Video: Does Romney oppose Blunt’s amendment to overturn Obama’s new contraception rule? Update: “Of course I support the Blunt amendment”

posted at 6:00 pm on February 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

This would be the same amendment that’s co-sponsored by presumptive VP nominee Marco Rubio. Another damaging stumble the morning after a big primary victory? Sure sounds like it, says lefty Greg Sargent, citing an Ohio TV reporter:

I just got off the phone with [ONN-TV's Jim] Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if he’s for the “Blunt-Rubio” amendment, and defines it. Romney replies:

“I’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

That’s pretty remarkable. If Romney knew what he was saying, the Senate GOP caucus, which is set to vote on this amendment tomorrow, may feel as if Romney has pulled the rug out from underneath them. And this has become an important issue for conservatives. So it’ll be interesting to see how the base reacts to this, particularly since the GOP primary is anything but over and Rick Santorum — who’s perceived as a more reliable social conservative — is likely to use this to attack Romney, who will be under continued pressure to connect with social and religious conservatives.

Now here’s the video, via BuzzFeed. Watch how Heath “defined” it, then read on:

Blunt’s amendment, co-sponsored by Rubio, would allow employers to opt out of covering medical treatments to which they have a conscientious objection; Rubio’s own narrower amendment would limit the exemptions to sterilization and birth control for religious groups. Heath describes Blunt’s amendment as “allowing employers to ban providing female contraception,” which is kind of right but also confusing insofar as it omits relevant context about health insurance, the HHS mandate, etc. Looks to me like Romney blanked on what he was referring to, heard “ban … contraception” and panicked, and quickly dismissed it before moving on. You can hit him for not knowing the Blunt bill well enough to fill in the reporter’s gaps (although he has been awfully busy lately), but I don’t think he opposes it on the merits. In fact, as soon as Twitter started buzzing about this, his team issued a statement affirming his support. Even an outfit as socially conservative as Life News takes him at his word, instead slapping the reporter for trying to trip him up. Seriously, how likely is it that Mitt would throw Senate Republicans under the bus on this when even Democrats are crossing the aisle to vote for it?

Exit question: Purely hypothetically, could he have gotten away with opposing the Blunt bill if he had backed Rubio’s bill as an alternative? It’s arguably a better bill on the merits and boosting Rubio would have soothed conservative rage at him for disagreeing with Blunt. It would also distinguish him from Santorum as somewhat more socially moderate and yet it would confirm his opposition to Obama’s birth control mandate on religious liberty grounds. Second look at Romney opposing the Blunt amendment?

Update: People are noting on Twitter that the reporter also screwed up by referring to “Blunt-Rubio” when there really isn’t a Blunt-Rubio bill. Rubio has co-sponsored Blunt’s bill, but he’s pushing a separate bill of his own. Romney might have been confused about that too.

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

Update (Ed): Just spoke to a contact on the Romney campaign, who was present when this exchange occurred.  He stressed to me that framing it as a question about “banning” contraception made Romney think that the reporter was referencing something on the state level, not the Blunt amendment in the Senate — which doesn’t have anything to do with banning contraception.  When you do as many interviews as these candidates do a day, miscommunications occur.  At any rate, Romney has been consistent about scoffing at the idea that anyone seriously wants to ban contraception (recall the way he shut down George Stephanopoulos in the New Hampshire debate), and that his support for the Blunt amendment is not a “flip flop,” as some are alleging on Twitter, but his consistent position all along.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2 3 4

Yes!
No!
Stop me when you agree!

james23 on February 29, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Mittbot Damage Control! Mittbot Damage Control!

Nothing to see here, all is fine, trust me.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Willard Mitt “I said WHAT?” Romney. I sure hope Mitt finds a way to make this all about Obarfa because he’s gonna have some problems if he’s having to clarify statements like this all the time (I know it was a misunderstanding – but it still hurts Mitt).

fiatboomer on February 29, 2012 at 6:04 PM

According to Fox his staff has corrected his earlier statement. He was “confused” but he does support the Blunt bill…

d1carter on February 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Enough with the bleeping contraception, period (no pun.) Is this really the terrain we want to battle Obama on? Allah?

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Seriously, how likely is it that Mitt would throw Senate Republicans under the bus on this when even Democrats are crossing the aisle to vote for it?

For those of us who know Mitten’s RINO track record?

Very, very likely.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM

He was against it before he was for it before he even knew what it was.

