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

A question that was misleading.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM

It wasn’t that misleading. You think the Media is going to throw him direct questions all the time?

Romney could have corrected Heath or asked for details or gotten back to his BFF Rubio.

Instead he shot back his answer quite rapidly.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Just heard Krauthammer say Democratic mischief makers inflated Santorums numbers last night by 3-5%!!! LOL pathetic Rick

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

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

And throw in a word or two about personal responsibility for good measure…

Problem is, Romney really doesn’t get it.. and that is my problem with Mittens.

kringeesmom on February 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM

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

Sounds dangerous.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:41 PM

There are three possibilities:

A. Romney is a RINO, willing to throw conservatives under the bus.
B. Romney is an extremely weak candidate giving ill-advised answers to questions he doesn’t understand or care to investigate.
C. Both

I vote C.

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM

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

Well, there would be and there have been snickerinsg if Palin as much had asked the questioner to clarify his question? Remember the hoopla about Bush Doctrine? I remember Allah Pundit lecturing smugly Palin that she should have known all reported versions of the Bush Doctrine. Filthy hypocrite.

promachus on February 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM

It is funny NO ONE is bringing up the HUGE spanking Santorum took in AZ last nite!

Let’s look at AZ counties there, huh? THE ENTIRE FREAKIN’ STATE went for Romney! Beat him by over 100,000 votes!

This is going to be over real quick…Santorum and Gingrich are going to show real quick they have NO organization across the country.

Again, as posted earlier, Why are we backing candidates that CANNOT even qualify nationwide and pick and choose what States to compete in? When they face Obama are they going to say, “uh, I am just going to concede these states to you because I can’t compete”

Romney IS THE ONLY candidate to compete in EVERY state. We call this a clue!

Sorry if I sound more irate than normal posts I am just ticked at the BLATANT misdirection and FALSE claims by Allah, Rush, Ed, Mark, Etc….where the MAJORITY of VOTERS are sticking it to THE ESTABLISHMENT CONSERVATIVE MEDIA showing we are conservatives AND we are voting for Romney!

Sorry, if I do not respond I am going to bed…its late over here (AFG)

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM

As the author and advocate of Romneycare, I believe his first answer.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Whaah, but, but, santorum won 15 delegates, Whaah. Romney is the nominee get over it. And I hope Newt does well on super Tuesday and Senss santorum packing.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 6:49 PM

Is that asking too much?

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Apparently, yes. And look how the anti-Romneys are lapping it up. Sad.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

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

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

I accept that Mittens got all in AZ, to say that popular totals are a bigger story in MI than delegates awarded is silly when the nomination is awarded on delegates but hey let me ask Al Gore about that!

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

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

So why did he quickly say I’m not for it?

Is that the new way to say I’m neutral? Or to vote Present?

If it is, how can he be neutral on a 1st Amendment question?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

A question that was misleading.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:43 PM

Actually, Romney had no clue what the “Blunt-Rubio” bill was, yet gave an opinion.

Probably wasn’t a wise thing to do, by someone who we are all told is so brilliant and well reasoned.

But go ahead and spin it.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

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

There’s no evidence to indicate that he opposes the bill other than this obvious flub. It’s a lie to claim that Romney opposes the Blunt bill. The context of the questioning and answering doesn’t indicate it.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 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

You can call it stupid all you want. Total # of delegates is what gets you the nomination…not the # of votes. Hate it or love it, it’s the bottom line.

Besides…it’s his home state dude! and it was Santorumious!! give me a break.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Just heard Krauthammer say Democratic mischief makers inflated Santorums numbers last night by 3-5%!!! LOL pathetic Rick

Hmmmm. I just read that Romney and Santorum both are receiving the same amount of delegates from Michigan. Hope it was worth all the money Romney spent.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I think the question is: EXACTLY WHAT LOCAL BLUNT-RUBIO BILL DID ROMNEY THINK HE WAS BEING ASKED ABOUT?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

hey concealed,Santorum is still not going to get delegates from those three beauty pageants

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Actually, Romney had no clue what the “Blunt-Rubio” bill was, yet gave an opinion.

Probably wasn’t a wise thing to do, by someone who we are all told is so brilliant and well reasoned.

