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.”
The Romney campaign comes to a sudden stop when we spot a Chick-fil-A. Your chicken sandwiches were our comfort food through the primary season
__________________________________________
Pics ???
A one sentence synopsis on the death of the republic. Very Good.
As the article itself says, it is a free speech issue. Surely Mitt could have come down in favor of free speech. That seems fairly safe.
Mary says that Mitt’s silence on Chick fil A is a mistake and that means in your way of thinking that she is from DU?
Why in the world did you conclude that???
Mitt SHOULD say something about Chick Fil A....it is a situation that’s been raging in this country for going on a month now.
He doesn’t have to say a lot....just that it’s a freedom of speech/religion issue, and business should be allowed to proceed without governments threatening them over their speech/religion.
What makes that a DU issue?
And him being a true "conservative" and all, no less. ;)
He thinks the election is all about jobs and the economy, and I think every election is about who America is. If America is the right America, then jobs and the economy will take care of itself.
De Toqueville:
"I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers - and it was not there . . . in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there . . . in her rich mines and her vast world commerce - and it was not there . . . in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it vas not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great. "
What should really concern conservatives is that a large share of America's pulpits no longer flame forth righteousness.
Good map. What should be noted as well is those states that went Romney AFTER Gingrich and Santorum were pretty much out of it.
That is not a test of Romney’s strength in that state if a different candidate had polled better than Romney between January and April.
They were only voting for the last man standing, not for Romney.
I know I will. I can't vote for a cowardly fag with no moral character. So tweedle mitt and tweedle obie are out of the question.
The libs and the log cabin types can have mitt all to themselves.
You are right, even GHWB wouldn’t have been that cowardly in the 1988 campaign; the 1992 campaign, probably though.
“Romney now travels with an entourage, media and secret service detail almost as large as the president’s. He can’t blow his nose in public without it being reported on and you think he can stop into a Chick-Fil-A quietly and without fanfare?”
Okay, if you are correct, then let him stop into CFA loudly and WITH fanfare..All the better!
My sentiments exactly and all along, right down to the quotation. Right down to De Toqueville. It was an observation, but a lamp light warning as well.
Face it, this is G-d trouble we are in, solely and completely. Always has been. Too much stuff, too many comforts. WE are our first God.
He is Mercy and knows our temptations.
May we be converted daily, in His grace.
Romney: That's not part of my campaign.
You know, maybe us conservatives will vote for Romney to stop Obama, but there’s no way in hell that we have to like it. We aren’t your GOP vote-slaves, and it’s an insult you to act like we should just smile, shut up, and be happy that a homo-loving, abortion-pushing Massachusetts liberal has been shoved down our throats.
THIS response of Mr. RomneyCARE
heralds loudly THAT Mr. RomneyCARE cannot
win, and will bring the entire ticket down with him.
THAT is why he was chosen by the DNC and the MSM.
Mitt takes a lot of heat here because he is a liberal democrat registered as a Republican and running for the presidency on the Republican ticket.
I'm voting for a plurality. The last time a president was elected on a plurality, he was impeached; the time before, he was hit and overpowered by the Republican Revolution.
I think both of these clowns, Obama and Romney, should LOSE. Since I cannot make that happen, the least I can do is to make their victory as weak and vulnerable as possible. THAT's why I'm voting for a plurality by voting third party.
Well, not quite -- I have a major problem -- and you should too -- with Romney's real-life record of causing very worthy adoption agencies in Massachussets to CLOSE THEIR DOORS because law Romney supported for "gay rights" required them to cooperate with gay couples wanting to adopt children.
Romney's answer was not a "good answer," it was a devious and cowardly answer, and YOU KNOW SO in your heart. Romney is not only a coward, he is a devious and depraved coward. Please honor God's truth and morality, and draw enough courage (it takes real courage) to actually READ these three linked items --
-- wherein Romney first tells Catholic churches he can't help them because he didn't have the legal authority to do so ... and then, tells them gosh, isn't that just awful -- I'll file a bill on your behalf ... and then the actual consequences, his faux support of religious freedom, caught in the act of being purely devious.
Romney is a bad dude, bad news, and those who vote for him will reap what they sow. I will be voting for a plurality. LOOK AT ROMNEY'S RECORD -- and you will conclude that he is no more deserving of your vote than Obama.
A sarcastic "thanks" to all who didn't disappoint me when I indicated there would be a lot of heat given to MR for focusing instead on the economy, jobs, and Obamugabe's disastrous DeathCare law instead of the current scream fest involving Chick-Fil-A.
-- the entire homosexual agenda
-- state-run health care (Romney was the real author of ObamaCare)
-- the global warming agenda, even to the point of saying publicly that "we need a worldwide solution, not an American one," in terms of a carbon plan (listen to his CPAC speech of '08)
-- tax-funded on-demand abortion
-- the appointment of activist liberal judges
Romney's record CONFIRMS that he has done all these things. ROMNEY is the guy who belongs at DU.
Rush, Palin, Levin, and all the other pundits don't and never have instructed my opinion; the only reason they have ever had my ear is because the have CONFIRMED my opinion. You can let them tell you how to vote if you want; I'll vote the way my common sense tells me to vote, and my common sense says: the LAST time a president -- and he was a bad one -- was elected on a plurality, he was impeached; the time before that a president -- and he was a bad one --was elected on a plurality, he was held in check and even made to move right by the Republican Revolution.
No matter who wins this time around, Obama or Romney, we're going to have a very bad president. I'M VOTING FOR A PLURALITY. I'm voting third party.
And you can take your "DU" crap, sit on it, and rotate. Tend to the beam in your own eye, of voting for a stone-cold liberal, before you point to the splinters in our eyes, of voting such to risk an Obama re-election.
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.