Posted on 09/08/2012 4:37:33 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
Mitt Romney says Bill Clinton's speech to the Democratic National Convention "really did elevate" that gathering and that the former two-term president might even be able to win another four years in the White House "if the Constitution weren't in his way." Romney's comments, in an excerpt of an interview with Meet the Press, came as Clinton prepared to campaign for President Barack Obama in key swing states.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Man#1. I am troubled by Romney. Man#2. I am more troubled about Obama. Man#1. I am more troubled about Romney. Man#2. I am even more troubled about Obama. Man#1. My `rhoids are killing me. Man#2. `rhoids killed the Lion King. You should have them looked at. Man#1. OK, I will. Man#2. You should. Man#1. I will. I said I would. Man#2. Angst is a bitch, ain't it? Man#1. I am troubled by Romney. Man#2. I am more troubled by Obama.
He didn't say any such thing. Here is part of what he did say.
"But he did stand out in contrast with the other speakers. I think he really did elevate the Democrat convention in a lot of ways," the Republican presidential hopeful says. "And frankly the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred if he were choosing who'd go before him and who'd go after."
I have my reasons why Romney wasn't my first choice, but non-issues like this aren't one of them.
The quotes are taken out of context and spun to damage Romney as much as possible. But this is what R&R are going to face from here to November. The MSM is determined to carry O over the finish line.
That said, Romney really screwed up here big time. Basically, he gave Clinton credibility. And Clinton is going to be bashing Romney every opportunity he can. In essence, Romeny validated Clinton’s criticisms of him.
That’s exactly how he meant the compliment
People are not going to decide their vote based on someone attacking their opponent “too much.” If that were true, Obama would have lost in a landslide because of how much Sarah Palin was attacked. If you make credible attacks, they will work, and the more relentless you are with the attacks, the more they’ll work. No one gets points for running ads that are “nice” towards their opponent.
If Romney’s ads are testing better than Obama’s, it’s probably because the criticisms in them are more credible. They’d be better off leaving out the stuff about Obama being “a nice guy who gave it a good try.” If the point is to convince Obama voters they made a mistake last time, may as well explain to them just how big a mistake it was and motivate them even more to switch their vote.
-——I have no problem with him acknowledging the truth. Unlike some Freepers who are like little kids who always want to be indulged with explicit, emotional red meat statements, I see that as a subtle jab to 0bama. Romney compared Clinton with 0bama, and highlighted that the latter-——
Wow, only 45 posts for someone to make a cogent comment...
I see exactly the same.....Obama was supposed to elevate the convention.... Not Clintoon...
Which explains why Romney enjoyed his speech.
So not only did Romney praise a lying Democrat, but he followed it up with a statement that is more confused and unintelligible than anything I've ever heard Democrats accuse Sarah Palin of saying.
Great plan..........all “conservatives” ignore, don’t vote for, Romney ...that will teach those Americans who did not support...(insert your candidates name).
And if you really don’t like Romney/Ryan, hand write Obama’s name in the ballot..........that way Romney will really know what you really think of him.
Of course, you could send Romney a postcard and tell him what you really think of him but then vote from him and against Obama,....... he would never know who you voted for.
This is your last chance before you are dumped headfirst, with your family, into the DemoCrap Privy Ballot Pot. Wake up..
That was more a dig at Obama than it was praise of Clinton.
but he followed it up with a statement that is more confused and unintelligible than anything I've ever heard Democrats accuse Sarah Palin of saying.
What was unclear?
I personally would like to see the Kenyan hammered on his lies and failures 24/7. Then again I’m not a swing voter, so whatever works I guess.
Considering what a low, mean and nasty event it was in genereal, ‘elevating’ it isn’t a very high bar to leap. I’m also sure that Clinton was far more interested in elevating something a little more personal than the convention, specially since Hillary was way out of town.
Romney and his handlers are about themselves, not what's good for America.
And I guess you aren't aware that he is pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-government health care and perhaps pro-gun control. Van you explain to me how those positions are pro-America -cuz I can't figure that one out.
Earth to fatnotlazy: While Romney may have not have been the best choice, he is what we got. Live with it.
If you want to help re-elect Obama, then by all means, vote for anybody but Romney. And, if Obama wins, don't come pissing and moaning around here about what a POS he is.
Can you be a conservative and uppity at the same time?
Willard needs to show some balls and tear into Clinton or Obama when a damn liberal talk show host asks him anything. It’s called HAVING A SPINE!
. “I have always thought that we ought to meet the Federal invaders on the outer verge of just right and defence, and raise at once the black flag, vis., “No quarter to the violators of our homes and firesides!” ~ Stonewall Jackson
You are in agreement with a few others on this thread. I suggest that the problem is not whether Clinton is not so bad compared to Obama or in any other regard, but why the hell would a politician fighting with a vicious ruthless adversary, backed by craven media surrogates give ANYTHING away to the opposition. By praising Clinton, who just finished sliming Romney and Ryan a couple of days ago, he’s sending a message that people who like Clinton are liking a guy that even Romney likes. When they accept his speech praising Obama, they now have Romney himself saying Clinton’s a pretty good guy after all; why not believe what he says?
In politics, there are two choices about commenting on your opponent in the heat of the campaign: 1. attack his record 2. talk about why you are far superior to him. The same goes for commenting on anyone supporting him: 1. attack the speaker for supporting a guy with a crappy record; 2. talk about why you are far superior to the guy the speaker supports.
NEVER OFFER A WORD OF PRAISE TO YOUR ENEMY OR HIS ENABLERS. It doesn’t mean being nasty, it just means, don’t do anything to give their campaign life.
***
Romney is the choice because people like you will continue to vote for anyone with the letter R after his name. The party hierarchy knows this and that's why they will continue to foist mediocre candidates on you.
I didn't like McCain in 2008, but I voted for him anyway. I won't do that again. I refuse to be a sheep and blindly go along with the dictates of this party. I will not allow you or anyone else try to shame or intimidate me into voting for a lousy candidate. And don't try to lay a guilt trip on those of us who won't vote for Romney should he lose.
You, Romney and the liberals in the Republican party can kiss my fat rump.
“I feel like I’m living is a parallel universe where both candidates are trying to lose.”
It is weird, isn’t it? Houses of cards about to come down, perhaps.
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.