But go ahead and spin it.

portlandon on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

He didn’t give an “opinion” on the bill. He gave an opinion on the idea of banning contraception.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

See what I just said about being neutral.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

I have said it before and I’ll repeat it again here:

I will not vote for Mitt Romney at any time this year.

That being said, the way the question was phrased, I would reject that sort of bill myself. I am not going to ding Romney over this one. At all.

John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

So if Mitt lost by one vote in Michigan, would you make the case the delegate tie was the bigger story. You’re right by the way delegates do matter. And Mitt has twice the delagtes and twice the votes that Rick does nationwide.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

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

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

Romney would disagree with you as he stated in his speech last night “It’s all about the delegates, folks.”

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Hmmmm. I just read that Romney and Santorum both are receiving the same amount of delegates from Michigan. Hope it was worth all the money Romney spent.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Romney spent $500,000 per delegate won in MI, his home state
Santorum spent $75,000 per delegate won in MI

Norwegian on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

So I guess Iowa was a tie as well as only what 32-28 VOTES separated that…?

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I think the question is: EXACTLY WHAT LOCAL BLUNT-RUBIO BILL DID ROMNEY THINK HE WAS BEING ASKED ABOUT?

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on February 29, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I guess he must have forgotten Rubio was from Floria.//

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Hmmmm. I just read that Romney and Santorum both are receiving the same amount of delegates from Michigan. Hope it was worth all the money Romney spent.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

nope, the latest is that Romney is getting 14, Santorum 12…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Oops…meant to say “32-38 Votes”…see told you it is late and I am headed to bed!

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

So why did he quickly say I’m not for it?

Is that the new way to say I’m neutral? Or to vote Present?

If it is, how can he be neutral on a 1st Amendment question?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Obviously he was responding to the idea of banning contraception, which, technically, wasn’t the question he was asked. But the question as put to him was misleading. I’m not saying that it was a great moment but that wasn’t the point of Allah’s piece to begin with. The accusation is that Romney opposes the Blunt bill, which is absolutely false.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Hmmmm. I just read that Romney and Santorum both are receiving the same amount of delegates from Michigan. Hope it was worth all the money Romney spent.

Now if Romney lost by one percent and got 1/2 the delegates what would you say.

LOL

gerry=mittbot-moderate-bringing enlightenment to the masses

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

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

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 6:38 PM

and hims winning more votes that in 2008…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Vote for Willard
He supports Blunts

slogan.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 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

And if you will note, no one wanted him back then either. He is the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. He IS exactly the same.

Night Owl on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

him…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Hmmmm. I just read that Romney and Santorum both are receiving the same amount of delegates from Michigan. Hope it was worth all the money Romney spent.

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:51 PM

It wasnt his money, stupid. People are happy to donate to him because he will be the next president.

BTW, did you hear about the delegates he won in Arizona??? Winner take all and he doubled the popular vote of that sweater vest clown.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

That’s not what he was asked.

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.”

Romney himself obfuscated the issue when he was asked about employers. He went into the relationship between a man and wife.

Or was he that confused when Heath caught himself and reworded the question to employers?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I have said it before and I’ll repeat it again here:

I will not vote for Mitt Romney at any time this year.

That being said, the way the question was phrased, I would reject that sort of bill myself. I am not going to ding Romney over this one. At all.

John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Why not solve the problem once and for all by proposing that OBAMACARE BE REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY? This is not that difficult folks . . . if Romney would go all-out on that I would think about possibly changin my opnion about him (still probably won’t vote for him but I might just stop bad-mouthing him and just be silent regarding his unsuitability as a Republican candidate for office (any office, but particulary the office of the President of the United States)).

Pragmatic on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

can’t wait to hear the spinning from the the ABR’s over the next several days as RS and Gingrich’s number’s drop from these latest results in MI and AZ…say it is ALL about delegates (and you are right) but what the public perception is that Romney WON BOTH MI and AZ heading into Super Tuesday…people will begin to decide that Romney is the best candidate and let’s get this nomination process over with. I’ll guarantee that!

nite!

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

No one wants him? He is winning.

