Posted on 08/03/2012 3:33:17 PM PDT by Third Person
Via the Examiner, I understand why he punted here. His retort to Reid’s tax-evasion smear last night was that it’s an obvious, grotesque attempt to hand the media a new distraction from Obama’s record. He just got back from a foreign policy trip/photo op that was also submerged in distractions, most notably his Olympics comments in London and his aide’s “kiss my ass” comments to the press in Poland. He’s just begun pushing a more positive message keyed to his biography to convince undecideds that he’s up to the job. The last thing he wants right now is another distraction wrapped around his ankles, particularly on a day when the news is about the latest disappointing jobs report.
Given that the Chick-fil-A question here was packaged with another question about Bachmann and the Muslim Brotherhood, he had two dilemmas. One: If he weighs in on either, that’s a story and now suddenly he’s being asked about gay marriage and Islamism instead of jobs for the middle class. If you want a candidate who’s more interested in culture-war issues than economic growth, try Romney 2008. Two: If he weighs in only on Chick-fil-A, the easier of the two topics, then there’ll be a separate story on why he specifically ducked the question about Bachmann and he’ll hear it from her supporters and from the media for dodging. He probably figured he was better off playing it safe (as usual) and passing on both. Hey — if you wanted a nominee who’d inch out on the highwire to answer any question put to him, you should have nominated Newt.
Still, hurts to know that even a tool like Mike Bloomberg is capable of offering a righteous answer on CFA when called on to do so:
Critics trying to shut Chick-fil-A because its CEO opposes gay marriage are undermining the very essence of the Constitution, Mayor Bloomberg declared today in a stirring defense of the embattled fast food chain.
“It isn’t the right thing to do and it isn’t what America stands for,” Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show. “And those people who don’t like (Chick-fil-A) don’t understand their rights were protected by people who took a difficult position in the past and stood by it. They stood up so everybody else would be free.”…
“What’s for sure is that government cannot in the United States, in America, under the Constitution, be run where you have a litmus test for the personal views of somebody when they want something in the commercial world.”
Barney Frank also managed to say a word against government discrimination towards Chick-fil-A. Ah well. Maybe Mitt will get another question about this tomorrow and say something about free speech even if he ends up avoiding the subject of gay marriage. Speaking of which, enjoy the second clip below. Not sure what’s gotten into Stewart lately, but this is a rare week during which most of his big hits have been at the expense of Democrats.
Exit quotation via Mediaite: “Pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top 1.”
Mitt will probably take a lot of heat here on FR for not completely aligning himself with Huckabee.
I understand why he is doing it, though, and basically his job now is to unseat Obamugabe, and the best way to do that is to focus on Obamugabe’s epic failure in the economy.
So cut him some slack, guys and gals. :)
Good answer. Let it play out by itself.
The American people will either come out in droves to support marriage, or a few homos will stage a street orgy. It isn't his problem.
In fact, the only people who have a problem are the 1.7% homosexuals, so who cares what they think? Let then eat carpet.
I was never going to vote for him in the first case so it certainly doesn’t affect my vote.
Hurts?
Why would someone who is parallel to the likes of Mussolini bring pain in a free society which can slam him down in a blink when he opens his collective, Marxist, fascist trap?
“that’s not something that’s part of my campaign”.
Translation:
“What’s in it for me? I’ve got an election to win here.
I’m the heir apparent to the presidency according to Karl Rove and his establishment buddies and I don’t make a move without their approval.
Besides, I’m not a conservative and this sounds like something the stupid Tea Party cooked up”.
So lemme get this straight: Mittens considers stopping in at Chick FA to get a sandwich in support of free speech and Dan Cathy is a “distraction”? Uh huh.
Here is an Alinskyism for today's headlines:
One of several alternative components to the personal vilification strategy is to remember that "the real action is in the enemy's reaction. If you do a good enough job, you can force them to make a mistake. When they do, you must be ready to exploit it."
Romney needs to set the agenda himself. Stay on the subject. The left cannot win an honest debate.
Eat Mo Chicken
Elect Mo Conservatives
Mr. Romney can offer an opinion on the Olympic games,
but has no opinion on the NATIONAL Chick-fil-a debate.
Nor does he have an opinion on the HISTORIC Texas senate race?
Eat Mo Chicken
Elect Mo Conservatives
Exactly. It's totally beneath the GOP-e to be involved with the "unwashed people" issues. If it's not scripted...the plastic front men don't have an opinion.
Bloomberg’s comments are so ironic, they left me speechless.
Mountain Mary,
Please go back to DU, they miss you there.
Mitt doesn’t want to be aligned with a bunch of retrograde haters.
Good job Mitt... the great majority of those “haters” are also legitimate “voters”.
He's a coward, a two faced douchebag, and a serial liar who doesn't have a conservative bone in his body and will say or do anything to get elected, then govern like a leftist.
Won't be cutting the Kolobian any slack, this is the real Romney, and a preview of what he will do as POTUS.
Stab conservatives in the back.
Surprise, surprise. But hey, just wait a bit, and once the polls come in, it will be, to an extent, under certain conditions.
For awhile.
2.) I've got a good eight years on you, n00b. Tell JimRob you think I'm from DU; see what sort of horselaugh you get, by way of response.
This CFA nonsense is beneath the office of the President. If a few nanny mayors and ex-congressman homosexuals want to chime in, go for it.
Neither Romney nor Obama should really have anything to say about it. Obama’s already learned the hard way not to inject himself into minor affairs.
When’s the last time a Republican politician stood with Conservatives even when it was inconvenient? Honest question.
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.