Posted on 02/22/2012 8:59:43 PM PST by Nachum
Does former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney believe ABC’s George Stephanopoulos coordinated with the White House over Stephanopoulos’ contraception question during Jan. 7’s New Hampshire primary debate?
It sure sounds like that was what Romney was suggesting Wednesday night during CNN”s Republican presidential primary debate in Arizona moderated by John King. (RELATED: More on Mitt Romney)
“John, what’s happened — and you recall back in the debate that we had George Stephanopoulos talking out about birth control, we wondered why in the world did contraception — and it’s like, why is he going there? Well, we found out when Barack Obama continued his attack on religious conscience,” Romney said.
During the Jan. 7 New Hampshire debate, Stephanopoulos asked the presidential contenders if states have the right to ban contraception. Romney attacked the question, noting that no state was even considering it and it was therefore a non-issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
It was coordinated. Period. And just how pathetic is the profession of ‘journalism’. Whores all.
Yes, it is an old poltical ploy known as “Pump and Dump”.
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/02/20/white-house-insider-pump-and-dump/
And Santorum predictably snatched the bait.
Who doesn’t believe that?
Did he? He knew he was known for his moral objections to contraception. H e was trying to give a reasoned explanation of his position. The pols say, well you can’t get into humanae vitae. But this is the basis of his moral position. The sad thing is that here we have a layman, and a politician at that, doing what the Catholic clergy has been afraid to do: tell the people what the encyclical says. It is also how the man has lived his life, an existential reality for him, not just words on paper or even just an argument. He has walked the walk.
It’s a vast left-wing conspiracy. Has been since at least the early 20th Century.
Remember when George Stephanopoulos, at the New Hampshire Republican debate on January 7, brought up and harped on whether the candidates thought states could ban contraception?
Everyone, at least on our side of the aisle, shook their heads in disbelief as to why Stephanopoulos was bringing up the issue. There was no active controversy over contraception, it wasn’t in the news, and there were far more pressing political issues, yet what seemed like an eternity of debate time was devoted to the subject at the insistence of Stephanopoulos.
It was, shall we say, something out of left field.
When Romney said, it’s working just fine, leave it alone, everyone laughed.
Newt’s comeback was prophetic in hindsight:
Well what do you know, about a month later the Obama administration proposes administrative rules under Obamacare which would require free contraception be provided even by religious institutions which oppose contraception on religious grounds.
It’s almost as if Stephanopoulos got the memo first. Unless, of course, you believe in coincidences.
____________________________________________
Below is excerpt from actual debate:
Stephanopoulos struggles with fairness during NH debate
In another line of questioning, Stephanopoulos asked Romney if he believes “that states have the right to ban contraception, or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?”
Romney responded by questioning Stephanopoulos’ logic and his choice to raise a hypothetical situation that would never happen.
“You’re asking — given the fact that there’s no state that wants to do so, and I don’t know of any candidate that wants to do so — you’re asking could it constitutionally be done?” Romney asked, with a hint of incredulity.
Stephanopoulos, undeterred, pressed Romney again: “I’m asking you, do you believe that states have that right or not?”
Amid a chorus of “boos” from the audience, Romney again parried the impossible hypothetical.
“George, I don’t know whether a state has a right to ban contraception,” Romney responded. “No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do, and asking me whether they could do it or not, is kind of a silly thing, I think.”
I caught this part of the debate and Mittens only went halfway with the point - he did a lousy job of making the accusation, which, if articulated better, would have scored some points with conservatives.
The whole purpose is to drive the political discussion off of the economy, where Obama is vulnerable.
It doesn’t matter who took the bait.
And before you start on how great Santorum is, perhaps you should look more closely at his record.
Google: Rick Santorum scandals
Thanks for that link. Very interesting.
Marxist Math and emotion: The Obamanator pitted God against women.
Women voters outnumber men voters, so women need more rights protected than men do, well until after the election, at least.
BTW, just where is Obama’s designated “Siberia?”
You’re correct. I really like Rick, but he’s off his game with all this distraction on contraception and “women’s issues”. It is a relentless focus on Obama’s unConstutional activities and the economy that will win the day. In many cases they’re one and the same.
Ping
I am talking about the narrow issue. A place where Romney ha s not really gone, and where Paul has remained silent, so he doesn’t offend his libertarian supporters. Santorum has equivocated on many issues, but not on this. Newt is pretty firm on this, but he is just now learning the ropes, so far as the Catholic position is concerned.
he’s not distracted, the press is. They are avoiding the issue of religious liberty. Romney rightly gave the right emphasis. On the other hand, he denied Santorum the right to make the same points.
If obama’s writing the debate questions, it’ll be a cinch for him to answer any questions that he gets later this year.
This nation is SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT.
Obama has had the effect of a neutron bomb on our country. This is a time to focus on surviving a President who is a Marxist-Leninist (according to his classmates at Occidental College), an aetheist, and Hell-bent on destroying our nation and its people. Obama is evil.
I have done extensive research on all four candidates and believe Newt Gingrich to have the true leadership for serving as President. But any of the four would be preferable to the person presently ensconced in the White House.
I’ve been wondering who the “White House Insider” could be for a while, if he actually exists. After reading that article, I’m about 99% convinced that he is James Carville.
We know WHI was a Hillary supporter and is still bitter about the Obama campaign’s treatment of her, but eventually ended up supporting Obama. Carville was a Hillary consultant, but then he said he would help Obama build a war chest once he had the nomination locked up. WHI has specifically told a stories about working Obama fundraisers during that portion of the campaign. WHI’s claimed to be a career Democrat campaign consultant, and he has contacts in the White House more loyal to him than to Obama, which Carville would certainly have amongst Hillary’s staff. WHI talks just like Carville, with the same foul mouth and very peculiar countryfied euphemisms that Carville is famous for. He’s obviously older, as he keeps referring to Ulsterman as “son”, and speaks about the Reagan years as if he was old enough to already be involved in politics at the time. Carville’s criticized Obama harshly and publicly a few times. He married a Republican, so, though he’s partisan, he may not be a total drone who can’t empathize with the other side.
This line really clinched it for me though:
“Hand a God son…you think a person get’s a face like this from doin’ it easy?”
Come on, that’s classic Snakehead right there!
Oh, and one last point. WHI is speaking anonymously, though I don’t think he’s ever given a good reason as to why. There must be a good reason, since the anonymity causes people to question if he even exists, not to mention what kind of credibility his stories have. Protecting his WH sources isn’t much of a reason, since he’s given plenty of clues that might incriminate some of them in his stories.
When you consider Carville for the WHI, the answer is blatantly obvious:
“After 1992 Carville stopped working on domestic campaigns, stating that he would bring unneeded publicity.”
If Carville’s the insider, then he knows that his public image is counterproductive and would just distract people from his message.
Also, I just noticed, in his first article, it says he worked with 3 presidential hopefuls before Obama. Carville also worked with 3: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.
Well, it began in 1968. That’s when liberalism began its climb to power, and the majority of the college educated adopted the attitudes of Berkeley. Many have retreated from some of them, but they lack faith in the old verities.
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.