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Romney would disagree with you as he stated in his speech last night “It’s all about the delegates, folks.”

lea on February 29, 2012 at 6:54 PM

So your claim is that Santorum had no interest in winning the Michigan primary because…why, exactly? It’s about getting the most votes and the most delegates, both of which Romney accomplished last night. Ricky put on his kneepads and kneeled before Big Labor and Daily Kos Dim-o-crats in order to get their votes…and still lost.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Vote for Willard
Its His Turn

Look fellas, the only way I’m gonna be able to support Romney is if I have copious copious amounts of comedy gold–either self inflicted, or delivered via Allah snark, take yo’ pick.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:00 PM

O/T: Allah, why haven’t you Tweeted in nearly a month? Am I missing something?

Notorious GOP on February 29, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Why not solve the problem once and for all by proposing that OBAMACARE BE REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY? This is not that difficult folks . . . if Romney would go all-out on that I would think about possibly changin my opnion about him (still probably won’t vote for him but I might just stop bad-mouthing him and just be silent regarding his unsuitability as a Republican candidate for office (any office, but particulary the office of the President of the United States)).

only if we have 60 votes in the senate-notice i did not say 60 republicans but the closer we can get to 60 the more likely it will happen

gerrym51 on February 29, 2012 at 7:01 PM

speaking of Comedy Gold and Palate Cleansers….AllahP, its time…

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:02 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

I am NOT an Santorum supporter, by the way.
I happen to think out of the three stooges and crazy uncle only Newt has the brains, the balls, and the goods on the asses in DC to force real change.
At least Newt knows how things work and where the skeletons are hidden, whose palyin with the Escorts and whose chasin little boys, and a phone call from president Newt to >itch McConnell or Bawlin Boehner might move a bill where they will laugh at the others.

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

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?”

This steaming pile of a question is a big part of the problem. Romney didn’t answer it very well. But, again, he’s not being falsely accused of answering badly. He’s being falsely accused of opposing the Blunt bill. That’s the issue.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Why not solve the problem once and for all by proposing that OBAMACARE BE REPEALED IN ITS ENTIRETY?

Pragmatic on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I’m all for repealing it in its entirety, if SCOTUS doesn’t do it, first. Oh, and it is entirely possible if SCOTUS does indeed do it, that RomneyCare will get scrapped as well by the SCOTUS ruling. ‘Twould make me a happy camper.

John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

did allah’s twitterer go twits up?

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

did allah’s twitterer go twits up?

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:03 PM

I think he’s giving it up for Lent. :-S

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

That being said, the way the question was phrased, I would reject that sort of bill myself. I am not going to ding Romney over this one. At all.
John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Yup. It was a not-so-good attempt at answering a bumbling, incoherent question. Most politicians would do well to learn to ask: “Huh? Say what again?” when these things happen.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Sweater Vest played the role of Daily Kos’ useful idiot last night…and he still failed.

His attempt to help attractive enough party busters who voted for Sweater Vest even though they despise him but only want to try to hurt the electable Romney will be seen as the low point and the end to Sweater Vest.

What a creepy punk. What a snob….wait no, that Obama for wanting young people to go to college…sorry.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Look fellas, the only way I’m gonna be able to support Romney is if I have copious copious amounts of comedy gold–either self inflicted, or delivered via Allah snark, take yo’ pick.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:00 PM

There’s that beta male spirit.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

I think he’s giving it up for Lent. :-S

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

How much does Jeremy Lin pay a month for that?/

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

It wasn’t that misleading. You think the Media is going to throw him direct questions all the time?

Romney could have corrected Heath or asked for details or gotten back to his BFF Rubio.

Instead he shot back his answer quite rapidly.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM

Romney himself obfuscated the issue when he was asked about employers. He went into the relationship between a man and wife.

Or was he that confused when Heath caught himself and reworded the question to employers?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

The dude was obviously trying to avoid being “Santorumized.” I believe him ON THIS ONE POINT, if only because there’s actual bipartisan revulsion towards Obama’s stupidity here.

ebrown2 on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Byron York tweets:

I can accept Romney’s explanation that he was confused, but the question doesn’t seem that confusing, does it?

He said he wasn’t for it, BTW.

Is Blunt-Rubio something you can be neutral on?

I kind of thought you were either for the Bill of Rights or against the Bill of Rights.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 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

It’s extreme to ask candidates for public office to uphold the Constitution, as it is written and sticking to only the roles that the government is therein granted, like it says in their oath of office, rather than spending their terms looking for every loophole to pay off the people that put them in office by increaseing the size, scope, and expense of government??

