney broke the law
but did note that it's against state law to have a dog in an open bed of a pick-up truck,
and "if the dog was being carried in a way that endangers it, that would be illegal."

---

"Dog on Roof? What Was It Like for Romney's Pooch?
Scientists Say Dog Likely Experienced Wind-Whipped, Uncomfortable Trip
"Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family's hulking Irish setter,
in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon's roof rack.
e'd built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog," read the article.
Jordan Kaplan, the owner of Petaholics, a dog walking service in New York City,
and a lifelong dog owner and dog lover, said Romney's actions were uncalled for.
....What Happens to a Dog on a Roof Traveling 50 MPH?"

---

"Romney's dog - This is a distinction Mitt Romney probably could do without, but he is surely
the first presidential candidate to be attacked for putting a dog with diarrhea
in a carrier and tying it to the top of a station wagon.
Romney's defense: Seamus liked it. "He scrambled up there every time we went on trips,"
the Republican said during a campaign stop in Pittsburgh. "He got in all by himself and enjoyed it."

---

"As the oldest son, Tagg Romney commandeered the way-back of the wagon,
keeping his eyes fixed out the rear window, where he glimpsed the first sign of trouble.
''Dad!'' he yelled. ''Gross!'' A brown liquid was dripping down the back window,
payback from an Irish setter who'd been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.
As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust,
Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station.
There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car,
then hopped back onto the highway."

---

"Story about dog on car roof comes back to bite Romney
Critics, jokesters make issue of tale
TIME.com's Swampland blog has been flooded with more than 200 comments
from readers complaining of animal cruelty"

---

Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus

"Romney Loses Nomination Over Dog Abuse?
Romney was traveling that summer with his wife, five sons, and Seamus to his parent's cottage on Lake Huron.
But hours into the ride, Seamus apparently suffered diarrhea,
which ran down the back window of the car. Romney's sons, all under 13, howled in disgust.
Romney pulled off the road into a service station.
There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, and they drove on to Ontario.
.....David Kravitz wrote on BlueMassGroup, a liberal blog.
"It also strikes me as classic Romney: it solves a problem efficiently,
in a business-like manner, and with no regard whatsoever
for the suffering that the solution may cause."

[CharlesWayneCT]

Did you learn it from Alinsky, Charles ? Or maybe Sun Tzu ?

No. I have not even read Alinsky, or Sun Tzu.

[Darren McCarty]

Mitt will be gracing us with his presence up at the Mackinac Conference. (rolls eyes)

I’ll vote for MCCAIN again before I vote for Mitt. After that conduct his staffers and top supporters did when Palin was picked, there is no chance he’ll get my support in 2012. That’s even before we get to his views which he changes more often than Madonna’s partners.

[Darren McCarty]

I didn’t vote for Mitt or McCain in the primary.

[fieldmarshaldj]

"Your premise is false, and therefore your question cannot be answered, and is not a direct question. However, I did respond previously, explaining why I found your premise false, which would be an answer to this question."

The premise would be false were it a false premise, but because it is not, it isn't. You have, so far, only conceded his Socialist agenda with respect to health care. Do you consider someone pushing a Socialist agenda to be compatible with the Conservative Republican agenda ? Can such a person be called a Conservative Republican when they continue to champion such a policy ?

"TO answer the implied question, I am not ignoring the evidence, I am weighing what is presented and judging it, and I have not found it compelling."

In your opinion. But we discussed opinion vs. facts. You're entitled to the former, you are not entitled to rewrite the latter.