GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 4 - Page 35 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-27-2012, 06:51 PM   #681
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 03:39 AM
I was skeptical that Obama would win in 2008. I'm even more skeptical that he'll win this year.

If he doesn't, I suppose we could do a lot worse than Romney. Truthfully I don't think we'll see much of a departure from the policies of the current administration. I agree 100% U2DMFan's analysis.
__________________

maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 08:40 AM   #682
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Yes, we all have rich parents who can bankroll our small businesses. Stay out of touch. Mitt. Especially college students whose parents are going broke paying for college or paying even partially for it.



Speaking during a campaign stop Friday, Mitt Romney encouraged students at Otterbein University in Ohio, to show enterprise by going into business -- with a little help from their parents, if necessary.

Romney cited the example of Jimmy John's owner Jimmy John Liautaud, who borrowed money from his father to start his successful sandwich franchise.

"We've always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business," Romney said.


__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 11:41 AM   #683
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
that is a realistic or perhaps credible? appraisal
many independents will go Romney, I see this being a much more competitive contest than I did a few months back.
as an independent i will agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I think it's going to be close barring a major event.

People tend to revise the history of the 2008 election.
McCain was in great position until the CDS/banking crisis in September.
I didn't look at the numbers* but from memory, I remember thinking it was a definite possibility that he could win.

Obama won, pretty much going away, because McCain fumbled his way through that financial crisis, including opposing the bailout...and the fact that everyone in the major media wanted him to win.

ETA (looked at some numbers)-*
McCain definitely had seized the lead in a few polls in early September.
1
Just an indication of what I meant. Sept 5th-7th, 2008
USAToday/Gallup - likely voters - McCain was +10 Granted, that was an anomaly, most of the others had him up by 2-5 or so.
Yeah McCain had a nice convention bounce and Sarah Palin was a huge asset for him initially. Of course, she ended up being a gift for team Obama when she started doing the interviews. If you watch the movie 'game change' its amazing how it all played out (even if some of that was BS). I remember watching SP being interviewed and when they asked her which newspapers she liked...she wouldn't name one newspaper...i was thinking to myself "just say USAToday for goodness sakes!" In the movie, i think it was Woody Harrelson's' character, he's furious watching that interview and he's saying "just name one fkng newspaper"

I suspect it was a little bit of that and a lot of the financial crash that killed McCain. This time around, barring the unforeseen, i agree its going to be very competitive. And i dont think Romney will be picking any Palin's for VP. I would expect a much more thorough vetting process.
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 01:42 PM   #684
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
Obama won, pretty much going away, because McCain fumbled his way through that financial crisis, including opposing the bailout

...and the fact that everyone in the major media wanted him to win.


I respect you for noticing what soooooo many here refuse to accept. It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:14 PM   #685
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 02:39 AM
Full disclosure, I was a supporter of hers, so it was painfully obvious to me. But I don't know why you would be so shocked. I've agreed with you on some things before. I'm an independent, conservative about a few things, liberal about a few more. Generally, I don't care about social issues and I think Reaganomics is a total sham, so I haven't supported a Republican in a long time. (Had to have been 2000 primaries - McCain).

That said, there was an overreaction from the PUMA's afterwards. And to be fair, the bias towards Obama (specifically CNN and MSNBC) in 2008 was NOTHING compared to FOX's bias towards Bush in 2004, which was the most egregious thing I've seen in "journalism" in my entire lifetime.

I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:35 PM   #686
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
That said, there was an overreaction from the PUMA's afterwards. And to be fair, the bias towards Obama (specifically CNN and MSNBC) in 2008 was NOTHING compared to FOX's bias towards Bush in 2004, which was the most egregious thing I've seen in "journalism" in my entire lifetime.

I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.
Jeez, during the 2000 and 2004 elections I watched MSNBC for election coverage. FNC wasn't even on my radar. Especially during the Bush/Gore story I thought MSNBC was excellent. Then everybody picked sides I guess.
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:48 PM   #687
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.
Oh, yeah, Hilary didn't always get a fair shake in the media, either, no. And, I'll be fair here, neither did Sarah Palin. I remember, before the debate between Biden and Palin, the media kept harping on about how Biden had to "be nice" to Palin in the debate, that if he dared to question her on anything she said it might come off as an "attack" on her and somehow that would equal out to an "attack" on all women or something.

