Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
I got banned from Redstate after Fred Thompson wrote an article on their site and I left a msg in the comments section basically saying he had no chance. lol
well the 3 posts I made linking to the CNN site with the REAL quote havent come through not just the links but the WHOLE POST like Im being moderated or something…..
I dont want to accuse but its just weird.
-Wasteland Man
P.S. GOt to CNN Politcal Ticker and look under Romney
Jan 8 2008 I am just ticked off cuz Im not used to HA paosting stuff smearing someone and taking him out of context is a smear even if its being taken from another website
they should update this with the original CNN website where the Quote originated from.
I got banned from Redstate after Fred Thompson wrote an article on their site and I left a msg in the comments section basically saying he had no chance. lol
Really? Well, I’m glad to see you haven’t taken it personally. Just remember, you are better than they are. Stay on the high road and stay classy.
I’ll be honest, I love his show, There’s nothing better than staring at Wolf Blitzer’s bushy white beard as he interviews Dick Cheney, while keeping Jack Cafferty in check.
malan89, I doubt that. They don’t even live with each anyone, do they? I thought Bill had some office in Harlem or something. Probably get more action than Tom Brady.
malan89, I doubt that. They don’t even live with each anyone, do they? I thought Bill had some office in Harlem or something. Probably get more action than Tom Brady
You’re probably right. It seems like they don’t even know each other anymore.
What free care? Have you been to an emergency room lately and seen it clogged with people who have no health insurance coverage sitting there waiting for free treatment because by law they cannot be refused? Do you not fundamentally understand the nature of the Health care crisis in America?
Here’s the idea in a nutshell. The government pickups the full tab for all the uninsured now. Because they have no coverage, the go to emergency rooms (expensive) for routine care that could handled better and cheaper by a General Practitioner in his office (much less expensive). They also tend to let problems linger longer because of the inability to go to a doctor’s office so they wind up with worse conditions costing more money and time to treat in the ER.
The idea is, make it similar to Auto insurance by forcing everyone to be covered by some private plan. Those not covered by their employers and cannot afford the premiums are put into a group and buy insurance as a group (which is much cheaper) and have their premiums subsidized according to their financial ability to pay. In the end, costs come down and the government (the taxpayers) save money. Will it work? We’ll see. It just started.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Sorry, but I still don’t buy it. I’ve read many more stories of people having to declare bankruptcy because they got blindsided by an accident or an illness when they did not have any insurance, or what insurance they did have wasn’t enough to cover their medical expenses. Even Christopher Reeve was an advocate for insurance reform because of what happened to him.
I see two problems here: people have come to expect free or low-cost health care, and the health care industry itself has done a great job of promoting “preventative care”. So anyone with a sore throat ends up in an emergency room. Heaven forbid anyone should take a couple of aspirin and suffer with the everyday aches and pains that come with living.
I’m sitting here right now in front of my computer and I have such bad lower back pain that I can barely walk. But that happens to me sometimes. I’ll get over it. I always do.
The auto insurance analogy isn’t valid because mandatory liability insurance protects us all. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so requiring auto insurance is not the same thing mandatory health insurance. Whether or not we pay for the uninsured through higher taxes or higher premiums, the result is the same. We still pay. The difference is the government now tells people what to do.
A better analogy to auto insurance/health insurance would be using a road service like AAA. I paid for AAA for 10 years and never needed it. It was $50 a year. Well, one day I did need it. It was 2 degrees and my car wouldn’t start. So I called AAA. They told me they could be there in about 4 hours. Nice. Of course it would take them four hours. It was 2 degrees out and a lot of peoples cars wouldn’t start that morning.
So I didn’t renew my AAA membership. It was 15 more years before I needed road service again. So, since I owned a Ford, I called Ford’s Road Service. My free road service with them had expired years before. To come out and jump my dead battery they would charge me $100. I paid it.
I hear that AAA charges $75 now. Should I be forced to pay them $75 a year for something I may not need for 10 years and will cost me $150 when I do?
Dude. I tried to post the link too! Weird. Let me try the excerpt in question.
Romney spoke to a crowd assembled at tables in a large conference room who were making fund-raising calls for the former governor. After telling the callers jokingly, “make all the promises you need to,” he tried his hand at it, telling the person at the other end of the line, “I’ve got the lead now.”
Right. What happens when you don’t have much to begin with? Do you think hospitals in the country can refuse to treat people? They can’t. Who pays for them? We do. The only question is how to make it as cheap as possible. You do that but getting people out of the expensive treatment stream (emergency rooms) and into the low cost ones (doctor’s offices). You do that by treating conditions early rather than later when treatment is much more expensive and you do that by making it possible for the working poor to see a doctor.
You need to go to your local emergency room. Read the signs posted on the wall, sit down, watch and listen.
Romney spoke to a crowd assembled at tables in a large conference room who were making fund-raising calls for the former governor. After telling the callers jokingly, “make all the promises you need to,” he tried his hand at it, telling the person at the other end of the line, “I’ve got the lead now.”
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 1:24 AM
If that was all there was to it, then it rather makes Mark at Redstate look like an hysterical ninny.
And, forcing everyone to have private health insurance does protect us all. It protects us by keeping taxes down, keeping health care costs down, keeping insurance costs down and keeping ERs open for true emergencies. A few months ago a guy in LA called the police while he was in the ER with his wife. She was dying and the hospital was so overwhelmed he couldn’t get her treated. She dies right there in ER without ever being treated iirc.
If I were of the truther mold, I would think that AP doesn’t like to be called on the transparency of holding Fred’s water for him. I mean the site is acting real glitchy…. just sayin’
If that was all there was to it, then it rather makes Mark at Redstate look like an hysterical ninny.
That IS all there was to it. A jokingly sarcastic comment, and that seems like exactly Mitt’s sense of humor too. And it was as I said earlier “taken out of context.”
This is hardly a “gotcha”. If anything it tells us more about Redstate than Mitt Romney.
Well, thank god you clearly are not of the truther mold. I’m relieved you never even implied it, and I’m sure AP is as well, since we all know he stays up into the wee hours worrying about that.
