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

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

Don’t be so rough on yourself!

KOOLAID2 on February 29, 2012 at 7:29 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

:-) well, judging by how eager and enthusiastic he was to get the Dems vote, one would think that he’s not that nauseated anymore with the left and their beloved icon, and he doesn’t want to throw up as a result :-)…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 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

Oh, so now it’s Palin’s fault!!

No, Romney just played both sides trying to figure out which would hurt and help him politically.

Keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Like I said. Political opportunism.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

You mean like a “true conservative” candidate crawling on hands and knees to Big Labor and Daily Kos Dim-o-crats for votes in a GOP primary? And still lost…

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

In case you missed it:

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 7:31 PM

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Are you defending Romney by attacking Santorum?

I haven’t defended Santorum on that.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You mean like a “true conservative” candidate crawling on hands and knees to Big Labor and Daily Kos Dim-o-crats for votes in a GOP primary? And still lost…

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

ouch :-)

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Oh, so now it’s Palin’s fault!!

No, Romney just played both sides trying to figure out which would hurt and help him politically.

Keep spinning.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I never said it was “Palin’s fault.” In fact, I never even referred to her by name. But we all know how she handled things when it got tough for her in Alaska, so of course you knew who I was talking about. Nope, not “blaming” Palin for anything…just mentioning how another governor handled difficulties while in office.

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Like I said. Political opportunism.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Give it a rest already. He clearly misunderstood the question, which was phrased horribly…he’s admitted that and said he supports the amendment. Sheesh.

changer1701 on February 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Are you defending Romney by attacking Santorum?

I haven’t defended Santorum on that.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You quoted someone who accused Romney of “political opportunism.” So I simply gave you an actual example of “political opportunism.” When it comes to Santorum, if the shoe fits…

cicerone on February 29, 2012 at 7:36 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. 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?

All of that, likely the most accurate.

Of course, giving Romney the benefit of the doubt. By his statement about “not going there” (not “getting involved between a man and a woman in a relationship about birth control”), likely Romney is expressing his denial of PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY in that intimate decision (which undermines Obama’s unbridled bombast and intrusion as to this issue and more).

I’m trying to keep focused on that Glass-Is-Half-Full perspective because I really, really, really want to send Obama home or anywhere else out of D.C. this January.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:37 PM

I haven’t defended Santorum on that.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:33 PM

no, you keep quiet on it while spinning into oblivion a non-issue that even Ed admitted it was a classic instance of miscommunication..it’s not like he said that he saw Russia from his porch :-)…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:37 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

(…don’t think he knows, what comes between the A and the Z.)

KOOLAID2 on February 29, 2012 at 7:38 PM

cicerone
jimver

Is the only way you can defend Romney is to bring other people into it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Like I said. Political opportunism.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:28 PM

Give it a rest already. He clearly misunderstood the question, which was phrased horribly…he’s admitted that and said he supports the amendment. Sheesh.

changer1701 on February 29, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Great response, changer1701.

And while I CONSIDERED initially the issue of “political opportunism,” I, too, think that it’s worth considering but it’s also worth discarding because Romney appears to have been blind-sided by this “question.”

The Left just works overtime to find any possible avenue in to corrupt Republicans’/Conservatives’ views on just about everything.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Is the only way you can defend Romney is to bring other people into it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM

there’s nothing to defend, put it to rest already, everybody has done so, included Ed. there…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Anyone wanna pass this Blunt Amendment around?

Apologetic California on February 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Even Brit Hume thought it was political opportunism:

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.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

cicerone
jimver

Is the only way you can defend Romney is to bring other people into it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I just stopped by to read one of my favorite sites (Hot Air) and so have not yet read earlier comments here (or other posts).

BUT I don’t think Romney needs a “defend” or that cicerone, especially, is engaged in that. More like explaining to some who are eager to keep the issue muddied.