How “extreme” of us…

Darn those pesk oaths of office!!

gravityman on February 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

How much does Jeremy Lin pay a month for that?/

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

Ruh-roh. I have a feeling you’re going to lose that ESPN gig when this is all over…

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I have said it before and I’ll repeat it again here:

I will not vote for Mitt Romney at any time this year.

That being said, the way the question was phrased, I would reject that sort of bill myself. I am not going to ding Romney over this one. At all.

John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Obama is proud of you, comrade!

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

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.

Thank you, Ed.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Ruh-roh. I have a feeling you’re going to lose that ESPN gig when this is all over…

cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Its okay, Calgon will take me away.

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

ebrown2 on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

No, IMO he was using it for political opportunism for himself.

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.

But no, why miss an opportunity to use it to slam Rick?

(Who, BTW, I did not vote for).

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

11 contests (5 Primaries) so far:

Santorum:
0 Primary Wins!

Romney:
4 Primary Wins

yeah, RS is our candidate to beat Obama! /

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Yes its all about the delegates- Who has the majority of delegates so far?

WyoMike on February 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Thank you, Ed.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Nice spin from the campaign.

Watch the video. Read the transcript.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM

He said he wasn’t for it, BTW.

Is Blunt-Rubio something you can be neutral on?

I kind of thought you were either for the Bill of Rights or against the Bill of Rights.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

He’s been very clear about his position. He does not oppose it. If you want to talk about a flubbed answer that’s one thing. But it’s an absolute lie to say that he opposes the bill.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I accept that Mittens got all in AZ, to say that popular totals are a bigger story in MI than delegates awarded is silly when the nomination is awarded on delegates but hey let me ask Al Gore about that!

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Actually, that goes back to my point. If the story is about delegates, then then the discussion should be about Romney’s combined haul (AZ and MI), not just MI. That sounds more like Santorum trying to spin a loss into a tie.

Again, I get what Santorum is trying to do (and other anti-Romneys), but it rings hollow. Santorum lost last night, regardless of the number of delegates he picked up in a proportional-delegate state. Not just in the popular vote, but the fallout in the robocallgate.

Another question for all those that cite the “tie.” Would you consider it to have been a tie if Mitt lost the popular vote and got the same number of delegates? I wouldn’t have. And I’m sure you wouldn’t either. If Romney had lost, the narrative is that he lost his home state. But now that he won, the narrative should be that Rick Santorum had a sizable lead a week before the election and he choked it away.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 7:11 PM

It wasnt his money, stupid. People are happy to donate to him because he will be the next president.
BTW, did you hear about the delegates he won in Arizona??? Winner take all and he doubled the popular vote of that sweater vest clown.
Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Imbeciles like you send him money. Will you demand a refund when he loses 40 states to Obama?

angryed on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Nice spin from the campaign.

Watch the video. Read the transcript.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Not spin, simply clarification. And since his position has been clarified there doesn’t seem to be a valid reason to keep harping on it…except that you are suffering from anti-Romney paranoia. You’re not alone in suffering that particular malady, sadly, but that’s what is affecting you in this discussion. The good news is that anti-Romney paranoia is treatable. It just takes a dose of common sense.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Imbeciles like you send him money. Will you demand a refund when he loses 40 states to Obama?

angryed on February 29, 2012 at 7:12 PM

How are things these days in the OWS Newtist colony?

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Which position is he being clear on?

Saying you’re not for it something, it’s really a stretch to say that means you’re not against it.

If neutral, most people would say I’m neither for or against it.

But keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

What a creepy punk. What a snob….wait no, that Obama for wanting young people to go to college…sorry.

Jailbreak on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

curious if he is that opposed to his own kids going to college… hypocrite…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Obama is proud of you, comrade!

1984 in real life on February 29, 2012 at 7:07 PM

I’ve read enough of your comments to know I don’t respect your opinions, but it’s a free country (so far). Just so you know, I’m not falling for your false dichotomy rhetoric fallacy.

John Hitchcock on February 29, 2012 at 7:15 PM

“yes… errr… no… errr… I’m sorry, I didn’t study for this question. What is the right answer, please?”