I wanted to just scream at the TV every time someone said that. 1, it's a debate. If you don't challenge each other, and essentially wind up agreeing, then...there's really no point in debating. Duh. He doesn't have to be rude, no, but if he disagrees with her, he has the right to say so. And vice versa. 2, she signed up for this. She knows politics is a tough business. If she's capable enough, she can handle her own in the debate. You don't need to treat her with kid gloves-if she's right on something, acknowledge that when it happens. If she's wrong, tell her so. You'd do that for a man, do it for a woman, too. 3, thanks for presuming all women think the same way about something. Naturally if someone challenged Sarah (or Hilary) I thought that person automatically hated all women, clearly .

The problem wasn't in these women being scrutinized and challenged on their viewpoints-they should be, if they're running for such important offices. The problem was how some people chose to go about that (and then some people felt the need to analyze their style like it was the E! network instead of a news channel, but that's a whole other topic of absurdity).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs. Garrison View Post
I remember watching SP being interviewed and when they asked her which newspapers she liked...she wouldn't name one newspaper...i was thinking to myself "just say USAToday for goodness sakes!" In the movie, i think it was Woody Harrelson's' character, he's furious watching that interview and he's saying "just name one fkng newspaper"
I thought the same thing. Hell, even mention of the local newspaper in her area would've been enough.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:34 PM   #688
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Mrs. Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: pig farming in Bolivia
Posts: 7,325
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
I thought the same thing. Hell, even mention of the local newspaper in her area would've been enough.
yes - clearly not her finest hour
Mrs. Garrison is offline  
Old 04-29-2012, 09:36 PM   #689
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,892
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post


I respect you for noticing what soooooo many here refuse to accept. It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.
Who are the "so many here"?

I also felt much of the media was in the tank for Obama. The narrative was just too good to pass up. Obama made a much more interesting story than McCain.
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:52 AM   #690
Acrobat
 
ladyfreckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Seattle
Posts: 402
Local Time: 01:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2DMfan View Post
I do think FOX has improved though, honestly.
I mean...you get what you get with shows like Hannity and Fox and Friends, but their straight news objectivity is better than it used to be.
It's too bad America's mainstream news media is terrible all around. I don't even bother with it anymore, I just read articles online. The bias and lack of actual facts is extremely depressing to me. What has journalism come to?
ladyfreckles is offline  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:17 PM   #691
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post


I respect you for noticing what soooooo many here refuse to accept. It was so obvious to Hillary Clinton in the primaries that at one point she felt Fox News was the only news organization that was treating her fairly.
A camera-friendly, quippy, congenial, educated, middle of the road candidate with a likable personal narrative wins a Presidential election (popularity contest) and is fawned over by the media? You don't say....

Amazing how naive you think many liberals are
Canadiens1131 is offline  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:05 PM   #692
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Bruce Bartlett, NYT, May 1
Quote:
Since the beginning of the economic crisis, Republicans have insisted that tax cuts and only tax cuts are the appropriate medicine. They almost never explain how, exactly, this would reduce unemployment other than to say it worked for Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

If one were to take the Republican argument seriously, the linkage would have to be via the tax wedge. This is the principal means by which the government affects employment, according to the Republican economist Arthur Laffer. The tax wedge is the difference between the cost to an employer of employing a worker and the after-tax reward that the employee receives. When taxes go up, the tax wedge gets larger, costing employers more to hire workers at a given after-tax wage. Therefore, it is theoretically possible that a tax cut could increase employment by reducing the tax wedge and allowing employers to hire workers at a lower cost without reducing their after-tax wages.

This is a perfectly reasonable theory. There undoubtedly have been times when the tax wedge was increasing because of bracket creep or legislated increases in payroll taxes that may have had a negative effect on hiring. Whether this is the case now, as Republicans assert, is a question for analysis.

One problem with the tax-wedge theory is that taxes are at a historical low as a share of the gross domestic product. According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal revenues will be 15.8% of GDP this year. The postwar average is about 18.5%, and taxes averaged 18.2% during the Reagan administration; indeed, at their lowest point in 1984, federal revenues were 1.5% of GDP higher than they are now.