IF you read the whole chain of events, all the comments including the last one from the Romney campaign, it’s clear what transpired and it’s not something that needs to be defended about Romney. He supports the Amendment.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:42 PM

He was against it before he was for it…

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

the only way you can defend Romney is to bring other people into it?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM
there’s nothing to defend, put it to rest already, everybody has done so, included Ed. there…jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Actually for me it is very telling. Romney answered on the fly. His first instinct is to bury his Republican opponent instead of using the moment to bury Obama about 1st amendment protections.

melle1228 on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 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.

O.K., then, resolved…

Another reason why Hot Air does this site thing so well. I appreciate the coverage on this issue, as others: your site coverage just states the negatives and then addresses them with the facts and I appreciate it.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

melle1228 on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

^This^

He could have done the entire country a favor, given it a brief sound bite civics lesson, schooled a reporter and it would have been great PR to help the Senate pass it.

But, no.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 7:45 PM

He was against it before he was for it…

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM

No, more like:

he misunderstood it before the issue was clarified, then he understood it was another issue than what he’d initially assumed it was.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

O.K., then, resolved…

Another reason why Hot Air does this site thing so well. I appreciate the coverage on this issue, as others: your site coverage just states the negatives and then addresses them with the facts and I appreciate it.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

and that’s what I meant when I said that even Ed has admitted it to be an instance of miscommunication…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Sorry if this was posted. I can’t read the whole thread right now. I scanned the..whatever ANyway,

I don’t get Rubio’s narrower amendment. Why further limit the exemptions? I could use some explaining.

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

In case you missed it:

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 7:31 PM

Do you realize that twitter is a function that captures real-perspectives-in-real-time?

That means (example):

– an object moves across your room in the dark corner,

and, you tweet:

– argh, a mouse just crawled across the room!

You get up, turn on the light, and see it was a shadow from a headlight outside passing your window.

So, you tweet:

– nahh, it was just a shadow but I thought it was a mouse at first until I took a closer look.

Twitter is just that: “chat” in real time about real-events AS THEY HAPPEN. Responses aren’t iron-clad to events that are unfolding and therefore, “fluid”.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:44 PM

and that’s what I meant when I said that even Ed has admitted it to be an instance of miscommunication…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Yes, I understand.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:52 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?

If he gets the nom. Then a huge door will open and a fleet of busses will roll.

katy the mean old lady on February 29, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Hows the height of the trees and the number of ponds in Ohio, I almost bet Mitt has a sudden affection for Buckeyes maybe he even owns four or five of em.

ConcealedKerry on February 29, 2012 at 7:56 PM

Who knows, its Rmoney, he could change his position at any given moment. Gosh I like him so much, isn’t he wonderful, he’s the bestest. Nice crease in his trousers, perfect marriage, perfect kids. Nice cars, nice homes, whats not to simply adore. He is just so sweet and represents everything wholesome. He will make the greatest President ever! You will vote for him and you will like it! ///

Bmore on February 29, 2012 at 7:56 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’m looking forward to an Administration with and by Romney that is actually doing the work necessary to right the wrongs that beset us at this hour, and the relief involved with not having an Entertainer in Chief doing all he and his can to ruin our way of life, our children’s futures and to denigrate and insult the Constitution, but, hey, he reads good speeches!

I’m rather over this current need by some to be entertained and indulged by various vanity productions from the White House. I’d welcome an actual President in Romney (or whoever we elect but it looks likely it’ll be Romney from the GOP) who was so intellectual and academically-oriented toward problems that he was busy working while his wife wasn’t hoola-hooping and running around ruining the White House rugs with a giant cheeseburger and fries in her mouth.

Won’t it be refreshing to actually have a couple in the White House who are respectful of our nation and exercise some decorum again? The Entertainer-Couple we currently have have proven to be a Very Big Error.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I don’t get Rubio’s narrower amendment. Why further limit the exemptions? I could use some explaining.

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

The interview transcript mentions Blunt-Rubio without asking about Rubio alone.

I saw the bill and an amendment # and now I’m trying to find them again to get the text.