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul, huh? This is the best the GOP can do this cycle? Wow. We are seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

gravityman on February 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

It’s extreme to ask candidates for public office to uphold the Constitution, as it is written and sticking to only the roles that the government is therein granted, like it says in their oath of office, rather than spending their terms looking for every loophole to pay off the people that put them in office by increaseing the size, scope, and expense of government??

How “extreme” of us…

Darn those pesk oaths of office!!

gravityman on February 29, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I disagree. For instance, the tea party-type folks here are anti-Romney and he has never done anything that violated the U.S. Constitution. And often they support Rick Santorum, someone who has contributed to the growth of the federal government. So they are inconsistent.

But the bigger problem I have is that I’ve been a life-long Republican that has voted straight ticket, and yet I’d probably be a RINO on this website and be told to leave the party. That is the problem with the tea party extremism and it’s a ticket to empower the democrat party for a long, long time.

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Who knows?

If this primary goes on long enough, Romney might have to learn how to be a conservative.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Funny that santorum supporters won’t respond the fact that Mitt has twice the delegates and twice popular vote. They just want to point out that Micheal Moore and santorums robo call wanted santorum an extra 3-5 points last night. How did Arizona work out? Where’s that first primary win Rick?

That robo call said Mitt opposed the bailout don’t vote for him. Do you really think it was aimed at Reagan Democrats?

Rusty Allen on February 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Romney is such a coward and panderer, as soon as he heard the word “contraception” he went balistic in his small liberal mind and ran from the question as fast as he could. That’s the bottom line. He will not take on anything the lest bit controversial or deemed as a conservative issue. He’s about as bad a candidate as we could get. If anyone thinks this silver spoon in the mouth elitist flip flopper is going to get the base fired up to vote for him, you are crazy. It will never in hell happen.

they lie on February 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Which position is he being clear on?

Saying you’re not for it something, it’s really a stretch to say that means you’re not against it.

If neutral, most people would say I’m neither for or against it.

But keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

He has clarified his position on the Blunt bill. He supports it. He has also been very clear about his opposition to the idea of a general ban of contraception. It’s not hard to see this, unless you’re afflicted with a bias-causing malady like anti-Romney paranoia.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Vote For Willard
Just Because.

still tryin….

ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

“Romney officials say their man won “handily among Republicans by a 48 -37 margin,” also pointing out that Santorum won among those who strongly oppose the Tea Party.http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/02/29/santorum-says-he-won-michigan-1

Keep it classy Ricky!

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Which position is he being clear on?

Saying you’re not for it something, it’s really a stretch to say that means you’re not against it.

If neutral, most people would say I’m neither for or against it.

But keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:14 PM

…even Ed added an update to this post and concluded: ‘When you do as many interviews as these candidates do a day, miscommunications occur’…so there, that should put the issue at rest for you…I mean you’d think…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

cd98 on February 29, 2012 at 7:16 PM

How is this not a violation of the Constitution? This is a religious liberty issue, i.e., 1st Amendment.

Romney said one thing on Wednesday and changed his mind on Thursday.

December 2005:

Facing opposition from women, the Democratic Party and even his own running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans Thursday to exempt religious and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.

The governor had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his Department of Public Health, which said the new law conflicted with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.

The interpretation would have allowed hospitals operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, to forego compliance with the new regulation. Opponents accused Romney, a Republican considering running for president in 2008, of trying to assuage social conservatives.

Despite defending the Health Department regulations as late as Wednesday, Romney kicked off a news conference Thursday by declaring a fresh analysis by his legal counsel concluded the new law superseded the old law, and that all hospitals must be required to offer the so-called “morning after pill.”

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Update: “Of course I support the Blunt amendment”

Did anyone clock that? What’s the turn around time? I bet that’s one of his personal best times. I have to see if I can find a neck brace this one caused whip lash……Mitt please tell the focus group, we got personal injury to worry about out here LOL!

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Those that keep complaining about THIS Article need to read further up the chain and see Ed’s Updated correction.