Hey I just thought it was rookie hazing because some posts aren’t getting through. I’ve seen a couple of mine lag, and from reading previous posts their looks to be a lag for others. Good to see you can flow with sarcasm.
I usually can, but as you know, it’s sometimes tough around here. Apologies for not read it though. It was a good riff and I am sorry for not seeing it (seriously).
No problem AUINSC. It is the nature of the medium. Also, point taken about the wee hours. It is hard to be coherent at 12:58 in the a.m. The wee hours play hell on my spelling and grammar.
Yeah, I actually tore into somebody (you did it well, but I didn’t) a few days ago for not getting my sarcasm. I’ll have to be a bit more careful in the future.
Surprise of the century. Fred says silly hat rule? BKennedy is outraged. Mitt says “Make all the promises you have to” and he’s assumed to be innocent, despite the fact that no set of quotes or context can make those consecutive words anything but the mark of a pure pandering politician with no integrity.
My position on potentially voting for Mitt if he got the nod just got put on life support. That’s stunning.
I got banned from Redstate after Fred Thompson wrote an article on their site and I left a msg in the comments section basically saying he had no chance. lol
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Wow! They at least had a reason to ban me. I had three browsers open and thought I was posting at AoSHQ, where “colorful” language is OK. Well, I wasn’t at AoSHQ, I was at Redstate.
My position on potentially voting for Mitt if he got the nod just got put on life support. That’s stunning.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:05 AM
I’m calling BS. You wouldn’t vote for Mitt and you know it, you are just saying that to throw doubt to others and advance your own agenda/candidate. This is such a non-story that those who take it hook, line, and sinker show how much “group think” goes on some times at Hotair.
Romney spoke to a crowd assembled at tables in a large conference room who were making fund-raising calls for the former governor. After telling the callers jokingly, “make all the promises you need to,” he tried his hand at it, telling the person at the other end of the line, “I’ve got the lead now.”
Who the hell are you, and who the hell are you to presume what I think? I’ve made numerous statements on here that I was considering voting for Mitt if he got the nod. Compared to sanctuary city Giuliani, Captain Amnesty, and the Huckster, Mitt was the least offensive of the frontrunners except on socialized medicine and gun control.
I’m calling you nothing but a presumptuous little Mitt fanatic(as opposed to a Mitt supporter) who is filling his pants that his hero just outed himself as a career politician with more interest in being in the office than actually standing up for something.
Naw. He should promise them an F-15 and a bazooka!
hahaha
(inside joke from another thread)
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Remember what he did to the dog? Now he’s going to sacrifice more pooches in case a tank were threatening his family! What a heartless nut in need of a psych eval!
I’m calling BS. You wouldn’t vote for Mitt and you know it, you are just saying that to throw doubt to others and advance your own agenda/candidate. This is such a non-story that those who take it hook, line, and sinker show how much “group think” goes on some times at Hotair.
Dude, listen. I’m pretty sure you can seal the deal if you just use the word ‘sheeple’…seriously, if you use that word I promise to vote for whoever you tell me to..really, I swear!
Who the hell are you, and who the hell are you to presume what I think?
Then you go on to presume what I think!!!
I’m calling you nothing but a presumptuous little Mitt fanatic(as opposed to a Mitt supporter) who is filling his pants that his hero just outed himself as a career politician with more interest in being in the office than actually standing up for something.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM
That is too good, really. No irony here.. move along.
Considering I’ve never said anything to validate what you presumed about me, and considering you said everything to verify my presumption about you in a single post, and apparently I’m not the only one who noticed that, where’s the irony? The fact that you came into this thread to target me instead of the natural reaction proves that you are blocking out the content of the actual post, which explains your completely unwarranted and inexplicable and undeniably wrong assertation.
I got banned from Redstate after Fred Thompson wrote an article on their site and I left a msg in the comments section basically saying he had no chance. lol
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Redstate practices comment eugenics. If you don’t fit into their spectrum of perfection you will be purged.
Redstate practices comment eugenics. If you don’t fit into their spectrum of perfection you will be purged.
Well, we don’t practice ‘comment eugenics’ at HA. But we do take offense at idiotic analogies…fortunately we won’t ban you for those either. Welcome home, my friend, welcome home.
Inverting the comment and response was a pretty cool effect, don’t you think..no? I did screw that up, but as screw ups go, you chuckled a little bit, no? Yeah, I didn’t either, but you can forgive the spin perhaps…off day and all that, but it was safe for children AND truckers…deny that if you can.
That’s a good quote, but I’m gonna stick with “I published the Muhammed cartoons because it’s my bloody right to do so” as my quote of the day
Levy on January 13, 2008 at 4:32 AM
Levy! I am excited to see that you still post here. I didn’t know if our frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric on illegal immigration had driven you away for good or what. For your sake, I’ll try and wipe away the spittle.
Well, we don’t practice ‘comment eugenics’ at HA. But we do take offense at idiotic analogies…fortunately we won’t ban you for those either. Welcome home, my friend, welcome home.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 4:21 AM
I engage in idiotic analogies because its muy bloody right to do so!
“Make all the promises you have to” is the quote,
not just say anything, Allahpundit.
Mitt is deceitful to hand out hollow promises for financial gain and purchase of the vote.
ABC News Radio: Hit the phones today make all the promises you have to, and…make sure that we get the funds that we need to keep on propelling this campaign forward with power and energy.
Redstate.com, Mark I:
“Make all the promises you have to.” That’s Romney in a nutshell. Of all the Republicans running, he alone has sought to clarify, cover, and indeed change past positions in an attempt to curry favor with conservatives. In the process, Romney has developed a reputation not as a principled conservative, but as a politician who will say almost anything and take almost any position to win votes.
[Contrast] “Thompson knows that the way to win conservative votes is not by making promises or masking past positions. Their votes have to be earned. Thompson is doing so by issuing detailed positions rooted in conservative principles on issues South Carolinians care about; like illegal immigration, taxes, social security, and the war on terror.
Many of Romney’s supporters who are perplexed by his many positions or who feel abandoned by their candidate’s focusing on Michigan will feel right at home in Sen. Thompson’s campaign.
