Posted on 08/04/2012 5:19:58 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
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.”
Update: Evidently the “evolution” is over:
Obama, already in favor of gay marriage, has little to gain by weighing in against a private company that operates primarily in red states on an issue that has already inflamed social conservatives. He has treaded lightly on the issue on the campaign trail, touting the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but avoided new calls for legalizing gay marriage since announcing he supported it in May.
Several officials in Obama’s White House and campaign did not respond Friday to requests for comment about Chick-fil-A. And there’s reason for the president to keep the issues away from the center of his reelection campaign. Obama can’t afford to alienate religious conservatives in the black community or give blue-collar Democratic whites in Ohio and Virginia another reason to vote against him.
Not a word from the president of the United States in defense of a business owner’s right to hold the political views he prefers without fear of government retribution?
Exactly! From the coverage I catch, Newt is strong on how bad Obama is and passionate for a conservative House and Congress. But even pressed to the wall, he can't seem to come up with anything good about Romney. Of course, no one else can either, including Romney!
Newt did have that great piece in Politico, defending Michele Bachmann on Huma and the Muslim Brotherhood. Did that come out before Mitt was asked about Chick-Fil-A and the Huma/Muslim Brotherhood thing -- and said neither of them were part of his campaign (First Amendment and national security are beneath his notice?)? It seems like Newt is still generating lively and good ideas -- and Romney delicately steps around them like a city slicker in a cow pasture!
Aaaargh!
On the other hand, Romney embraces the AGW fraud wholesale as per Forbes, as well as per his CPAC speech of 2008 when he urged that a carbon plan was needed and that it should be "a worldwide solution, not an American one" -- in other words, Romney believes America should surrender its sovereignty to global oversight in terms of energy and food production and consumption. You are on the verge of voting FOR that, buddy.
Romney was also ultimately responsible for the closing of Catholic adoption charities in Massachusetts because law Romney supported and saw passed as governor, forces adoption agencies to cooperate with homosexual couples who want to play "married with children." The Catholic adoption agenciees opted to close altogether rather than have any part of such depraved social engineering.
You can tell yourself that your vote for Romney is really a vote "against" Obama, but that's just talk, soothing, comforting, talk, like saying you're voting "against" killing the pretty unicorns: totally imaginary. The REALITY is that if you vote for Romney, you will be voting FOR making the Republican party embrace the same liberal things Romney does.
Mary, I think you did an exceptional job with your post. WELL DONE.
And BrianE, the last time a president was elected on a plurality, he was IMPEACHED. The time before when a president was elected on a plurality, he was forced to the right by an ensuing Republican Revolution. Pluralities seem to favor conservatives, and presidents elected on pluralities are vulnerable.
YOU are on the verge of voting for government tyranny in the name of ABO. I will be voting FOR a plurality in the name of helping conservatives oppose and dominate whichever bastard wins, Obama or Romnney. And Obama is weak and loathed -- there's very little chance he could muster 50% of the vote. It's a damned good gamble to vote third party in order to vote "for" a plurality. On the other hand, seeing as how Romney is a DOCUMENTED liberal Democrat registered in the Republican party, it is a piss-poor and even stupid bet that he'd do anything but hurt conservatism and advance the liberal agenda in ways Obama could only dream about.
Yeah, it’s really hard to believe that Romney wouldn’t at least take the opportunity to defend Chick Fil A on free speech grounds, and to point out how outrageous it is for far-left extremist Democrats to threaten to use the power of the state against them.
He could make a larger point about how it is the Left which would use the power of govt to silence debate and punish those who dare disagree.
Spot on W1. People on a forum think they know how to run a campaign. Not every issue that is near and dear to someone’s heart is fit for disecting on a national level. Some of you whiners are hurting THIS forum.
Here’s your cr*p sandwich ~ check out what’s going on in Egypt today at: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ ~ this business of Socon issues is NOT PART OF ROMNEY”S CAMPAIGN ~ so he’s going to pass up the opportunity for slamming Obama for teaming up with people who are now crucifying Christians.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/ ~ this is a SOCON issue your boy said isn’t part of his campaign. YOU are hurting everybody with this sociopathic concept.
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.