The NRO summary that’s linked to in the post:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290603/unconscionable-editors

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:00 PM

Twitter is just that: “chat” in real time about real-events AS THEY HAPPEN. Responses aren’t iron-clad to events that are unfolding and therefore, “fluid”.
Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Kinda makes you long for the days when responsible reporters would spend some time getting the facts first and then write the story.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Yes, I realize people are talking.

After I saw the first tweet on this, I didn’t stay and only read twitter.

I went and found the article linked to and then the Ohio news station. I’d seen the Ohio video and read the transcript well before AP posted this.

Hume is welcome to change his mind upon further reflection. You’re welcome to quote him.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Good Lord. His position is exactly the same as it was earlier this month when the issue arose:

Washington D.C., Feb 3, 2012 / 11:48 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has pledged to overturn the HHS contraception mandate that he says takes “particular aim” at Catholics.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/romney-pledges-to-eliminate-hhs-mandate-on-day-one-of-presidency/

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 8:09 PM

Another day, another non-scandal scandal. Is it possible to approach these stories with a healthy dose of skepticism before diving in?

Buy Danish on February 29, 2012 at 8:11 PM

He was against it before he was for it…

right2bright on February 29, 2012 at 7:43 PM
No, more like:

he misunderstood it before the issue was clarified, then he understood it was another issue than what he’d initially assumed it was.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

He was against something he knew nothing about. It upset some people. Now he’s for it and probably still has no idea.
Terrific.

katy the mean old lady on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Amen.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

I first mentioned this in the headlines before 5:00. Over about the next hour I linked to transcript, video and two posts elsewhere all in addition to two tweets. All before 6pm when this one went up.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

What some smart young reporter needs to ask each of the GOP field, is what do you plan on doing if the Supreme Court overturns ObamaCare in its entirety. They can also ask what they plan to do if it is overturned in part or left alone, but the main question for the voting public is the first one. Of course, who am I kidding, they won’t ask this because they are in the tank for Romney and Obama.

txmomof6 on February 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM

man, obsessing is not healthy or cosntructive…pretty much everybody moved on…the fact that you’re in minority on this non-issue doesn’t tell you anything?

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 8:16 PM

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

you have exquisitely captured twitter’s ‘essence’ :-)…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 8:18 PM

txmomof6 on February 29, 2012 at 8:15 PM

It’s been asked and answered in the debates several times.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 8:16 PM

What are you and the Mittens doing here commenting?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM

the fact that you’re in minority on this non-issue doesn’t tell you anything?

Athanasius contra mundum.
Argumentum ad populum.

Take your choice, some days it just does’t pay to be orthodox.

de rigueur on February 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

It’s been asked and answered in the debates several times.

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Not that I have seen, can you provide the link or at least which of the 20 debates it was by any chance.

txmomof6 on February 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Blunt: Senate #1467 (Ayotte & Rubio are two of multiple co-sponsors)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1467

He has a nice one page PDF fact check on his bill against Obama’s lies:

See also Fortenberry: House #1179

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1179

Rubio: Senate # 2043 no text yet at the link

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-2043

NRO summary on the differences:

Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) and Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R., Neb.) have legislation to protect conscience rights generally. A bill from Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) would allow religious groups to refrain from providing sterilization and contraception. Both bills are praiseworthy, but both have drawbacks. The former, broader bill might allow liberals to conjure up hypothetical scenarios — what if a pharmacist decided he had a moral objection to painkillers? — rather than address the administration’s hostility to religious freedom.

The narrower bill, on the other hand, would leave conscience rights weaker than they were at the start of the Obama administration.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM

BoxHead1 on February 29, 2012 at 7:46 PM

Blunt: Senate #1467 (Ayotte & Rubio are two of multiple co-sponsors)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1467

See also Fortenberry: House #1179

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1179

Rubio: Senate # 2043 no text yet at the link

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-2043

NRO summary on the differences:

Senator Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) and Representative Jeff Fortenberry (R., Neb.) have legislation to protect conscience rights generally. A bill from Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) would allow religious groups to refrain from providing sterilization and contraception. Both bills are praiseworthy, but both have drawbacks. The former, broader bill might allow liberals to conjure up hypothetical scenarios — what if a pharmacist decided he had a moral objection to painkillers? — rather than address the administration’s hostility to religious freedom.