Romney’s supporters in the state should heed their candidate’s own message-of-the-week and change their allegiance to Thompson…to come home to the one principled conservative candidate running.”
If Mitt loved Michigan as much as he says, why didn’t he become their governor and prove his pretenses at being able to stave off the state’s economic depression? Mitt could not fulfill his empty promises, whether at the state or federal level. Furthermore, Mitt defers responsibility to the federal government as the bail-out system, and that is NOT conservatism.
“apnews.myway.com/ By Glen Johnson reported 1/10/08 that Republican Mitt Romney was greeted by an anemic crowd, cut short his address, and took no questions. “My Mom and Dad are buried here. This is going to be ground zero for us. It’s going to be ground zero not only in this primary; it’s also going to be ground zero in the general election.” [Ground zero is where disaster struck home.] “I’m planning on picking up a gold in Michigan. I’m not going to stop investing. Michigan’s one-state recession will come to an end if I’m president.”
Mitt’s Michigan play is to buy their debt for their vote with his creative finance wizardry, the Dorian Gray image of The Simpson’s Mr. Burns.
This is one reason I have never liked him. He seemed like that sort of politician. Now, we have it in his own words. He’s always had a zero trust factor with me.
After telling the callers jokingly, “make all the promises you need to,” he tried his hand at it, telling the person at the other end of the line, “I’ve got the lead now.”
Context is inconvenient ain’t it?
Cannot create a hyper link, but there is an article on CNN’s political ticker under jan 8 2007 that tells the TRUTH about what Mitt said.
You can divine this “diplomatic leverage” void by one out of context quote? Don’t hide your previous railings against Mitt behind this “gotcha” moment by Red-State. It doesn’t show the strength of your convictions.
A joke to his phone bank volunteers and you don’t like him? Zero trust? It’s as if Red-State and AP gave you an outlet for your feelings. Must be therapeutic. Hopefully it seals your convictions to your candidate.
…he’s clearly telling his phone bank to promise victory…
BKennedy on January 12, 2008 at 11:06 PM
How clearly? Clearly if you have a head in the sand…
All of the anti-posts against Mitt, summed up in one quote…”promise them anything”.
What makes this statement so important, is that his distractors have known all along that he will change his mind, say to one group one thing, and another a counter point (gun issue is one example). This quote underscores, not just this one moment, but his political life. If this was the only time, but it isn’t. Remember in the debate with Kennedy, denying he was a conservative? It goes way back. He is afraid.
He is a great looking guy, great speaking, great family, did well in business…but he is the consummate negotiator, he wants to appease, he wants everyone to like him, he wants to promise everything to everyone…he is not a leader. The sheep like him because he is gentle, but he ain’t no guard dog.
His image is powerful, his substance is weak…how about saying…”tell them what I stand for, and promise them I will not change my mind”…you’ll never hear that, and feel he is telling the truth.
He just isn’t the political leader we need in these troubling times, not the kind we need. Too bad, he has such great hair.
Mitt was the least offensive of the frontrunners except on socialized medicine
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM
If you think his healthcare plan in MA is socialized medicine, it’s obvious you’re not quite sure what socialized medicine is. I’m sure Barack can show you. If anything, the plan is MA helped to deregulate healthcare and present more choices to the consumer.
that his hero just outed himself as a career politician with more interest in being in the office than actually standing up for something.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:21
How does this post by some punk Thompson shill over at Fred State “out” anybody. The quote was taken out of context and spun to make the author’s point. These are the kind of things that are dividing the Republican party and the kind of things that will win the Presidency for someone who will be glad to show you what real socialized medicine is.
Again, what is it that makes this statement so “important” in your mind? All this is a “gotcha” moment. You speak of Mitt’s lack of substance. All you offer are back handed compliments without any substance of your own. Don’t speak in catch phrases of sheep and guard dogs. Involve yourself in something more substantive.
All you offer are back handed compliments without any substance of your own. Don’t speak in catch phrases of sheep and guard dogs. Involve yourself in something more substantive.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I don’t think I have to repeat time and time again on each post the number of times Mitt reversed his stances.
Let’s start with the one I stated in my post (some substance as you request).
Why did he back away when Ted Kennedy accused him of being a Reagan conservative, in that debate he ran like a little girl.
And I issued the challenge on gun control…that is two issues, apparently you couldn’t find two, let alone the some of the others I will list for you.
So instead of hurling accusations, comment on what I did post. And then I will bring up 1/2 dozen other “born again conservative” view he has had since deciding to run for office.
Here is a partial list:
Abortion
Gun Control
Taxes (or fees as he likes to call them)
State forced health care
There is more, but those are just some of the issues he has changed his mind on in the past several months.
Now one other, as a “great leader” how many republicans did he get elected to office on his coattails in Mass?
There is some substance for you, you couldn’t handle two, I doubt you (or Mitt) could handle four more.
Want to go back further, look at his record on Vietnam, he wanted to serve, but didn’t want to serve…even back then he couldn’t make up his mind and he told different stories.
You really stepped in it…
Cold Steel
Again, what is it that makes this statement so “important” in your mind? All this is a “gotcha” moment. You speak of Mitt’s lack of substance. All you offer are back handed compliments without any substance of your own. Don’t speak in catch phrases of sheep and guard dogs. Involve yourself in something more substantive.
No “substance” is needed. It goes to the man’s mindset; He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time. Remember — he’d do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?
A joke to his phone bank volunteers and you don’t like him? Zero trust? It’s as if Red-State and AP gave you an outlet for your feelings. Must be therapeutic. Hopefully it seals your convictions to your candidate.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 9:50 AM
If you’d actually read what I wrote; I said I never HAVE liked him.
Yeah I stepped all into it. He has addressed these ad nauseum, but not to your satisfaction, point taken. My point is that you go personal quick.
“Little girl”, “Vietnam”, “Gun Control”. Nice reasoned debate. You’re throwing out catch phrases and knee-jerk reactions to hide your animus. Don’t tear down one, especially when you aren’t building something positive in its place. I don’t see how it advances anything within this discussion.
He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time.