He’s amazing. He’s plastic. He’s inevitable. Just give in. He promises he’ll still respect you in the morning.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM

Mitt just flip-flopped again….

idesign on February 29, 2012 at 6:06 PM

I saw Willard’s post-Michigan win speech last night. It was okay, kinda wooden, in a John Kerry-esque fashion, but good nonetheless. At least, the parts I caught before I fell asleep. I like his wife, I thought that they’d have brought Kid Rock out there to bring down some noise, but ah well.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM

Just a stumble, methinks.

squint on February 29, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Jim Heath is a left-wing hack… why would Team Romney allow himself to be interviewed by him?

ninjapirate on February 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Nothingburger.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Its his turn fellas, just get in line, pull the lever.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Mitt Romney? Is that you?

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Oh my. I’d have to drag out my Abnormal Psych book to really do justice to all the issues potentially at play here. Mitt, why do you sabotage yourself every time things start to go your way?

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

cue the anti-Mitt bots

tbrickert on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Palin is right.

KBird on February 29, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Keep trying the Contraception BS, So-Con side show crap – The ROMINATOR AIN’T GOING THERE !!!

Evah.

FlaMurph on February 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Well if something major doesn’t happen mitt is who we will get to vote against bho for with the way things are going? mitt can flip flop and do the bho floppers thing till the cows come home and mitt is who we get? I don’t think things will get better and bho, team, and all d’s are ‘licking their chops’ at this outcome?
L

letget on February 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Enough with the bleeping contraception, period (no pun.) Is this really the terrain we want to battle Obama on? Allah?
AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Yes. This and, of course, sodomy and Satan. The American voting populace are just screaming for a candidate whose campaign is obsessed with these things, doncha know.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:12 PM

I thought that Williard was waaay too smart to get stuck in the sticky stuff like this.

Is it possible that the media will attempt to go after Mittens the same way they’ve been after Santorum if Mittens should win the nomination?

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Thank whatever Mormons worship that we have a candidate who is so knowledgeable.

Bill C on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I’ve been thinking about how excited I get when I think about a Mitt Romney presidency….the best I can come up with is the same feeling I get when I have to clean the toilet. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t fun, but some things just have to be done.

ah well.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Obviously it was a poorly worded question. But that won’t stop people around here from faux outrage.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM

and they are ‘amendments’, not ‘bills’, if i’ve got this all right.

@obamuh on February 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I wish he’d just rock out some Kid Rock lyrics n’ shizzat….just do it Mitt, liven this thing up a notch above “mittwarm” or something.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Obviously it was a poorly worded question. But that won’t stop people around here from faux outrage.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Or self righteous indignation. Take your pick.

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 6:15 PM

ninjapirate on February 29, 2012 at 6:10 PM

um, maybe cause romney is a left wing hack also….

chasdal on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Hey, have they released those 19 Americans being held hostage in Egypt?

JPeterman on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Serious question. How about people here stop jumping on the faux outrage at Romney for a minute, and go after reporters that either ask poorly worded questions (out of carelessness) or gotcha questions? Why do we hold a candidate responsible for a poorly worded question and yet let the media off the hook?

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Santorum, Michael Moore, Daily Kos and David Axelrod are strange bedfellows.

crash72 on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Just the fact that we are arguing over who has the right to force me, or you, or your employer, or your insurance company to pay for someone else s contraception and abortion pills shows we have lost the argument.
Thanks George Bush You were No- conservative!
I should be responsible for my own healthcare and medicine not someone else s.
Accepting the premise that anyone should fund anyone else s drugs is major failure.
What has happened to my country where I can be forced to pay for stuff for others who don’t want to?
And we expect the supremes to throw this travesty out when by their actions congress is willing to tinker around the edges of freedom and individual responsibilty?

REPEAL OR REVOKE THE ENTIRE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRAVESTY!