The narrower bill, on the other hand, would leave conscience rights weaker than they were at the start of the Obama administration.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:43 PM

Blunt has a one page PDF fact check on his bill against Obama’s lies.

de rigueur on February 29, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Athanasius contra mundum.

This.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:44 PM

txmomof6 on February 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM

I’ll see what I can find….

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 8:48 PM

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 8:16 PM

What are you and the Mittens doing here commenting?

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Gone a little too nuts, have you, INC, from that big sandwich from hours ago?

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:48 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

I would, but I am not the Romney support who is out to sea :)

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:44 PM

Aliquando difficilis est confiteri falleris.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM

I first mentioned this in the headlines before 5:00. Over about the next hour I linked to transcript, video and two posts elsewhere all in addition to two tweets. All before 6pm when this one went up.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

Yes, your cape is lovely.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:52 PM

This thread is hilarious! There were Mittbots complaining about faux outrage before any dissenters against Mitt even appeared!

The spinning that his campaign is doing over this mistake is almost as funny as the gyrations his supporters are going through to declare this a nothingburger™.

I’m so going to enjoy you people if Romney is nominated.

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Hume is welcome to change his mind upon further reflection. You’re welcome to quote him.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:04 PM

I didn’t quote Hume. Someone else did, I quoted that person who did.

The issues seems quite resolved, all except the egos that are still miffed about whatever Romney does. Or doesn’t do. Or did, or might, maybe, you know…sometime.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 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

You dizzy?

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 8:55 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

Why are you talking about Romney like that? I thought you supported him?

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 8:57 PM

Twitter is just that: “chat” in real time about real-events AS THEY HAPPEN. Responses aren’t iron-clad to events that are unfolding and therefore, “fluid”.
Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 7:51 PM

Kinda makes you long for the days when responsible reporters would spend some time getting the facts first and then write the story.

whatcat on February 29, 2012 at 8:03 PM

Twitter is what it is, and those who use it should understand that (most do). It’s not “reporting” except as to links to substantial (and edited) content, words that sources have had time to research and fact-check and substantiate with sources and links. Twitter isn’t that, it’s simply just real-time commenting about anything and everything, and as some days it rains, some days it doesn’t, one writes what is what when it’s what it is.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:59 PM

He was against something he knew nothing about. It upset some people. Now he’s for it and probably still has no idea.
Terrific.

katy the mean old lady on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The other day, he was on Hannity and during the interview, mixed up Solyndra and Keystone. He obviously knew about both, spoke knowledgeably about each, but just said Solyndra at one point when he meant Keystone. It was probably his 15th interview of the day.

Jumping on all over an obvious mistake, even after it’s corrected, as some sort of evidence that the man is ignorant, is what the MSM does to Republicans and conservatives. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves.

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I’m so going to enjoy you people if Romney is nominated.

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The campaign needs to come up with a better spin than trying to get people to believe that Romney thought it was a state bill. He may not know that Blount is from MO, but he knows Rubio is from FL.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM

txmomof6 on February 29, 2012 at 8:24 PM

This is the best I could find in short order. Essentially Mitt and Newt say they’ll repeal. Not the detail I’ve heard somewhere. Perhaps that was in TV appearances. I’ve heard Mitt specifically discuss executive orders and stopping the funding in advance of congressional action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0l44Z2-es

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 9:05 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

You are making a valiant effort, but these Mittbots are delusional in their defense of this obvious gaffe by Romney. We all know if it was one of the other candidates, they would be gleeful in their criticism of him.

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

this thread is hilarious! There were Mittbots complaining about faux outrage before any dissenters against Mitt even appeared!