I don’t buy that. If it were true, why wouldn’t he just run as a Democrat? If he had no convictions or was a closet liberal, why not take the easy path?
Well I woke up this morning hoping to see this cleared up.
What i find though is that everyone is still reading the “Quote” even though its taken out of context and people who are coming upon it here are assuming its just the way it is.
This is SPIN and a Smear and even going to the Redstate website wont give you the full context of the quote..
I would defend anyone from this kind of Smear even if it was Ron Paul. this is not right this is smear politics at its worst. and its from 4 day ago so they are digging and destroying all GOP candidates …at least the ones they aren’t rooting for. THis is sad, and Reagan must be spinning at 1000 rpm right now in his grave at the way that everyone is sniping and smearing each other.
So we’re continuing this catch-phrase out of context mind-reading? I’ll play: looking at this issue out of context, I would trust Mitt Romney with any person’s rights over Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is an equal opportunity abuser.
I don’t buy that. If it were true, why wouldn’t he just run as a Democrat? If he had no convictions or was a closet liberal, why not take the easy path?
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I see you omitted the Ted Kennedy part. I know Romney supporters like to ignore such statements. They are many examples of pandering. His recent NRA membership is another. I never said he was a closet liberal, those are your words. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I can express my own views just fine, thank you.
My point is; his theme while running for the Senate was much different than the one he is running on now. I’ve seen that from day one.
I like HA and I trust you guys but this is starting to make me want to verify what I read here. you guys used to show the photo shopped photos from the middle east and expose the smears against Israel and such….
This quote, without a source, is the opposite of that. I want to give you all the benefit of the doubt here but really I am sad as I come here because of that trust in you guys.
So we’re continuing this catch-phrase out of context mind-reading?
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM
lmao. What kind of context could the claim of doing more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy ever be acceptable to anyone other than a gay rights activist? Your spin on the second part that I did not quote made me dizzy for a sec.
I see you omitted the Ted Kennedy part. I know Romney supporters like to ignore such statements. They are many examples of pandering. His recent NRA membership is another. I never said he was a closet liberal, those are your words. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I can express my own views just fine, thank you.
Ah, yes. I was ignoring! You are perceptive – I cut out TK part so it would go down the memory hole never to be seen again. Or alternatively, I quoted the one line I was disagreeing with.
I very rarely quote a whole post for the sake of space and ease of reading. But good job, Detective! I see I won’t be able to slip anything by you! Yes, I added the OR part of the statement just to expand the criticism to where it normally goes, ie RINO. [You will note of course you didn't answer my comment either so I'm looking forward to seeing you say scotth likes to ignore things.]
running for the Senate was much different than the one he is running on now. I’ve seen that from day one.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM
People’s positions can change over the course of 13 years. It’s a big deal to you. Good luck with defending your guy on his/her changes over the last 13 years.
What is a big deal to me is how a candidate governed and his behavior in his personal life. In that sense, there isn’t a candidate running that can hold a candle to Mitt in that context.
WastelandMan, who knows? Maybe HA didn’t know and just got it from RedState. They reference ABC radio in their story. And I can’t post a CNN Political Ticker link even if it is a non-Romney story. Kind of sad though to have to trust but verify.
And what is wrong with gay rights? Do you think they should be discriminated against at work? In politics? In civil rights? In housing?
Mitt’s point, and if you’d bother to understand the difference between conservatives and dems, was that the dems talk the talk to the blacks, gays, women etc, but they rarely help them at all. Mitt would have been stronger for gay rights because he is a conservative and conservatives know how to help people help themselves. It’s a belief of personal empowerment not empowerment by the government.
very rarely quote a whole post for the sake of space and ease of reading. But good job, Detective! I see I won’t be able to slip anything by you! Yes, I added the OR part of the statement just to expand the criticism to where it normally goes, ie RINO. [You will note of course you didn’t answer my comment either so I’m looking forward to seeing you say scotth likes to ignore things.]
I didn’t ignore it .. I addressed it directly. I never said he was a closet liberal. I don’t use the word RINO. I think it’s silly. I just don’t like the man. I don’t trust him. I don’t think what he says is actually what he believes.
I am glad they at least let me post my grievances here even if we cant give the whole quote. the problem is the Quote out of context is still on the front page and no updates,so those who don’t pay attention won’t know the whole story…
Mitt would have been stronger for gay rights because he is a conservative and conservatives know how to help people help themselves. It’s a belief of personal empowerment not empowerment by the government.
You mean like forcing the people of Massachusetts to buy heath care by sending them a friendly fine if they don’t? Is that the kind of “empowerment” to which you are refereeing?
AP doesn’t make these kind of mistakes. I think he knew.
And what is the result? The same people who go bat$hit crazy over the littlest event in Fred’s life, have gone bat$hit crazy over a comment with no context concerning Mitt. But they would certainly research any accusation about Fred.
If you say “He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time”, I repeat why is he, and has he run as a Republican? It would be easier to win as a Democrat – if election were his top priority, he wouldn’t run as a R.
People’s positions can change over the course of 13 years.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Changing some positions is fine. He’s changed about everything. You don’t know who my gay is. My guy is not running. I don’t particularly like any of them. I will vote in the primary. And I will vote for Thompson. But he has his flaws. They are are all fatally flawed, IMO. Romney is one of the most flawed. Coming in a strong third right behind the idiot Ron Paul, and the fake moron Huck
If you say “He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time”, I repeat why is he, and has he run as a Republican? It would be easier to win as a Democrat – if election were his top priority, he wouldn’t run as a R.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Being a Republican does not preclude one from being a panderer.
I agree. Supporting all personal, individual rights should be the hallmark of any campaign. It doesn’t take a “gay” activist to understand that scotth. Kennedy and his ilk subjugate certain groups rights to other groups rights. The history of their party shows that. It also shows that their standards change over time. Their “plantation” mentality harms the groups they pander to. Romney has not engaged in that mentality, contrary to assertions.
More flawed than an Arkansas governor who cannot get to the details in his own platform? When called on anything by either Romney or Thompson, he goes to platitudes. Oh and did I forget to mention roads? Are we supposed to embrace Huckabee on faith alone? Please scott, give a little more thought to the generalization.