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Hey, have they released those 19 Americans being held hostage in Egypt?
JPeterman on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

What the hostages need to do is put aspirins between their legs. Keep your focus on what’s really important.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Williard should have answered this question by talking about how much he loves midget auto racing.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM

I’ve been thinking about how excited I get when I think about a Mitt Romney presidency….the best I can come up with is the same feeling I get when I have to clean the toilet. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t fun, but some things just have to be done.

ah well.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I find that odd Ted. Hell, the man was treated like he was William F. Buckley reborn on steroids by Conservatives..for several years……..in 2008 gave the speech at CPAC as the conquering hero, Laura Ingraham introduced him to thundering applause…

same thing in 2009…give a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtJrw8tSohc&feature=related

One thing you’ll note in 2008 or 2009 is that Mitt Romney is EXACTLY the same person then that he is now. Same look, sound, words, exactly the same.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Santorum tied Romney in MI
Santorum won 53 counties Mittens 30
Santorum won 15 delegates
Romney won 15 Delegates
Heard that anywhere in the Lamestream, dumbed down, in the tank, Presstitute media?

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Looks to me like Romney blanked on what he was referring to, heard “ban … contraception” and panicked, and quickly dismissed it before moving on.

He heard the word Rubio I take it? If he did blank out, then it would have been responsible to admit or refrain and give a non-answer about conferring with Rubio on it.

Blunt-Rubio defined it. Mitt answered far too quickly for someone who’s confused or someone who’s uninformed. This is a hot topic and it’s hard to believe he’s uninformed.

A far more likely scenario is that he dodged the question by using the opportunity to give an answer to boost himself politically (and slam Santorum), knowing his campaign could come back and say his answer was incorrectly reported.

The responsible thing to do would have been to reframe it in terms of the 1st Amendment, and use the opportunity to slam the way Obama is obfuscating the issue.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

“Let me check the windsock outside and then I’ll give you my answer.”

-Mittens

Bishop on February 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Nothing to see folks…. move along.

Allah is upset that Romney will be the nominee the next POTUS. He spent last night curled up in a fetal position whimpering while clutching a charred sweater vest. Now he has to streeeeeeeetch and come up with pretend-gaffes from the next president.

Bor. ing.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Is there anyone still doubting that the general election campaign is on and that some republicans are playing the role of useful idiots?

joana on February 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Ed,allah,and Tina must be getting desperate.Their coming up with more and more spurious anti-romney topics.Allah you already disproved this before you put it on.

Whats the problem.

gerry-mittbot-fighting for truth;justice;and more pizza

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Heh

So much for the MEME, Mitt will govern as a conservative if he’s got a conservative Congress…..

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 6:24 PM

He’s going to do this in debates. Bank it. Not sure if supports Kasich (his people : “Oh yes you do!”) and negative on Blunt (his people again: “Oh no you’re not!)

Marcus on February 29, 2012 at 6:24 PM

The timing is the same as that after Florida when the real Mitt came through and made that comment about minimum wage.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

What the hostages need to do is put aspirins between their legs. Keep your focus on what’s really important.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Hmmm…..O.K., I’ll go back to the “Bristol Palin is a reality star” thread.

JPeterman on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

find that odd Ted. Hell, the man was treated like he was William F. Buckley reborn on steroids by Conservatives..for several years……..in 2008 gave the speech at CPAC as the conquering hero, Laura Ingraham introduced him to thundering applause…

same thing in 2009…give a look.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtJrw8tSohc&feature=related

One thing you’ll note in 2008 or 2009 is that Mitt Romney is EXACTLY the same person then that he is now. Same look, sound, words, exactly the same.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

It’s because the Tea Party changed our party for the worse. Now any popular republicans from 2008 are seen as RINO because they aren’t extreme enough. But apparently if you were a politican in the 90s, even if you have many big government beliefs and a voting record to back it, you are acceptable.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

One thing you’ll note in 2008 or 2009 is that Mitt Romney is EXACTLY the same person then that he is now. Same look, sound, words, exactly the same.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

What’s changed is that people have learned more about him.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Santorum tied Romney in MI
Santorum won 53 counties Mittens 30
Santorum won 15 delegates
Romney won 15 Delegates
Heard that anywhere in the Lamestream, dumbed down, in the tank, Presstitute media?

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I don’t know the answer. Sounds like you are in MI.

Are MI electoral votes awarded by counties?

crash72 on February 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM

It’s because the Tea Party changed our party for the worse.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

ROFL

Yeah, ok.

Bishop on February 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Santorum tied Romney in MI
ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

LOL, the desperate “I didn’t really lose, really I didn’t” spin is dissected here:
Santorum campaign claims Romney win in Michigan was really a draw

clip -
“In the annals of campaign spin, it will go down as a pretty good try. More than 12 hours after Rick Santorum telephoned Mitt Romney to offer what a senior Romney aide described as a “very gracious” concession in Michigan, Team Santorum tried to take it back.”

