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 Reids tax-evasion smear last night was that its an obvious, grotesque attempt to hand the media a new distraction from Obamas 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 aides kiss my ass comments to the press in Poland. Hes just begun pushing a more positive message keyed to his biography to convince undecideds that hes 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, thats a story and now suddenly hes being asked about gay marriage and Islamism instead of jobs for the middle class. If you want a candidate whos 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 therell be a separate story on why he specifically ducked the question about Bachmann and hell 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 whod 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 isnt the right thing to do and it isnt what America stands for, Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show. And those people who dont like (Chick-fil-A) dont 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.
Whats 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 whats 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 cant outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEOs views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but its probably in the top 1.
You never fail to disappoint when it comes to turning two blind eyes to Romney’s RECORD. For you, it’s as if that solid record of liberal activism didn’t exist, as if the only thing that exists is Obama. Yours is narrow fear-driven “strategery” that leads to box traps. You’ll be voting to drive America right into one of them; I am praying for a plurality, and voting for one, too.
LOL!! Thanks for the smile, Kent! {^)
“...short, sad posting history, this vomitous 2011 fruit troll-up...”
I envy that phrase. That is great!
I never thought I’d see the day that people would argue that a candidate like Romney would cause freepers to turn on each other. Nor did I think it possible that posters would take to carpet bombing actual conservative politicians.
A year ago you could not have convinced me that a freeper would use the homosexual agenda to promote anything much less a liberal for president on the Republican ticket.
I have to wonder if there is any actual hope. If people really are this stupid, perhaps it’s time to sit back and just let them self-immolate. They don’t want to see reason. They willingly state principle is for ‘losers’ and anyone retaining them to be mentally unstable. They actually WANT the hell their willing actions history has repeatedly shown will occur.
If this is what ‘conservatism’ has become, those of us who still believe in something should consider some form of rebranding. And let the oh so wise gay loving and liberal loving ‘internet conservatives’ to their own devices...before they take the rest of us down to DU with them.
I think I know how to differentiate quite well, thanks.
Dole... Bush... McCain... Bishop Mittens. An inexorable leftward progression... and the "TrueBlue" types still mutter and fret that their current Hair Apparent might conceivably be "running too far to the right."
In '72, George McGovern ran on a platform of "Acid, Amnesty and Abortion." Forty years later: the candidate of the Republican party is a lifetime champion of two out of said three.
"I didn't leave the Republican party; the Republican party left me."
“TrueBlue” types still mutter and fret that their current Hair Apparent might conceivably be “running too far to the right.”
Want to see something pathetic? From the Wiki entry on ‘Idiocracy”
...”to awaken in a dystopia wherein advertising, commercialism, and cultural anti-intellectualism run rampant and dysgenic pressure has resulted in a uniformly stupid human society devoid of intellectual curiosity, social responsibility, and coherent notions of justice and human rights.”
Sound familiar? We are there.
I think the problem is that the ABO/TBLs have mistaken Romney for President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.
Perhaps if we just gave them all a Brawndo. It helps plants grow!
Yours Truly,
Not Sure ;)
Last night I had two telling me that I was basically nuts for thinking/saying Romney was a liberal. I was told he was ‘Right of center’.
The ABOs have literally adopted the left’s Orwellian rewriting of history. One then demanded examples and when given them, it was if I’d never made the post. Straight to ignoring the existence of the very proof asked for.
One does not flow so smoothly from one lib tactic to another unless one has experience with it. LOTS of experience.
No doubt. And it would behoove them to pay attention. Because a lot of people out there feel the same way we do.
If I thought for a second the man would govern remotely conservatively I’d vote for him. But his record tells me he will represent those who wrecked America, not the people who believe in it. And his campaign so far pretty much proves it.
I’ve tried and tried to figure out a way to hold my nose and vote for Mitt at the same time. I give up...it can’t be done. I’ll vote all conservatives down ticket and leave that line blank. He really is no better than Obama.
I will think about what you said. It’s just so hard. I’m sick of the crappy choices, feeling dirty after voting and then having my contempt confirmed by the despicable actions of RINOs and CINOs! I know our country can’t survive 4 more years of BO, but how much better will 4 years of Mitt be?
I know our country cant survive 4 more years of BO ...
... Yes, it can and it WOULD. Just like it survived four more years of Clinton when folks were assuring us that it couldn't, and just like we had the mid-term elections when folks were assuring us that Obama would suspend them on some pretense or other.
Obama is very much like Oz the Great and Powerful -- a fraud whose power is fueled by illusion and maintained by ill-found fear. He's like a bully, who pounds his chest and creates a fearful spectacle, but is a weak coward at heart who is vanquished when faced with courageous resistance.
bflr
“I almost convinced myself to vote for this spineless puke but I take it back.
Crash and burn America.
Hopefully, we can rebuild in 10 or 20 or 50 years...?”
I personally don’t think it will take that long. And look at it this way: If Obama does get re-elected, (I don’t think he will, but let’s just say he does) that could actually energize social conservative movements even more. It is not always who is in the White House that is as important as who is energized within the culture.
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.