All I had to sell were used HORSES!
Posted on 11/10/2011 8:17:29 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Mark Halperin called it the “most important debate moment” of Wednesday night’s CNBC debate. No — it wasn’t Rick Perry’s brain lapse — but instead, Mitt Romney’s attempt to re-frame the debate over ideological consistency.
Read this excerpt of the transcript below, and then let’s discuss…
HARWOOD: … as you know. Your opponents have said you switched positions on many issues. It is an issue of character, not personal, but political, you seemed to encapsulate it in the last debate when you said, “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”
What can you say to Republicans to persuade them that the things you say in the campaign are rooted in something deeper than the fact that you are running for office?
ROMNEY: John, I think people know me pretty well, particularly in this state, in the state of Massachusetts, New Hampshire that’s close by, Utah, where I served in the Olympics. I think people understand that I’m a man of steadiness and constancy.
I don’t think you are going to find somebody who has more of those attributes than I do. I have been married to the same woman for 25 — excuse me, I will get in trouble, for 42 years.
(LAUGHTER)
ROMNEY: I have been in the same church my entire life. I worked at one company, Bain, for 25 years. And I left that to go off and help save the Olympic Games. I think it is outrageous the Obama campaign continues to push this idea, when you have in the Obama administration the most political presidency we have seen in modern history.
They are actually deciding when to pull out of Afghanistan based on politics. Let me tell you this, if I’m president of the United States, I will be true to my family, to my faith, and to our country, and I will never apologize for the United States of America. That’s my belief.
(Emphasis mine.)
This was an interesting diversion. The question was about Romney’s philosophical inconsistency — but he never addressed his changing positions on important issues like abortion. Romney is clearly attempting to associate the two things — as if to imply that not quitting your job equals not flip-flopping on the issues.
… And yet, it wasn’t obvious that he had dodged the question. (Good spin isn’t blatant.)
Of course, the fact that Romney has been with the same wife for 42 years — worked at the same company for 25 years — and belonged to the same church his entire life is, I suppose, commendable. His personal life has been steady, boring, and consistent — nobody has alleged otherwise.
But does it have anything to do with his changing policy positions?
I would argue this was a very slick example of sophistry.
The notion that there is a strong correlation between being consistent in ones personal life, and being philosophically consistent, is debatable. Does anyone doubt that Mark Sanford — with all his faults — would be more trusted than Romney to advance a conservative agenda as president? Jimmy Carter was, as far as I know, a good husband — does that make him philosophically sound?
This, of course, is not to say that values and character do not matter — they do — but it is to say that Romney’s answer was a non sequitur. Everyone knows Mitt Romney is a decent, respectable person. The question is whether or not he can be trusted to advance conservatism as president.
(And attacking Obama at the end was a nice touch, too.)
Right which is why you spend all your time trash talking Cain.
I suspect the real problem is your candidate of choice is not in the race so rather then deal with it, you complain 24-7 about the candidates actually IN the race.
How about you quit complaining and try actually LISTENING to the candidates?
Could it be... Just let me take a wild guess... that Mitt defended his faith last night?
This should give you and your friends some fodder for the Religion Forum for a while. Have fun.
Well that is a good question too but that is not how greyfoxx39 framed it and that is what I was responding to.
The author of the article mentioned it to point out that what he said was not actually an answer to the question he was asked. And that reinforces my impression of Romney as a slick politician.
Romney makes me think of an animated Ken doll.Yes, but I think Romney started to look a bit tattered in the last debate and even more so in this debate.
He's losing his used-car-salesman-smoothness and starting to look jumpy and floppy, like the Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz.
Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think Mr. Wonderboy is veering towards some kind of on-screen meltdown or major gaffe.
Things don't look good behind the Romney Facade. Not to me.
So what is wannabe “king-of-the-world” Romney going for ???
bishop-in-chief or prophet-in-chief ???
greyfoxx39, I can’t stand Romney. He disgusts me and he is as RINO as they come.
However, you have hit a nerve with your comment. ;>)
I have served my country and I can tell you that I have always, and I will continue, to put my family and God before country. Right after God and family, country is next..... and I remain willing to die in defense of any of those three.
I wish you a great day....
Go back and READ the phrase...Romney actually said, "my family, to my faith, and to our country"
This is a typical mormon statement...the entity of "The Church" is paramount in many posts we see here.
If MItt had said GOD instead of "my FAITH".....
How about you-—well I was going to say KMA, but that wouldn’t be nice.
You are perfectly welcome to keep kissing Cains.
After that statement I was laughing to hard to hear anything else.
All the coffee shops, too.
Or did you skip past my post #3 without reading it?
None of the men in Mitt's family has taken the oath to serve our country as you have done, from his grandfather down through his five sons. ALL of these Romney men have instead, served missions for their "faith".
We already have a man in the White House who publicly bows to his religious leaders.
Do you really want to place in the office of President a man who must choose between his oath to his church and his country?
There is this little thing that MORMONs tend to do...
"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be."- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670
POTATO(e)
All I had to sell were used HORSES!
Wild is right!
A passing reference is NOT a defense; except to a MORMON.
“The Lord will be king over all the earth, and all mankind literally under his sovereignty, and every nation under the heavens will have to acknowledge his authority, and bow to his scepter. Those who serve him in righteousness...[WHO decides what is righteousness?] will have communications with God, and with Jesus; will have the ministering of angels, and will know the past, the present, and the future; and other people, who may not yield full obedience to his laws, nor be fully instructed in his covenants... ["Covenants" ONLY available in LDS temples] will, nevertheless, have to yield full obedience to his government. For it will be the reign of God upon the earth, and he will enforce his laws, and command that obedience from the nations of the world which is legitimately his right”
Well, it’s certainly got you guys riled up, so wild his prett
y close, imho.
WHAT!?
I coudda got KISSED; too!?
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.