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

One thing you’ll note in 2008 or 2009 is that Mitt Romney is EXACTLY the same person then that he is now. Same look, sound, words, exactly the same.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

okay…..so what.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

Tempest. Teapot.

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Update: Mitt supports Blunts!

goin’ after the Paulnuts?

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

It’s because the Tea Party changed our party for the worse.

-cd98

There it is folks- establishment GOP sentiment in twenty words or less.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Heard that anywhere in the Lamestream, dumbed down, in the tank, Presstitute media?

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

What exactly is the “lamestream media”???

That sounds like a really stupid attempt to be clever….like something a real dumb media phony would come up with.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Santorum tied Romney in MI
Santorum won 53 counties Mittens 30
Santorum won 15 delegates
Romney won 15 Delegates
Heard that anywhere in the Lamestream, dumbed down, in the tank, Presstitute media?

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Funny. I though Romney also won Arizona yesterday. In other words, if we are claiming “winning” as getting delegates, then Romney steamrolled Santorum yesterday on the delegate count.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:16 PM

How about we just laugh our a$$es off instead at the entire spectacle and you take two seconds off from being a Mittens booster?

NotCoach on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM

hey concealed-this is all true because michigan gives delegates per congressional district.this was discussed yesterday.

However as I pointed out yesterday also the 3 caucuses/primary that santorum won 2 weeks ago were all beauty contest and awarded no actuak delegates. It looks like Romney/Paul will get most of those.

you guys are getting more and more desperate.

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

He wasn’t against before he was for it.

If he didn’t know what it was about, he should asked more about it until making a rash decision.

ConservativePartyNow on February 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

One thing you’ll note in 2008 or 2009 is that Mitt Romney is EXACTLY the same person then that he is now. Same look, sound, words, exactly the same.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:22 PM
What’s changed is that people have learned more about him.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Oh, I see. Like what? Romneycare? He did that in 2006. What else have you “learned about him” other than your favorite radio host has flipped on him and you do too? He’s the same “dorky” guy now he was then.

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Listen- if there’s a tear in your condom, Williard will fix it.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

There it is folks- establishment GOP sentiment in twenty words or less.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

And proud of it. The “conservative” purity test will be the death of our party. It’s one thing to advocate for reduced government, it’s another thing to turn up a witch hunt and subject every candidate to a purity test that every candidate will fail because it is extreme.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

Tempest. Teapot.

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Ha ha.

I suppose Mitt has never met Rubio so he thought Rubio might be from Ohio?

That is ludicrous in the extreme.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:31 PM

What the hostages need to do is put aspirins between their legs. Keep your focus on what’s really important.
whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Hmmm…..O.K., I’ll go back to the “Bristol Palin is a reality star” thread.
JPeterman on February 29, 2012 at 6:25 PM

That’s more like it! We gotta concentrate on the important issues Americans are worried about: Satan, Sex, The Pill and Reality TV!

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

The left through it’s attempt at the destruction of capitalism and its unconstitutional bills and tactics in passing them has moved the country so far left that a moderate milquetoast Repunk is no longer acceptable.
The playing field is so far left that stupid piddling bills like this will not move the pendulum back only repeal will.
We are becoming Greece and old Europe and our fate will be the same!

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Let me guess: this proves that ROMNEY IS TEH EVIL and SANTORUM TEH SAVIOR!

Esoteric on February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Bottom line is that this is about the 1st Amendment.

Only the Left refuses to admit it and Obama lies about it.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

I’ve been thinking about how excited I get when I think about a Mitt Romney presidency….the best I can come up with is the same feeling I get when I have to clean the toilet. It ain’t pretty, it ain’t fun, but some things just have to be done.

ah well.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Good analogy.

I often compared voting for John McCain as having a root canal. Not pleasant, but Palin was the big shot of novacaine that made it so much easier.

Voting for Romney is like passing the world largest kidney stone while undergoing a severe colonscopy using 1960s era East-Bloc medical equiqment. Not something I am willing to do, regardless of the pain meds involved.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

The reporter was deliberately trying to be deceptive.

HEATH: “He’s brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?”

Romney was obviously opposing a ban on contraception, not the Blunt bill. It sure would be great if a conservative sight would be more responsible. Is that asking too much?

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Did you miss my first sentence or do you not understand what MI means.