You mean like forcing the people of Massachusetts to buy heath care by sending them a friendly fine if they don’t? Is that the kind of “empowerment” to which you are refereeing?
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
No. Like taking the money spent on nanny state emergency room health care and put it towards helping people get their own health care.
A move in the right direction after years of dem rule. But that doesn’t matter to those of you who would rather be against a guy that’s beating your guy than you would be FOR a system that puts people in charge of their own choices of doctors etc.
It took little steps to get where they were and Mitt is the only rep who has actually done anything to take little steps backing out of it.
Well that sounds more solid Scott. Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, and McCain each have characteristics and platforms that will build within the country. The other two act like the “none of the above” candidates.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
I assume there was a quote malfunction in there somewhere, but I’m too lazy to look it up.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Sorry about that!
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 12:50 AM
People seem to be having problems with links in particular…
doubleplusundead on January 13, 2008 at 12:52 AM
My problem was with pasting the wrong link into the box. My bad. Everything on HA’s end seems to working fine with me.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Wasteland,
I tried the same thing myself in response to Chaka somebody about 1:30 AM yesterday when he linked to the Red State “article” in another thread.
I’m just trying to figure out how to link in test posts in the archives for now going on the assumption that I’m doing something wrong.
Deety on January 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM
I got banned from Redstate after Fred Thompson wrote an article on their site and I left a msg in the comments section basically saying he had no chance. lol
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Wow, that was deep…and obtuse. Remember, you have to speak slowly and plainly when addressing us Fredheads.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
well the 3 posts I made linking to the CNN site with the REAL quote havent come through not just the links but the WHOLE POST like Im being moderated or something…..
I dont want to accuse but its just weird.
-Wasteland Man
P.S. GOt to CNN Politcal Ticker and look under Romney
Jan 8 2008 I am just ticked off cuz Im not used to HA paosting stuff smearing someone and taking him out of context is a smear even if its being taken from another website
they should update this with the original CNN website where the Quote originated from.
WastelandMan on January 13, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Serious question guys, is there anyone here who has a girlfriend or a wife? Or is everyone here politco geeks who wish they were allahpundit?
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Really? Well, I’m glad to see you haven’t taken it personally. Just remember, you are better than they are. Stay on the high road and stay classy.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 1:01 AM
That admission of yours was so sad on so many levels. A bit of advise: quit sharing.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 1:04 AM
I’ll be honest, I love his show, There’s nothing better than staring at Wolf Blitzer’s bushy white beard as he interviews Dick Cheney, while keeping Jack Cafferty in check.
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 1:05 AM
Too late….this guy doesn’t even know which exit you take to get on the high road….see below.
There is a way to tastefully rip on people…and you obviously don’t know it.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 1:06 AM
AUINSC, I haven’t been laid since the Clinton administration and that was in the parking lot of a star trek convention. How bout dem apples?
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 1:07 AM
I’d imagine Bill hasn’t been laid since the Clinton Administration considering Hillary has been watching him.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 1:09 AM
malan89, I doubt that. They don’t even live with each anyone, do they? I thought Bill had some office in Harlem or something. Probably get more action than Tom Brady.
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 1:11 AM
You’re probably right. It seems like they don’t even know each other anymore.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Sorry, but I still don’t buy it. I’ve read many more stories of people having to declare bankruptcy because they got blindsided by an accident or an illness when they did not have any insurance, or what insurance they did have wasn’t enough to cover their medical expenses. Even Christopher Reeve was an advocate for insurance reform because of what happened to him.
I see two problems here: people have come to expect free or low-cost health care, and the health care industry itself has done a great job of promoting “preventative care”. So anyone with a sore throat ends up in an emergency room. Heaven forbid anyone should take a couple of aspirin and suffer with the everyday aches and pains that come with living.
I’m sitting here right now in front of my computer and I have such bad lower back pain that I can barely walk. But that happens to me sometimes. I’ll get over it. I always do.
The auto insurance analogy isn’t valid because mandatory liability insurance protects us all. Driving is a privilege, not a right, so requiring auto insurance is not the same thing mandatory health insurance. Whether or not we pay for the uninsured through higher taxes or higher premiums, the result is the same. We still pay. The difference is the government now tells people what to do.
A better analogy to auto insurance/health insurance would be using a road service like AAA. I paid for AAA for 10 years and never needed it. It was $50 a year. Well, one day I did need it. It was 2 degrees and my car wouldn’t start. So I called AAA. They told me they could be there in about 4 hours. Nice. Of course it would take them four hours. It was 2 degrees out and a lot of peoples cars wouldn’t start that morning.
So I didn’t renew my AAA membership. It was 15 more years before I needed road service again. So, since I owned a Ford, I called Ford’s Road Service. My free road service with them had expired years before. To come out and jump my dead battery they would charge me $100. I paid it.
I hear that AAA charges $75 now. Should I be forced to pay them $75 a year for something I may not need for 10 years and will cost me $150 when I do?
Jaynie59 on January 13, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Dude. I tried to post the link too! Weird. Let me try the excerpt in question.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Romney should promise everyone a brand new car.
froghat on January 13, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Right. What happens when you don’t have much to begin with? Do you think hospitals in the country can refuse to treat people? They can’t. Who pays for them? We do. The only question is how to make it as cheap as possible. You do that but getting people out of the expensive treatment stream (emergency rooms) and into the low cost ones (doctor’s offices). You do that by treating conditions early rather than later when treatment is much more expensive and you do that by making it possible for the working poor to see a doctor.
You need to go to your local emergency room. Read the signs posted on the wall, sit down, watch and listen.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 1:28 AM
If that was all there was to it, then it rather makes Mark at Redstate look like an hysterical ninny.
MB4 on January 13, 2008 at 1:30 AM
And, forcing everyone to have private health insurance does protect us all. It protects us by keeping taxes down, keeping health care costs down, keeping insurance costs down and keeping ERs open for true emergencies. A few months ago a guy in LA called the police while he was in the ER with his wife. She was dying and the hospital was so overwhelmed he couldn’t get her treated. She dies right there in ER without ever being treated iirc.