Another problem is that there hasn’t been a significant tax increase affecting average working people since 1983, when Reagan raised the payroll tax rate to 15.3% from 13.4% (employer plus employee). Contrary to popular belief among Republicans, there have been no significant tax increases during the Obama administration. In fact, there have been tax cuts aimed directly at workers. The making-work-pay tax credit consumed some 40% of the budgetary cost of the 2009 stimulus package and reduced taxes for every person or household with a positive income-tax liability and an income below $75,000 in 2009 and 2010. In 2011 and 2012, the making-work-pay credit was replaced by a temporary 2% cut in the payroll tax rate, reducing taxes for every worker.

The reason that unemployment is high clearly has nothing to do with taxes. Consequently, there is no reason to think that reducing taxes further will do anything to raise employment by reducing the tax wedge. Additional evidence on this point comes from a new study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on taxes paid by average workers in its 34 member countries. The data below are for a single worker without children.



As one can see, the United States is a low-tax country with a total tax wedge of 29.5%. Three-fourths of OECD countries have a larger tax wedge on average workers. I have also included the latest data on the percentage of workers employed as a share of the working-age population. I think this is a better measure of the health of the labor market than the unemployment rate, which goes up and down for a variety of reasons unconnected to taxes. Here, too, there is little evidence that taxes affect employment one way or another. Almost half of the countries with a bigger tax wedge employ a larger percentage of their working-age populations than the United States does, and more than half of those with a smaller tax wedge have lower employment ratios.

One argument Republicans could make in response is that the tax system has been in flux for the last 11 years. The Bush tax cuts were all set to expire at the end of 2010 and then were extended at the last minute for two additional years. The making-work-pay credit and subsequent payroll tax cut were also enacted temporarily. One might reasonably conclude that businesses are unlikely to react to temporary tax changes and need some idea of the long-term tax environment to really affect their hiring actions.

But Republicans designed their tax cuts to be temporary in the first place; they rejected the idea of a bipartisan permanent tax cut because that would have required compromising with Democrats. The latest Republican tax cut proposal, to reduce taxes for all businesses with fewer than 500 employees, no matter how profitable or big in other respects, would be in effect for only one year. This is a key reason that the Republicans’ own committee report (see Page 20) said the legislation would have a negligible effect on employment.

There is simply no evidence that cutting taxes at the present time will do anything to raise employment.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:20 PM   #693
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 02:39 AM
The wedge argument is not entirely reasonable. Lower taxes also have the effect of increasing income, which would act as any other Keynesian stimulus to boost demand and hopefully create a better job-creation environment. And the tax wedge argument also seems like it probably assumes a very high elasticity for income taxes... i.e., if income tax is increased, then employers pay the bulk of it, not employees. That's probably not very fair if the income tax is pretty much equally applied, and the US has income taxes relatively lower than those of other countries of similar standard of living (which is absolutely true).
digitize is offline  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:20 PM   #694
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:39 AM
Washington Post (Jennifer Rubin/Right Turn), May 1
Quote:
Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives. In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says: "I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team."

According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.

Pieces in two conservative publications, the National Review and Daily Caller, reflected the uproar by some social conservatives over the appointment. [UPDATE, 4:30 p.m.: Although Grenell also raised the ire of liberal commentators with now-deleted tweets about certain prominent women, none of the sources I spoke with mentioned the tweets as a factor in his resignation decision.] In the National Review, Matthew J. Franck wrote late last week: “Suppose Barack Obama comes out—as Grenell wishes he would—in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?” The argument that Grenell could essentially not be openly gay and serve on a GOP presidential campaign was belied by the fact that Grenell has been a loyal Republican for many years, working for esteemed foreign policy figures including former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job. The Romney camp has not responded to my request for comment.

UPDATE (3:10 p.m.): The Romney camp has now responded via campaign manager Matt Rhoades: “We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons. We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.” That is a perhaps too subtle retort to those calling for Grenell’s head, that he was not hired to advise on gay issues but on foreign policy matters.

UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful. During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters. Beyond his statement, Grenell has declined further comment today.
Andrew Sullivan:
Quote:
If opposition to marriage equality is a litmus test for gay inclusion in the Romney campaign and administration, then there will be scarcely a single openly gay person willing to sign up to play any part in it. It has come to this. The GOP will have no gays within it unless they are prepared openly to oppose their own core rights and dignity. Romney has gone from promising to be more pro-gay in the Senate than Ted Kennedy than hanging a lone gay spokesman out to dry and pledging to write into the very constitution that gays are second class citizens.