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

AYNBLAND on February 29, 2012 at 6:29 PM

I knew nothing about Mittens in ’08. But after three years of watching Mittens lead from behind, learning more about his actual record, and seeing the campaign he’s run for the nomination- I’m completely turned off to him.

There’s not a chance that Romney would ever lead the fight to repeal Obamacare. If you support him because you think he can win then fine- but don’t pretend that Repeal is an issue that’s important to you.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Guess I’m lucky I’m not a member of the party first, everything else second.

Bishop on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I think we can all agree Santorum won the same amount of delegates as Romney in MI due to the district rules. HOWEVER, can we also agree that more people in the state voted for Romney over Santorum and therefore he got the most votes? Let’s move forward. This is getting STUPID.

WyoMike on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

as soon as Twitter started buzzing about this, his team issued a statement affirming his support. Even an outfit as socially conservative as Life News takes him at his word, instead slapping the reporter for trying to trip him up.

What part of this did you guys miss??

In fact I do not even have to read ANY of Allah’s articles anymore on Romney knowing they ALL are slams against him. ALWAYS. You see Allah writes the article while knowing that the result is untrue as he gets the meme out there that you all just JUMPED on!

You all forget that ALL of these candidates are likely getting 4-5 hours of sleep and traveling constantly (as someone who travels a lot) it tires you over time. It is VERY EASY for candidates to misunderstand a reporters question ESPECIALLY as Allah even pointed out that they got it wrong! But again, the meme is out there by Allah that Romney is “blowing” it again after a big win.

TOTALLY FALSE!

Good nite!

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Hey, we’ve got to vote for Romney, ’cause… ummmm… ummmm… uhhhhhhh….

Because we need a severe conservative who likes firing people who don’t love lakes. We need a candidate who will provide contraceptives to only those trees which are the right height.

Stoic Patriot on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Fastest Romney flip flop to date!

takeamericabackin10 on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Thank whatever Mormons worship that we have a candidate who is so knowledgeable.

Bill C on February 29, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Behold, the root of the Romney hatred.

John the Libertarian on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Romney was obviously opposing a ban on contraception, not the Blunt bill. It sure would be great if a conservative sight would be more responsible. Is that asking too much?

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Please.

He heard the word Rubio I take it? If he did blank out, then it would have been responsible to admit or refrain and give a non-answer about conferring with Rubio on it.

Blunt-Rubio defined it. Mitt answered far too quickly for someone who’s confused or someone who’s uninformed. This is a hot topic and it’s hard to believe he’s uninformed.

A far more likely scenario is that he dodged the question by using the opportunity to give an answer to boost himself politically (and slam Santorum), knowing his campaign could come back and say his answer was incorrectly reported.

The responsible thing to do would have been to reframe it in terms of the 1st Amendment, and use the opportunity to slam the way Obama is obfuscating the issue.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM

Are MI electoral votes awarded by counties?

crash72 on February 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM

by congressional district

james23 on February 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM

In fact I do not even have to read ANY of Allah’s articles anymore on Romney knowing they ALL are slams against him. ALWAYS. You see Allah writes the article while knowing that the result is untrue as he gets the meme out there that you all just JUMPED on!

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

You’ve put your finger on the problem.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:37 PM

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Did you miss my first sentence or do you not understand what MI means.

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I got your question. I’m just saying that reporting MI as a tie because Romney and Santorum may have gotten the same number of delegates is silly. If the number of delegates is the goal, then the real story should be that Romney got all of the Arizona delegates, something that is mentioned in the media, but only in passing.

Romney winning the popular vote was the bigger story in MI.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

So will Sanctimonious say Iowa is a draw then? There was a margin of 32 votes separating the two and votes from 8 counties were missing, both William Jennings Sanctimonious and Romney got the same number of delegates.

galtani on February 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Now he (Allah) has to streeeeeeeetch and come up with pretend-gaffes from the next president.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:23 PM

Seriously!

Look at everyone jump onboard on this FALSE STORY…Allah even says it is but everyone swarming around the Mitt meat in the water that HE created.

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Like I said, does the name Rubio mean nothing to him? I thought they were BFF.

You’d think he would give a nice non-answer before throwing friend Rubio under the bus.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM

A far more likely scenario is that he dodged the question by using the opportunity to give an answer to boost himself politically (and slam Santorum), knowing his campaign could come back and say his answer was incorrectly reported.