TheBigOldDog on January 13, 2008 at 1:34 AM
If I were of the truther mold, I would think that AP doesn’t like to be called on the transparency of holding Fred’s water for him. I mean the site is acting real glitchy…. just sayin’
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Thank you Spirit and Wasteland!
It’s not just me. It’s not just me. I am not a budding moonbat.
Phew!
Deety on January 13, 2008 at 1:39 AM
That IS all there was to it. A jokingly sarcastic comment, and that seems like exactly Mitt’s sense of humor too. And it was as I said earlier “taken out of context.”
This is hardly a “gotcha”. If anything it tells us more about Redstate than Mitt Romney.
joncoltonis on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Well, thank god you clearly are not of the truther mold. I’m relieved you never even implied it, and I’m sure AP is as well, since we all know he stays up into the wee hours worrying about that.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Redstate…Fredheads?
Entelechy on January 13, 2008 at 1:44 AM
But look, there’s only one man who can save us.
apacalyps on January 13, 2008 at 12:14 AM, said so in the “Video “Clemency”" thread.
Entelechy on January 13, 2008 at 1:51 AM
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 1:42 AM
Hey I just thought it was rookie hazing because some posts aren’t getting through. I’ve seen a couple of mine lag, and from reading previous posts their looks to be a lag for others. Good to see you can flow with sarcasm.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 1:52 AM
I usually can, but as you know, it’s sometimes tough around here. Apologies for not read it though. It was a good riff and I am sorry for not seeing it (seriously).
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 1:56 AM
No problem AUINSC. It is the nature of the medium. Also, point taken about the wee hours. It is hard to be coherent at 12:58 in the a.m. The wee hours play hell on my spelling and grammar.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 1:58 AM
Yeah, I actually tore into somebody (you did it well, but I didn’t) a few days ago for not getting my sarcasm. I’ll have to be a bit more careful in the future.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Surprise of the century. Fred says silly hat rule? BKennedy is outraged. Mitt says “Make all the promises you have to” and he’s assumed to be innocent, despite the fact that no set of quotes or context can make those consecutive words anything but the mark of a pure pandering politician with no integrity.
My position on potentially voting for Mitt if he got the nod just got put on life support. That’s stunning.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:05 AM
Make all the promises you have to?
Promises of what? Cookies? Magic underwear? Books of Mormon?
Context would be nice.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:13 AM
Wow! They at least had a reason to ban me. I had three browsers open and thought I was posting at AoSHQ, where “colorful” language is OK. Well, I wasn’t at AoSHQ, I was at Redstate.
Oooopsies!
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:17 AM
I’m calling BS. You wouldn’t vote for Mitt and you know it, you are just saying that to throw doubt to others and advance your own agenda/candidate. This is such a non-story that those who take it hook, line, and sinker show how much “group think” goes on some times at Hotair.
lan astaslem on January 13, 2008 at 2:18 AM
Naw. He should promise them an F-15 and a bazooka!
hahaha
(inside joke from another thread)
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:19 AM
Ha! Thanks for that!
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:20 AM
Who the hell are you, and who the hell are you to presume what I think? I’ve made numerous statements on here that I was considering voting for Mitt if he got the nod. Compared to sanctuary city Giuliani, Captain Amnesty, and the Huckster, Mitt was the least offensive of the frontrunners except on socialized medicine and gun control.
I’m calling you nothing but a presumptuous little Mitt fanatic(as opposed to a Mitt supporter) who is filling his pants that his hero just outed himself as a career politician with more interest in being in the office than actually standing up for something.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:21 AM
You grouchy fart. What is up with you tonight?
Metamucil perhaps?
;-)
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:23 AM
Remember what he did to the dog? Now he’s going to sacrifice more pooches in case a tank were threatening his family! What a heartless nut in need of a psych eval!
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:24 AM
Someone slinging personal insults and arrogant jackass jibes.
You, by the way.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:25 AM
Bwahahaha!!!
Double dose for sure!
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 2:40 AM
He wasn’t gone…he was just hiding for a bit to lull us into thinking things would be good.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 2:42 AM
Dude, listen. I’m pretty sure you can seal the deal if you just use the word ‘sheeple’…seriously, if you use that word I promise to vote for whoever you tell me to..really, I swear!
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 2:50 AM
Ha, Ha, ha… that is too good. you ask me
Then you go on to presume what I think!!!
That is too good, really. No irony here.. move along.
lan astaslem on January 13, 2008 at 2:55 AM
Mitt up by 8 in MI?
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 3:05 AM
Considering I’ve never said anything to validate what you presumed about me, and considering you said everything to verify my presumption about you in a single post, and apparently I’m not the only one who noticed that, where’s the irony? The fact that you came into this thread to target me instead of the natural reaction proves that you are blocking out the content of the actual post, which explains your completely unwarranted and inexplicable and undeniably wrong assertation.
In short, GTFO.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 3:09 AM
You and Huck are two of a kind.
MadisonConservative on January 13, 2008 at 3:10 AM
Redstate practices comment eugenics. If you don’t fit into their spectrum of perfection you will be purged.
joewm315 on January 13, 2008 at 3:48 AM
Redstate practices comment eugenics. If you don’t fit into their spectrum of perfection you will be purged.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 4:21 AM
That’s a good quote, but I’m gonna stick with “I published the Muhammed cartoons because it’s my bloody right to do so” as my quote of the day
Levy on January 13, 2008 at 4:32 AM
Inverting the comment and response was a pretty cool effect, don’t you think..no? I did screw that up, but as screw ups go, you chuckled a little bit, no? Yeah, I didn’t either, but you can forgive the spin perhaps…off day and all that, but it was safe for children AND truckers…deny that if you can.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 4:37 AM
Levy, 3 posts down man. But thanks, you made me look a little better there.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 4:41 AM
Levy! I am excited to see that you still post here. I didn’t know if our frothing-at-the-mouth rhetoric on illegal immigration had driven you away for good or what. For your sake, I’ll try and wipe away the spittle.
I agree about the quote of the day, for sure.
joewm315 on January 13, 2008 at 6:04 AM
I engage in idiotic analogies because its muy bloody right to do so!
joewm315 on January 13, 2008 at 6:06 AM
I never claimed otherwise.