If you're gay, or your friend, son, daughter, brother, sister, aunt or uncle is gay, you just learned something about what the GOP now is. Do not forget it.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 06:57 AM   #695
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:39 AM
The bullying doesn't end at childhood:

Richard Grenell, Openly Gay Romney Spokesman, Resigns From Post - ABC News

Quote:
“I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman,” Grenell said in a statement obtained by the Washington Post. “While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.”
Quote:
In late April, a radio host for the American Family Association said that the hiring indicated the Romney campaign’s willingness to tell the so-called pro-family community to “drop dead.”


Just saw Yolland's post.

But I think it bears repeating, its sad that in 2012 you can still not be a Republican and be openly gay.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:18 PM   #696
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,601
Local Time: 12:39 AM
Really? the truth is that this guy was/is not fit to serve as spokesperson.

He had no problem serving G W Bush and Josh Bolton and being gay.

Romney had no problem appointing him, knowing he was gay.


It was a lesbian that got him fired. Why?

Because he is a sexist pig.


Quote:
Mitt Romney aide deletes tweets that took aim at Hillary Clinton, Callista Gingrich, Michelle Obama, Rachel Maddow

April 23, 2012

Lee-Anne Goodman
{{GA_Article.Images.Alttext$}}

Richard Grenell reportedly scrubbed more than 800 tweets in recent days, but they live on after being unearthed and archived by news outlets shortly after Romney announced his appointment

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney’s decision to appoint an openly gay man as his foreign policy spokesman has angered social conservatives, not surprisingly — but the Republican front-runner’s new employee has also caused him trouble with another demographic he’s trying to woo: women.

Richard Grenell’s Twitter feed was recently rife with snide remarks about various female political figures, from Michelle Obama to Hillary Clinton and Callista Gingrich.

He’s reportedly scrubbed more than 800 tweets in recent days, but they live on after being unearthed and archived by news outlets shortly after Romney announced his appointment.

“Hillary is starting to look like Madeleine Albright,” Grenell tweeted recently about Secretary of State Clinton, comparing her to the first woman to hold the job after being appointed by Bill Clinton in the 1990s.

Other tweets took aim at the third wife of Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich.

“Callista stands there like she is wife #1,” Grenell wrote. Another tweet read: “Do you think Callista’s hair snaps on?”

In a jab at the first lady, a fitness devotee, Grenell claimed Obama was “sweating on the East Room carpet” after working out. He also ridiculed her grammar after she made a speech in North Carolina.

READ MORE: U.S. election

Female celebrities were not immune from his barbs.

Rachel Maddow, a talk show host on MSNBC, is a “dead ringer for Justin Bieber,” Grenell tweeted, and should “take a breath and wear a necklace.”

As he watched the Golden Globes in January, Grenell had some indirect advice for unnamed older actresses: “Note to children: when your mom is a grandmother DO NOT let her wear backless dresses.”

Grenell, a former spokesman for the U.S. at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, has apologized for his remarks, saying they were meant to be humorous but acknowledged they could be interpreted as hurtful.

Maddow, for one, was having none of it.

On her show on Friday, she asked if the Romney campaign understood “that a long string of really nasty, sexist tweets about Callista Gingrich’s appearance might be alienating to people who might otherwise consider voting for Mr. Romney.”


It’s an unexpected headache for Romney, who’s trying to close the so-called gender gap with Barack Obama — recent polls suggested women favoured the president over the former Massachusetts governor by as many as 20 percentage points. Women make up almost 53 per cent of the American electorate.

Romney was already facing heat about Grenell from social conservatives. A top Republican anti-gay figure assailed Romney last week for hiring Grenell, who once lamented to a gay publication that he could not legally marry his partner.

Bryan Fischer of the Mississippi-based American Family Association described Grenell as an “out and loud gay,” adding that Romney’s appointment of him was a “message to the pro-family community” to “drop dead.”

Fischer was still at it on Monday, tweeting that the Secret Service prostitution scandal proves Grenell poses a risk to Romney, apparently equating gay men with johns.

“Romney’s gay hire would serve in his administration in national security,” he tweeted. “You want to tell me there’s no Secret Service-type risk here?”