The spinning that his campaign is doing over this mistake is almost as funny as the gyrations his supporters are going through to declare this a nothingburger™.

I’m so going to enjoy you people if Romney is nominated.

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 8:53 PM

It’s probably the only reason to look forward to a Romney nomination.

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Absolutely.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

He was against something he knew nothing about. It upset some people. Now he’s for it and probably still has no idea.
Terrific.

katy the mean old lady on February 29, 2012 at 8:13 PM

The other day, he was on Hannity and during the interview, mixed up Solyndra and Keystone. He obviously knew about both, spoke knowledgeably about each, but just said Solyndra at one point when he meant Keystone. It was probably his 15th interview of the day.

Jumping on all over an obvious mistake, even after it’s corrected, as some sort of evidence that the man is ignorant, is what the MSM does to Republicans and conservatives. We shouldn’t do it to ourselves.

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Really? Except for when it’s Santorum or Gingrich that makes a gaffe right? Than it’s katy bar the door LOL!

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 9:17 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

Funny how you Mittbots want to make this thread about Santorum. It’s not about Santorum. It’s about Romney, and this gaffe that you’re trying to bury under the kitty litter. One of you, above, even blamed Bush for it.

This is freakin’ hilarious!

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

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

Yep. McCain 2.0.

Shuddering…..

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

When it’s just Romney vs Obama, Romney is going to impode. Take it to the bank. The guy is in Biden gaffe-machine territory.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

* implode

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:20 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

Agreed. I miss the days when Michelle Malkin owned this site. Nowadays nearly every post contradicts its headline.

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Aliquando difficilis est confiteri falleris.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 8:51 PM

a fellow Latinist on HA (or is it the Roman law part of a law education?)…either way, it’s so refreshing…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

When it’s just Romney vs Obama, Romney is going to impode. Take it to the bank. The guy is in Biden gaffe-machine territory.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

Its already just Romney vs Obama. The primary is over. Pop your head out of the HA bunker once in a while.

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Really? Except for when it’s Santorum or Gingrich that makes a gaffe right? Than it’s katy bar the door LOL!

Dr Evil on February 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

So you are suggesting, for example, that when commenters criticized Santorum for saying that Kennedy’s speech made him want to throw up, that was merely a mix-up, and he misunderstood the question?

I make a distinction between verbal gaffes and simple mistakes. When Romney said that he was “great friends with some NASCAR owners,” that was a verbal gaffe – a stupid thing to say, given the whole “Romney can’t connect with people” meme. His misunderstanding of Health’s question was a simple mistake.

I actually haven’t noticed anyone jumping all over Gingrich or Santorum for simple mistakes…..

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 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

Agreed. I miss the days when Michelle Malkin owned this site. Nowadays nearly every post contradicts its headline.

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

AP didn’t contradict himself. Mitt did. Don’t shoot the messenger. Mitt’s gaffe-prone.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

INC on February 29, 2012 at 8:42 PM

It’s pretty difficult to fit all of little Bammie’s lies into one page, you can only do it by severely limiting the topic.

slickwillie2001 on February 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Absolutely.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

The most revealing thing I saw last night on the primary threads was the calls for Santorum to drop out. I didn’t see any calls for Paul or Newt to drop out, although they both finished 3rd and 4th in both primaries.

Things that make you go “hmm.”

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

I make a distinction between verbal gaffes and simple mistakes. When Romney said that he was “great friends with some NASCAR owners,” that was a verbal gaffe – a stupid thing to say, given the whole “Romney can’t connect with people” meme. His misunderstanding of Health’s question was a simple mistake.

I actually haven’t noticed anyone jumping all over Gingrich or Santorum for simple mistakes…..

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I thought Romney was supposed to have almost godlike cerebral powers, was perfectly polished to a blinding sheen and able to handle the media, and wasn’t gaffe-prone…as opposed to icky hated people like , say, Palin. Whose every grammatical error, mind you, was and is picked apart here ad nauseam.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Romney hasn’t changed much since 2006 or 2008. What happened since last election cycle was mostly ObamaCare.