AUINSC on January 13, 2008 at 6:21 AM
McRudiHuckleBush, RINOs perfect candidate.
saved on January 13, 2008 at 8:02 AM
“Make all the promises you have to” is the quote,
not just say anything, Allahpundit.
Mitt is deceitful to hand out hollow promises for financial gain and purchase of the vote.
If Mitt loved Michigan as much as he says, why didn’t he become their governor and prove his pretenses at being able to stave off the state’s economic depression? Mitt could not fulfill his empty promises, whether at the state or federal level. Furthermore, Mitt defers responsibility to the federal government as the bail-out system, and that is NOT conservatism.
Mitt’s Michigan play is to buy their debt for their vote with his creative finance wizardry, the Dorian Gray image of The Simpson’s Mr. Burns.
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 8:30 AM
This is one reason I have never liked him. He seemed like that sort of politician. Now, we have it in his own words. He’s always had a zero trust factor with me.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 8:53 AM
Whatever diplomatic leverage Mitt ever presumed is void.
Put Mitt in the Middle East to negotiate peace while everyone knows that Mitt will promise anything, whether he can back it up or not.
Mitt has no credence.
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Context is inconvenient ain’t it?
Cannot create a hyper link, but there is an article on CNN’s political ticker under jan 8 2007 that tells the TRUTH about what Mitt said.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 9:42 AM
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM
You can divine this “diplomatic leverage” void by one out of context quote? Don’t hide your previous railings against Mitt behind this “gotcha” moment by Red-State. It doesn’t show the strength of your convictions.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Scotth on January 13, 2008 at 8:53 AM
A joke to his phone bank volunteers and you don’t like him? Zero trust? It’s as if Red-State and AP gave you an outlet for your feelings. Must be therapeutic. Hopefully it seals your convictions to your candidate.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 9:50 AM
How clearly? Clearly if you have a head in the sand…
All of the anti-posts against Mitt, summed up in one quote…”promise them anything”.
What makes this statement so important, is that his distractors have known all along that he will change his mind, say to one group one thing, and another a counter point (gun issue is one example). This quote underscores, not just this one moment, but his political life. If this was the only time, but it isn’t. Remember in the debate with Kennedy, denying he was a conservative? It goes way back. He is afraid.
He is a great looking guy, great speaking, great family, did well in business…but he is the consummate negotiator, he wants to appease, he wants everyone to like him, he wants to promise everything to everyone…he is not a leader. The sheep like him because he is gentle, but he ain’t no guard dog.
His image is powerful, his substance is weak…how about saying…”tell them what I stand for, and promise them I will not change my mind”…you’ll never hear that, and feel he is telling the truth.
He just isn’t the political leader we need in these troubling times, not the kind we need. Too bad, he has such great hair.
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM
If you think his healthcare plan in MA is socialized medicine, it’s obvious you’re not quite sure what socialized medicine is. I’m sure Barack can show you. If anything, the plan is MA helped to deregulate healthcare and present more choices to the consumer.
How does this post by some punk Thompson shill over at Fred State “out” anybody. The quote was taken out of context and spun to make the author’s point. These are the kind of things that are dividing the Republican party and the kind of things that will win the Presidency for someone who will be glad to show you what real socialized medicine is.
malan89 on January 13, 2008 at 10:21 AM
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Again, what is it that makes this statement so “important” in your mind? All this is a “gotcha” moment. You speak of Mitt’s lack of substance. All you offer are back handed compliments without any substance of your own. Don’t speak in catch phrases of sheep and guard dogs. Involve yourself in something more substantive.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I don’t think I have to repeat time and time again on each post the number of times Mitt reversed his stances.
Let’s start with the one I stated in my post (some substance as you request).
Why did he back away when Ted Kennedy accused him of being a Reagan conservative, in that debate he ran like a little girl.
And I issued the challenge on gun control…that is two issues, apparently you couldn’t find two, let alone the some of the others I will list for you.
So instead of hurling accusations, comment on what I did post. And then I will bring up 1/2 dozen other “born again conservative” view he has had since deciding to run for office.
Here is a partial list:
Abortion
Gun Control
Taxes (or fees as he likes to call them)
State forced health care
There is more, but those are just some of the issues he has changed his mind on in the past several months.
Now one other, as a “great leader” how many republicans did he get elected to office on his coattails in Mass?
There is some substance for you, you couldn’t handle two, I doubt you (or Mitt) could handle four more.
Want to go back further, look at his record on Vietnam, he wanted to serve, but didn’t want to serve…even back then he couldn’t make up his mind and he told different stories.
You really stepped in it…
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM
No “substance” is needed. It goes to the man’s mindset; He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time. Remember — he’d do more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
If you’d actually read what I wrote; I said I never HAVE liked him.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:43 AM
right2bright on January 13, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Yeah I stepped all into it. He has addressed these ad nauseum, but not to your satisfaction, point taken. My point is that you go personal quick.
“Little girl”, “Vietnam”, “Gun Control”. Nice reasoned debate. You’re throwing out catch phrases and knee-jerk reactions to hide your animus. Don’t tear down one, especially when you aren’t building something positive in its place. I don’t see how it advances anything within this discussion.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
I don’t buy that. If it were true, why wouldn’t he just run as a Democrat? If he had no convictions or was a closet liberal, why not take the easy path?
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Well I woke up this morning hoping to see this cleared up.
What i find though is that everyone is still reading the “Quote” even though its taken out of context and people who are coming upon it here are assuming its just the way it is.
This is SPIN and a Smear and even going to the Redstate website wont give you the full context of the quote..
I would defend anyone from this kind of Smear even if it was Ron Paul. this is not right this is smear politics at its worst. and its from 4 day ago so they are digging and destroying all GOP candidates …at least the ones they aren’t rooting for. THis is sad, and Reagan must be spinning at 1000 rpm right now in his grave at the way that everyone is sniping and smearing each other.