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

If anyone thinks this silver spoon in the mouth elitist flip flopper is going to get the base fired up to vote for him, you are crazy. It will never in hell happen.

they lie on February 29, 2012 at 7:17 PM

Another useful idiot for ObaMao.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Good thing they haven’t asked him about going to all 57 states, he might not know the answer to that either. I can accept that he’s been a businessman for most of his career and not as adept a politician as the rest of the field, but come on! What say you, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump? hmmmm

Kissmygrits on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Did anyone clock that? What’s the turn around time? I bet that’s one of his personal best times. I have to see if I can find a neck brace this one caused whip lash……Mitt please tell the focus group, we got personal injury to worry about out here LOL!

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

It’s not a flip flop, except in your mind.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Ed is trying to be nice.

But spin is spin.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Those that keep complaining about THIS Article need to read further up the chain and see Ed’s Updated correction.

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

I’ve seen it.

I’ve also seen the transcript and video.

Keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:22 PM

I think he’s giving it up for Lent. :-S
cynccook on February 29, 2012 at 7:04 PM

How much does Jeremy Lin pay a month for that?/
ted c on February 29, 2012 at 7:05 PM

For that you’ll be sorry long time!

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Another useful idiot for ObaMao Obama lite..

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM

FIFY

they lie on February 29, 2012 at 7:24 PM

It’s not a flip flop, except in your mind.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

I know Mittwitt,…that’s why they call him flipper, flipper…

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 7:25 PM

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.”

Romney himself obfuscated the issue when he was asked about employers. He went into the relationship between a man and wife.

Or was he that confused when Heath caught himself and reworded the question to employers?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Damn I was really hoping that the question was misleading, but that seems like a pretty straightforward question..

And this BS that this issue is about contraception is just that -BS. It is about 1st amendment protections-something even Mittbots should be concerned about.

melle1228 on February 29, 2012 at 7:26 PM

It’s not a flip flop, except in your mind.
cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:21 PM

The Flip-Flop Of The Week Award probably should go to Santorum, reading JFK doesn’t want to make him throw up anymore – now it’s “I mis-barfed. Hey, he’s got great ideas!”.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Romney said one thing on Wednesday and changed his mind on Thursday.

December 2005:

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM

It didn’t take you long to retreat seven years. The 2005 issue illustrates the problem of being a Republican governor in a Dim-o-crat state. At least he didn’t quit in the middle of his term.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM

11 contests (5 Primaries) so far:

Santorum:
0 Primary Wins!

Romney:
4 Primary Wins

yeah, RS is our candidate to beat Obama! /

g2825m on February 29, 2012 at 7:08 PM

The point is Mittens only wins by ripping his fellow Repunks to shreds, at the last minute, in each primary state, with massive millions in ad buys and distortions if not outright falsehoods!

Mitt Romney is spending millions in Establishment backers moneys to tear apart more conservative candidates and indicates he will not do the same to Obama!
At least McCain waited until after he won the nomination to surrender.
Romney says he will do so while savaging the conservative base before he locks down the nomination.
Never apologize for Romneycare, Mr Wall Street Fat Cat, one per center is being perfectly set up to take the fall when Obama unleashes his union thugs, Occutards, don’t wanna workers, and pants around their ankles professional baby makers.
Romney is being set up to be the perfect candidate the 52% non payers will turn out to defeat even while he is pissing off half the 48 % in the process!
Be ready to work and fork over, over half your checks to the punks down the street to buy the free stuff they don’t have cause food, money, clothes, medical care, prescription drugs, cell phones, housing and if they want it an education you are already providing at the expense of your own families!

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Even Brit Hume who is in the tank for Romney tweets this:

Brit Hume ‏

http://twitter.com/#!/Kimsfirst/status/175011362509037568

@ByronYork I thought Romney skipped past the question, to seize a chance to stick it to Santorum on contraception. Not a considered answer.

Like I said. Political opportunism.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

I know Mittwitt,…that’s why they call him flipper, flipper…

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Clearly you put a lot of thought into that answer. Now sing the theme from Gilligan’s Island, little buddy.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM

The point is Mittens only wins by ripping his fellow Repunks to shreds, at the last minute, in each primary state, with massive millions in ad buys and distortions if not outright falsehoods!

Yeah he is completely okay with destroying fellow Republicans, but doesn’t want to give the “base red meat” on Obama. His campaign reminds me so much of McCain; it makes me ill.

melle1228 on February 29, 2012 at 7:29 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4