The Massachussets Democrats took Romney’s original proposal and mucked it up (which might help explain why it isn’t working so well now, hmm?), and then Obama and the national Democratic party took the mucked up version and transmogrified it even further into an unrecognizable monster that no one opposes more than Romney himself. If he thinks there is still something salvageble in the wreckage (and he would know more about that than Mr. Average voter), of course he wouldn’t want to repudiate it entirely.
“Romeycare = Obamacare, you started it, you own it” is a much shorter and simpler idea to get across, but it’s wrong.

He could say “I want to cut taxes, cut spending, cut regulations, and cut government size”, and sound _just_ like a Tea Partier. He has and does, but apparently he doesn’t want the “extremist rightwing kook” label that goes with “Tea Party”, nor does he want to sound even more like the opportunist late convert he’s made out to be.

Confutus on February 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

The Massachussets Democrats took Romney’s original proposal and mucked it up (which might help explain why it isn’t working so well now, hmm?),

Confutus on February 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

He signed it anyway, and was beaming like the Cheshire Cat while doing so…with Ted Kennedy right at his elbow. Sorry, that old chestnut isn’t going to make it.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Priscilla on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

This was an opportunity to frame the issue correctly as being about the 1st Amendment. It was a chance for Mitt to clear Obama’s fog on the healthcare edicts.

Instead Romney chose to seize a change speak against Santorum. This is too important to use it as bash time. We are talking about the 1st Amendment.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

^ But the Mittbots are going to have to get their story straight some time. RomneyCare is either a disaster to be blamed on the Dem legislature, or it’s the best thing since night baseball. Which is it?

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

slickwillie2001 on February 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

:)

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Well, I’m personally all for Ron Paul dropping out! :)

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

I’ve heard Mitt specifically discuss executive orders and stopping the funding in advance of congressional action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li0l44Z2-es

Syzygy on February 29, 2012 at 9:05 PM

And that sounds like what he assumed the question was at that start of this, a question about Executive Orders, privilege of the Presidency vs. Congressional action.

On clarification of the question and issue later, he clarified his response.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Its already just Romney vs Obama. The primary is over. Pop your head out of the HA bunker once in a while.

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Well, if that’s actually the case, then why don’t you inform the Romneybots to stop bashing Santorum and start promoting their candidate?

Then again, maybe they’re still bashing Rick because there’s not much to promote? Maybe that’s why Romney’s ads are nothing but attacks on his opponents? He has nothing positive to say about himself?

Nah. I think we should just all bow down to our betters, and jump on the Romney bandwagon, because anything less is supporting Obama. He will no doubt squish his way to the presidency. Any concern about him is obviously ill-founded and rooted in hatred of Mormonism or something.

Nevermind!
/Emily Litella mode

JannyMae on February 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

This was an opportunity to frame the issue correctly as being about the 1st Amendment. It was a chance for Mitt to clear Obama’s fog on the healthcare edicts.

Instead Romney chose to seize a change speak against Santorum. This is too important to use it as bash time. We are talking about the 1st Amendment.

INC on February 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

But ooooooh, you just wait til Mitt takes it to Obama…ooooooh, it’ll be the father and mother of a beating…riiiiiight….

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

AP didn’t contradict himself. Mitt did. Don’t shoot the messenger. Mitt’s gaffe-prone.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

hey now, when it comes to gaffes nobody puts a more expert foot in the mouth than Sanitarium :)…and I mean he does it artfully :-)…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

^ But the Mittbots are going to have to get their story straight some time. RomneyCare is either a disaster to be blamed on the Dem legislature, or it’s the best thing since night baseball. Which is it?

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Why won’t you refer to others here as Republicans, when that’s what we are?

It helps you somehow to demean others (“Mittbots”), and that’s too bad for you.