The responsible thing to do would have been to reframe it in terms of the 1st Amendment, and use the opportunity to slam the way Obama is obfuscating the issue.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM

That’s complete crap. This was a gotcha moment and you’re conveniently latching onto it because you don’t want Romney. That’s your choice, of course. But don’t pretend that it’s anything more than that.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Who is the Republican stooge above blaming the Tea Party for Willard’s gaffe du jour? The Party under Willard is bat shite crazy

james23 on February 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Fastest Romney flip flop to date!

takeamericabackin10 on February 29, 2012 at 6:35 PM

You might be right. I know Romney had several other less-than-24 hour flip flops in the psat year. Like the one on the OH Labor Issue. But this one was what, just a few hours?

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Update: Via BuzzFeed, Romney tells Howie Carr he misunderstood the question and thought the reporter was asking about some Ohio state law. I guess he really did blank on “Blunt-Rubio.”

So, Romney went along with the question when he didn’t have a clue and gave an idiotic answer? And this is acceptable? I don’t think so. And you better believe that if this were Palin, Perry, Bachmann, Bush 43, or Santorum there would be endless snickerings and justified “told ya so.” But it’s the electable, presumptive nominee Romney who he gets *another* pass.

conservative pilgrim on February 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Like I said, does the name Rubio mean nothing to him? I thought they were BFF.

You’d think he would give a nice non-answer before throwing friend Rubio under the bus.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM

He didn’t throw Rubion under the bus and he didn’t say he opposed the Blunt bill. He was responding to the idea of “banning contraception,” which is how the question was put to him.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

So, Romney gave an opinion on something he didn’t understand?

Sounds dangerous.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

So, Romney went along with the question when he didn’t have a clue and gave an idiotic answer? And this is acceptable? I don’t think so. And you better believe that if this were Palin, Perry, Bachmann, Bush 43, or Santorum there would be endless snickerings and justified “told ya so.” But it’s the electable, presumptive nominee Romney who he gets *another* pass.

conservative pilgrim on February 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

No, they’d be hollering about a gotcha question and they’d be right.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:39 PM

So tell me what you think.

Was he uninformed?

Is he comfortable giving an answer to something when he doesn’t know what the question is.

Was he confused?

Why didn’t he ask for clarity or say he hadn’t had time to read it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

So, Romney gave an opinion on something he didn’t understand?

Sounds dangerous.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Something not understood. For Sarah Palin that would be pretty much everything from A – Z in the world.

HA HA HA HA

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM

So, Romney gave an opinion on something he didn’t understand?

Sounds dangerous.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

A question that was misleading.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Just spoke to a contact on the Romney campaign, who was present when this exchange occurred. He stressed to me that framing it as a question about “banning” contraception made Romney think that the reporter was referencing something on the state level, not the Blunt amendment in the Senate — which doesn’t have anything to do with banning contraception. When you do as many interviews as these candidates do a day, miscommunications occur.

I love it how HA does CYA for Romney. Looks like the idiot once again laid out his liberal talking points and seeing the base’s anger, he quickly did a flip-flop.

promachus on February 29, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Don’t light your hair on fire, guys!

It takes time to ask 30 different RINO consultants what the most watered-down, least offensive answer should be.

mudskipper on February 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Transcript from Daily Caller. My emphasis.

HEATH: “He’s brought contraception into this campaign. The issue of birth control, contraception, Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood in a second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?”

ROMNEY: “I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.”

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:45 PM

The Party under Willard is bat shite crazy

james23 on February 29, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Disappointed in the GOP under the leadership of Boehner/McConnel? Romney would be a one-term disaster. The Republican Party would implode and the Tea Party would be third party. NTTAWWT.

Don’t worry about any of this happening- there’s not a chance in hell of Romney beating Obama. He’s McCain Deux.

sartana on February 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM

“Just tell me the answer you want to hear!”

-Willard

DBear on February 29, 2012 at 6:46 PM

So tell me what you think.

Was he uninformed?

Is he comfortable giving an answer to something when he doesn’t know what the question is.

Was he confused?

Why didn’t he ask for clarity or say he hadn’t had time to read it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:42 PM

You’re confused or biased. There’s a difference between bobbling a misleading question and the false accusation of opposing a bill when he really doesn’t and never actually said he did. I know that the anti-Romney paranoids are chapped because Romney won both primaries but don’t make it worse for yourselves by deliberately distorting what happened.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4