Romney, however, stood firm against Fischer last fall in a speech at the so-called Values Voter Summit before the anti-gay crusader was himself set to take the stage.

“Our values ennoble the citizen and strengthen the nation. We should remember that decency and civility are values too,” Romney told the conservative event in the U.S. capital.

“One of the speakers who will follow me today has crossed that line, I think. Poisonous language doesn’t advance our cause. It’s never softened a single heart nor changed a single mind.”

There was no comment Monday from the Romney campaign on Grenell’s scrubbed tweets.
deep is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:36 PM   #697
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep
Really? the truth is that this guy was/is not fit to serve as spokesperson.

He had no problem serving G W Bush and Josh Bolton and being gay.

Romney had no problem appointing him, knowing he was gay.

It was a lesbian that got him fired. Why?

Because he is a sexist pig.
Isn't this kinda missing the point?

Was he fired, did he resign? We don't really know, but the official press release said he resigned due to him being gay was causing a distraction to the campaign. AND that is fine with everyone in the party. It's perfectly fine if you resign from a position in the republican party for being gay. No one in the party will say this is unjustified. They might get up in arms if he resigned due to being called out as a sexist, for that resignation would be unjustified.
BVS is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:42 PM   #698
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 04:39 AM
oh, by all accounts this guy was a shithead. though that's not why he resigned.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-02-2012, 02:27 PM   #699
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,715
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Tell you what, between those tweets and the GOP's attitude about homosexuality, it sure is great to know we have such mature, reasonable adults out there angling to help with the leadership of this country . I can see why so many people trust the GOP, oh, yes!

Seriously, my god, how old is everyone in these stories?
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 05-09-2012, 10:49 AM   #700
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 28,170
Local Time: 04:39 AM
Saw this on the news last night. Way to go Mitt
May 7, 2012 4:10pm

abcnews.com


Romney Stalls in Response to Woman Who Says Obama Should Be Tried for Treason


EUCLID, Ohio – Mitt Romney ignored the comment of a woman at a town hall event here who suggested that President Obama be charged with treason, a crime punishable by death.

At the gathering outside Cleveland, the woman stood up to ask Romney a question, saying, “We have a president right now who is operating outside the structure of our Constitution, and I do agree he should be tried for treason.”

Instead of addressing the “treason” reference by the woman, who went on to ask what the candidate would do to balance the three branches of government and restore the Constitution, Romney responded, “As I’m sure you do, I happen to believe that the Constitution was not just brilliant, but probably inspired. I believe the same thing about the Declaration of Independence.”

Later, as he shook hands with supporters, Romney was asked by reporters whether he agreed with the woman, to which he responded “No, of course not.” Asked by CNN about the woman’s comment, Romney said, “I don’t correct all of the questions that get asked of me. Obviously, I don’t agree that he should be tried.”

Ben LaBolt, the press secretary for the Obama re-election campaign, immediately seized on the incident, tweeting, “When will Mitt Romney stand up to the extreme voices in his party? Where’s the leadership he keeps calling for?”

LaBolt also wrote, “Once again today, Mitt Romney stood by silently as his surrogates and supporters made extreme statements & attacked the President’s family.”

Lis Smith, a Obama campaign spokeswoman, wrote in a statement, “Today we saw Mitt Romney’s version of leadership: standing by silently as his chief surrogate attacked the President’s family at the event and another supporter alleged that the President should be tried for treason. Time after time in this campaign, Mitt Romney has had the opportunity to show that he has the fortitude to stand up to hateful and over-the-line rhetoric and time after time, he has failed to do so. If this is the ‘leadership’ he has shown on the campaign trail, what can the American people expect of him as commander-in-chief?”

Romney’s former GOP rival Sen. Rick Santorum was similarly criticized for not correcting a woman who called President Obama an “avowed Muslim” during a campaign event in Florida earlier this year, telling reporters after the fact, “I don’t think it’s my responsibility. Why don’t you go out and correct her? It’s not my responsibility as a candidate to correct everybody who makes a statement that I disagree with.”

In contrast, Sen. John McCain, who has endorsed Romney, did step in to correct a woman during his own bid for the White House in 2008 when she called Obama an “Arab.”

“No, no ma’am, he’s a decent, family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues, and that’s what this campaign is about,” McCain said at the time.
__________________

MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×