Paulroids, Palinfreaks, Lizardbabies…Mittbots. Does that get you anywhere, or help resolve questions about anyone or any candidate?

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Its already just Romney vs Obama. The primary is over. Pop your head out of the HA bunker once in a while.

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Not quite. We have Super Tuesday yet to get through. This thing could go on for months yet. Lots and lots of more opportunities for Mitt to expose himself. Get your head outta Mitt’s backside once in a while.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

Why won’t you refer to others here as Republicans, when that’s what we are?

It helps you somehow to demean others (“Mittbots”), and that’s too bad for you.

Paulroids, Palinfreaks, Lizardbabies…Mittbots. Does that get you anywhere, or help resolve questions about anyone or any candidate?

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I’m a Palinista. I don’t mind being called that. And I’ll continue to use “Mittbots” and “‘bots” and “Paulnuts” and the like. Choke on it.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM

RomneyCare is either a disaster to be blamed on the Dem legislature, or it’s the best thing since night baseball. Which is it?

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Law of excluded middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

^ But the Mittbots are going to have to get their story straight some time. RomneyCare is either a disaster to be blamed on the Dem legislature, or it’s the best thing since night baseball. Which is it?

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

You’re just trying to toss gauntlets down. Throw anything against the wall, see what the response is, right?

You are always welcome to not vote. Your choice.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

hey now, when it comes to gaffes nobody puts a more expert foot in the mouth than Sanitarium :)…and I mean he does it artfully :-)…

jimver on February 29, 2012 at 9:38 PM

No, I think Romney probably heads the tally at this point. It’s something every other day.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

I’m a Palinista. I don’t mind being called that. And I’ll continue to use “Mittbots” and “‘bots” and “Paulnuts” and the like. Choke on it.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM

In your case and others like yourself, I think it’s reasonable to refer to you as a “Palinfreak.” As long as it’s “Mittbots” from you and yours, you and yours are “Palinfreaks.”

See how that works?

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

You’re just trying to toss gauntlets down. Throw anything against the wall, see what the response is, right?

You are always welcome to not vote. Your choice.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Deflection.

RomneyCare is either a disaster to be blamed on the Dem legislature, or it’s the best thing since night baseball. Which is it?

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Law of excluded middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

Go RBNY on February 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

There isn’t any middle among the ‘bots. The two choices I mentioned are the ones they’ve laid down time and time again.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

In your case and others like yourself, I think it’s reasonable to refer to you as a “Palinfreak.” As long as it’s “Mittbots” from you and yours, you and yours are “Palinfreaks.”

See how that works?

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Nothing new. It’s been tossed around for the past three years. I’m not going to cry about it. Palinoids, Palindrones, Palinbots, Palintologists, Palinfreaks…and I’ll bet you never once objected, did you? Nahhhhhhh.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Psss…not at all surprised that it’s Palinfreaks who gossip and snarl about Mitt Romney and anyone who supports a GOP candidate (in this case, Romney) to win.

Perhaps you’ve been led to dislike Romney by *someone* who sets a poor example in that regard?

Aren’t you satisfied with 2,343 sites for your gossip exchange about your idol and all us “bots”? I’m just curious why any and all posts on this site that subject Romney get you and yours grasping at the comments sections like, well, like disturbed Kiddies.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Psss…not at all surprised that it’s Palinfreaks who gossip and snarl about Mitt Romney and anyone who supports a GOP candidate (in this case, Romney) to win.

Perhaps you’ve been led to dislike Romney by *someone* who sets a poor example in that regard?

Aren’t you satisfied with 2,343 sites for your gossip exchange about your idol and all us “bots”? I’m just curious why any and all posts on this site that subject Romney get you and yours grasping at the comments sections like, well, like disturbed Kiddies.

Lourdes on February 29, 2012 at 9:46 PM

What “gossip”? My criticisms of Romney have been policy-based, not talking about his kids like a bunch of KosKiddie-cum-Mittbots.

ddrintn on February 29, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4