Yeesh.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 13, 2008 at 10:48 AM
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:40 AM
So we’re continuing this catch-phrase out of context mind-reading? I’ll play: looking at this issue out of context, I would trust Mitt Romney with any person’s rights over Ted Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is an equal opportunity abuser.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:50 AM
I see you omitted the Ted Kennedy part. I know Romney supporters like to ignore such statements. They are many examples of pandering. His recent NRA membership is another. I never said he was a closet liberal, those are your words. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I can express my own views just fine, thank you.
My point is; his theme while running for the Senate was much different than the one he is running on now. I’ve seen that from day one.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I like HA and I trust you guys but this is starting to make me want to verify what I read here. you guys used to show the photo shopped photos from the middle east and expose the smears against Israel and such….
This quote, without a source, is the opposite of that. I want to give you all the benefit of the doubt here but really I am sad as I come here because of that trust in you guys.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 13, 2008 at 10:55 AM
lmao. What kind of context could the claim of doing more for gay rights than Ted Kennedy ever be acceptable to anyone other than a gay
rightsactivist? Your spin on the second part that I did not quote made me dizzy for a sec.scotth on January 13, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Ah, yes. I was ignoring! You are perceptive – I cut out TK part so it would go down the memory hole never to be seen again. Or alternatively, I quoted the one line I was disagreeing with.
I very rarely quote a whole post for the sake of space and ease of reading. But good job, Detective! I see I won’t be able to slip anything by you! Yes, I added the OR part of the statement just to expand the criticism to where it normally goes, ie RINO. [You will note of course you didn't answer my comment either so I'm looking forward to seeing you say scotth likes to ignore things.]
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM
People’s positions can change over the course of 13 years. It’s a big deal to you. Good luck with defending your guy on his/her changes over the last 13 years.
What is a big deal to me is how a candidate governed and his behavior in his personal life. In that sense, there isn’t a candidate running that can hold a candle to Mitt in that context.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Context clarifies. If sound bites and gotcha moments are acceptable, it will leave us with a dumbed-down, mass-appealing populist.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:02 AM
WastelandMan, who knows? Maybe HA didn’t know and just got it from RedState. They reference ABC radio in their story. And I can’t post a CNN Political Ticker link even if it is a non-Romney story. Kind of sad though to have to trust but verify.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:06 AM
And what is wrong with gay rights? Do you think they should be discriminated against at work? In politics? In civil rights? In housing?
Mitt’s point, and if you’d bother to understand the difference between conservatives and dems, was that the dems talk the talk to the blacks, gays, women etc, but they rarely help them at all. Mitt would have been stronger for gay rights because he is a conservative and conservatives know how to help people help themselves. It’s a belief of personal empowerment not empowerment by the government.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I didn’t ignore it .. I addressed it directly. I never said he was a closet liberal. I don’t use the word RINO. I think it’s silly. I just don’t like the man. I don’t trust him. I don’t think what he says is actually what he believes.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:10 AM
I am glad they at least let me post my grievances here even if we cant give the whole quote. the problem is the Quote out of context is still on the front page and no updates,so those who don’t pay attention won’t know the whole story…
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on January 13, 2008 at 11:12 AM
You mean like forcing the people of Massachusetts to buy heath care by sending them a friendly fine if they don’t? Is that the kind of “empowerment” to which you are refereeing?
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:13 AM
AP doesn’t make these kind of mistakes. I think he knew.
And what is the result? The same people who go bat$hit crazy over the littlest event in Fred’s life, have gone bat$hit crazy over a comment with no context concerning Mitt. But they would certainly research any accusation about Fred.
SECOND LOOK AT AP FOR GOD OF PUNDITS!!!
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:14 AM
If you say “He’ll say anything to get elected to whatever position he happens to be running for at the time”, I repeat why is he, and has he run as a Republican? It would be easier to win as a Democrat – if election were his top priority, he wouldn’t run as a R.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Changing some positions is fine. He’s changed about everything. You don’t know who my gay is. My guy is not running. I don’t particularly like any of them. I will vote in the primary. And I will vote for Thompson. But he has his flaws. They are are all fatally flawed, IMO. Romney is one of the most flawed. Coming in a strong third right behind the idiot Ron Paul, and the fake moron Huck
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Being a Republican does not preclude one from being a panderer.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
That should be guy. lol. I await the laughs. I can take it.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Indeed.
Spirit of 1776 on January 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:07 AM
I agree. Supporting all personal, individual rights should be the hallmark of any campaign. It doesn’t take a “gay” activist to understand that scotth. Kennedy and his ilk subjugate certain groups rights to other groups rights. The history of their party shows that. It also shows that their standards change over time. Their “plantation” mentality harms the groups they pander to. Romney has not engaged in that mentality, contrary to assertions.
The theme for today is context.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:25 AM
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:21 AM
More flawed than an Arkansas governor who cannot get to the details in his own platform? When called on anything by either Romney or Thompson, he goes to platitudes. Oh and did I forget to mention roads? Are we supposed to embrace Huckabee on faith alone? Please scott, give a little more thought to the generalization.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:29 AM
No. Like taking the money spent on nanny state emergency room health care and put it towards helping people get their own health care.
A move in the right direction after years of dem rule. But that doesn’t matter to those of you who would rather be against a guy that’s beating your guy than you would be FOR a system that puts people in charge of their own choices of doctors etc.
It took little steps to get where they were and Mitt is the only rep who has actually done anything to take little steps backing out of it.
csdeven on January 13, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Silly Cold Steel, context isn’t important, it’s all about soundbites!
That one was directed at you, Fredheads.
BKennedy on January 13, 2008 at 11:31 AM
No. I said he was third. Huck and Paul are the most flawed. Maybe I worded it weird.
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Thank you for clarifying BK. I thought this was an important debate. I’ll con the text a better next time.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 10:28 AM
Besides being the one relying upon cherry-picking revisions over record, yours is the “knee-jerk reactions to hide your animus.”
LOL at your own ignorance regarding right2bright’s consistent substantiation.
maverick muse on January 13, 2008 at 11:34 AM
scotth on January 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM
Well that sounds more solid Scott. Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, and McCain each have characteristics and platforms that will build within the country. The other two act like the “none of the above” candidates.
Cold Steel on January 13, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »