Romney on Chick-fil-A: That’s not something that’s part of my campaign; Update: Obama ducks too

posted at 6:07 pm on August 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Examiner, I understand why he punted here. His retort to Reid’s tax-evasion smear last night was that it’s an obvious, grotesque attempt to hand the media a new distraction from Obama’s record. He just got back from a foreign policy trip/photo op that was also submerged in distractions, most notably his Olympics comments in London and his aide’s “kiss my ass” comments to the press in Poland. He’s just begun pushing a more positive message keyed to his biography to convince undecideds that he’s up to the job. The last thing he wants right now is another distraction wrapped around his ankles, particularly on a day when the news is about the latest disappointing jobs report.

Given that the Chick-fil-A question here was packaged with another question about Bachmann and the Muslim Brotherhood, he had two dilemmas. One: If he weighs in on either, that’s a story and now suddenly he’s being asked about gay marriage and Islamism instead of jobs for the middle class. If you want a candidate who’s more interested in culture-war issues than economic growth, try Romney 2008. Two: If he weighs in only on Chick-fil-A, the easier of the two topics, then there’ll be a separate story on why he specifically ducked the question about Bachmann and he’ll hear it from her supporters and from the media for dodging. He probably figured he was better off playing it safe (as usual) and passing on both. Hey — if you wanted a nominee who’d inch out on the highwire to answer any question put to him, you should have nominated Newt.

Still, hurts to know that even a tool like Mike Bloomberg is capable of offering a righteous answer on CFA when called on to do so:

Critics trying to shut Chick-fil-A because its CEO opposes gay marriage are undermining the very essence of the Constitution, Mayor Bloomberg declared today in a stirring defense of the embattled fast food chain.

“It isn’t the right thing to do and it isn’t what America stands for,” Bloomberg said on his weekly WOR radio show. “And those people who don’t like (Chick-fil-A) don’t understand their rights were protected by people who took a difficult position in the past and stood by it. They stood up so everybody else would be free.”…

“What’s for sure is that government cannot in the United States, in America, under the Constitution, be run where you have a litmus test for the personal views of somebody when they want something in the commercial world.”

Barney Frank also managed to say a word against government discrimination towards Chick-fil-A. Ah well. Maybe Mitt will get another question about this tomorrow and say something about free speech even if he ends up avoiding the subject of gay marriage. Speaking of which, enjoy the second clip below. Not sure what’s gotten into Stewart lately, but this is a rare week during which most of his big hits have been at the expense of Democrats. Exit quotation via Mediaite: “Pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant. Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top 1.”

Update: Evidently the “evolution” is over:

Obama, already in favor of gay marriage, has little to gain by weighing in against a private company that operates primarily in red states on an issue that has already inflamed social conservatives. He has treaded lightly on the issue on the campaign trail, touting the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy but avoided new calls for legalizing gay marriage since announcing he supported it in May.

Several officials in Obama’s White House and campaign did not respond Friday to requests for comment about Chick-fil-A. And there’s reason for the president to keep the issues away from the center of his reelection campaign. Obama can’t afford to alienate religious conservatives in the black community or give blue-collar Democratic whites in Ohio and Virginia another reason to vote against him.

Not a word from the president of the United States in defense of a business owner’s right to hold the political views he prefers without fear of government retribution?


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 3 4 5 6

some have. some like Huck, Palin Tom corburn have joined in the stand and while Cruz isn’t a leader yet his first decisions to stand with us is a good sign.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Ted Cruz will be on Fox News Sunday 8/5/12.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/3/cruz-booked-fox-news-sunday/

bluefox on August 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM

You’re in NC, correct? Please vote FOR Mitt. If you can’t do that vote AGAINST the obamanation and FOR Mitt…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

That was part of Gov. Perry’s problem.

Nothing stands out so starkly as Sarah Palin with McCain’s Campaign Managers and Sarah Palin unplugged!!

bluefox on August 3, 2012 at 11:14 PM

agreed about Perry. He was too controlled and it become clear when asked questions his campaign did not prepare him for he had no mental ability to think on his feet. Palin otho shone when she left the campaign managers behind and spoke from the heart.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I agree

I know we got 100% Rs against OCare last time but I think , as far as full repeal, we will lose at least 5 centrist R votes if we don’t beat Obama. The tide will shift left the first year of an Obama 2cnd term.
BoxHead1 on August 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

That’s my fear of a 2nd Obama term. Our country will be finished. He can use czars and executive orders to accomplish his goals.

It’s far better to have Romney there than Obama.

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:27 PM

“On this day where it was reinforced that this (mis)administration policies are putting more and more Americans out of work, I think it’s instructive that dem Mayors and Councilmen across this great nation are calling for boycotts and telling CFA not to come to their towns. Thereby further hurting our economy.”…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Page 1…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:29 PM

You’re in NC, correct? Please vote FOR Mitt. If you can’t do that vote AGAINST the obamanation and FOR Mitt…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

right now I’m planning on going to the polls and vote for downticket races and leave the top blank. If Mitt wants my vote he needs to earn it. So far he hasn’t it. Could chang ein the next 2 months but he will have to come to the right or at the very least place conservatives within his team and give them a voice at the table.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:07 PM

I agree. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. I agree with unseen: managers. Out of touch or spys:-) Or both…

bluefox on August 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM

I think Perry’s problems boiled down to three things: 1) He was recovering from back surgery 2) He was on pain medication 3) He was talked into running…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

First you make out like you have no idea what the American Spectator is. Then you make out like this could not have happened and compare the American Spectator to Harry Reid as if it was the Daily Kos or something.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM

You obviously aren’t a conservative, otherwise you’d know that conservatives have standards. The American Spectator article has the exact same problems as Harry Reids lies… there’s no evidence for it and no one has provided any.

A conservative knows that he’s got to have evidence. Neither you nor Harry Reid has anything but “a guy at Bain” or “McCain staffers” or “a former Romney aide”. You can’t provide a single shred of proof or a single name of anyone who will back you up.

You can’t back your crap up, little boy. All that you’re doing is practicing the exact same politics of personal destruction as Obama and the Chicago machine repeating the exact same accusations and using the exact same standards of evidence.

All of this information was well known in 2008 this is hardly the only article talking about Romney not helping others get elected in 2008.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 9:30 PM

So well known that you can’t come up with the NAMES of anyone who knew it?

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

well u all have a good night.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:00 PM

You’re in NC, correct? Please vote FOR Mitt. If you can’t do that vote AGAINST the obamanation and FOR Mitt…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM

Ditto! Unseen, come on, you know Sarah will vote for Mitt in November. She recognizes that he’s far better for our country than Obama is.

I bet you’re just mad right now and spouting some steam. You’ll do the right thing in November. :)

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Well as long as nobody is getting hysterical. /

sharrukin on August 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM

Says the guy calling conservatives “The republican inquisition”.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:33 PM

well u all have a good night.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Glad to have you back around…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Says the guy calling conservatives “The republican inquisition”.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:33 PM

He was right. The person in question was being ridiculous and rude.

Like someone else I could name…

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:07 PM

No real disagreement there. But, IMHO, its not a case of real free speech being denied by the State or even State supported policy. Barring the usual stupid comments from Progressive politicans, of course.

Boycotts do work, but Buycotts work, too. The support that CFA received in the last few days does more to speak for Free Speech than a standard one from a politician.

Its not so much one issue, but it’s one issue that affects us all. Again, its not that the whole CFA dustup isn’t important, I’m just seeing it as is this more important that making sure i can afford to pay bills or even buy gas right now?

sharrukin on August 3, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Again, maybe its just me, but if its more important to focus on jobs issues & growth?

The numbers for Mass employment can be debated; but as far as I can recall, Mass didn’t go through a near or full default.

As for this being a “moral” argument, what is the argument? Either you can have a religious belief or not. The CEO didn’t walk back his comments, he truly believes in what he said, so I’m good with that. The company doesn’t discriminate against anyone, nor has anyone proven it.

BUT, if a bunch of people still want to protest the company, well I cant argue with them on that, its their right. However, as we’ve seen the people counter protest outnumber the whiners, I think that’s more of what you want: Free Speech, even by protesting hack whiners, will always lose to the Free Market.

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

well u all have a good night.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You too. Good night.

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Sorry to disagree guys, but when your opponent is making colossal unforced errors, you just stay out of the way. The media have become hecklers dropping land mines trying to trip Romney up. Everyone knows where Romney stands on marriage.

monalisa on August 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Romney needs to put some real “oomph” in his campaign. His ducking the question was a missed opportunity.

john.frank on August 3, 2012 at 10:55 PM

This is worse than even that.

He is telling Americans that going to CFA was a distraction that he would have rather not have happened. That these Americans are too stupid to understand that unless we only talk about how bad Obama is we are hurting his chances of winning.

He is telling Americans to not listen to anyone but him and not act on anything but what he wants.

Mitt is so self absorbed it is unbelievable.

Ducking Gay Marriage. Really.

It is obvious that he is absolutely for Gay Marriage and for shutting down bussiness if they do not get on board with it.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:37 PM

“On this day where it was reinforced that this (mis)administration policies are putting more and more Americans out of work, I think it’s instructive that dem Mayors and Councilmen across this great nation are calling for boycotts and telling CFA not to come to their towns. Thereby further hurting our economy.”…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Page 1…

Gohawgs on August 3, 2012 at 11:29 PM

So they finally have an Issue. This may just come back to bite them and cause an incentive for more support for Romney! Compare the CFA support to the non-support. Wonder what the citizens in the towns reactions will be toward their Dem Mayors & Councilmen.
A job is a job, so that my backfire on them as well.

bluefox on August 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Hey unseen,u can’t admire Sarah any more than I do, but I think it’s working out for her to play a major role in turning the US Senate red. I’m going to vote for Mitt as often as I can because he is our only hope to unseat Obama. Please cast your vote for Mitt in NC. I think he’ll win without it, but a no vote for Mitt really is a vote for BO.

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Sorry to disagree guys, but when your opponent is making colossal unforced errors, you just stay out of the way. The media have become hecklers dropping land mines trying to trip Romney up. Everyone knows where Romney stands on marriage.

monalisa on August 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I think you missed the point, which many of us have made over and over again. This is not about marriage. This is about the First Amendment and the free market. Romney dropped the ball on this one. And don’t buy the media narrative on this. They want to pretend it’s about marriage – and Romney could have disabused them of their error if he were quick on his feet and spoken intelligently about it.

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Sorry to disagree guys, but when your opponent is making colossal unforced errors, you just stay out of the way. The media have become hecklers dropping land mines trying to trip Romney up. Everyone knows where Romney stands on marriage.

monalisa on August 3, 2012 at 11:36 PM

We do?

Mitt absolutely forced county clearks to give Marriage Lisences to Gays. There is no doubt about that. He was not forced to by anyone. The Supreme Court stated in their opinion that they could not force a change in the law. But Mitt just did it anyway. Other two branches overridden by King Mitt Romney.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM

“The #1 effective attack against Mitt”……because it’s true and the truth is difficult to repudiate.

tencole on August 3, 2012 at 8:24 PM

But it’s not true. And it’s easy to repudiate. All I have to do is quote Romney where he says “Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” and show you where he said it.

Like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rFCRs9PHAo

Oh noes! Your #1 effective attack just went up in smoke!

Looks like you’re gonna have to start making crap up like your buddy Dingy Harry.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:41 PM

well u all have a good night.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:31 PM

You too. Perhaps we’ll win this election, not because of Romney, but in spite of him.

bluefox on August 3, 2012 at 11:42 PM

It is obvious that he is absolutely for Gay Marriage and for shutting down bussiness if they do not get on board with it.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Typical obammunist. Willing to tell any lie it takes to get the job done and get your guy back in the white house.

Enjoy your “First Gay President”, he won’t be there much longer.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Again, maybe its just me, but if its more important to focus on jobs issues & growth?

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

Someone else wrote a comment addressing this – and did a fine job in connecting the Chick Fil A episode with job issues and growth by saying that Romney could have said something about “progressive government officials have no right to block a company’s growth and potential to create jobs by trampling on their free speech and beliefs, as the Mayor of Chicago did…” or something to that effect.

To be honest, simply focusing on the economy and jobs is not enough. People are not one issue voters. Romney could have killed two birds with one stone on this. He failed. I hope his managers learn and they do better if another opportunity arises.

dukecitygirl on August 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM

but a no vote for Mitt really is a vote for BO.

gracie on August 3, 2012 at 11:38 PM

Right.

Let us play this out.

Mitt earns 44 votes.

Obama earns 43 votes.

Mitt wins. Makes no difference that 13 did not vote does it?

Look at it another way

I and my wife were two of these we did not vote. Well had we voted for Obama he would have had 45 and won.

Now how is that the same?

Use your head for something other than a Hat Rack.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM

We do?

Mitt absolutely forced county clearks to give Marriage Lisences to Gays. There is no doubt about that. He was not forced to by anyone. The Supreme Court stated in their opinion that they could not force a change in the law. But Mitt just did it anyway. Other two branches overridden by King Mitt Romney.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:40 PM

keounty cleaearks?

Kang Ramnie?

tom daschle concerned on August 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Typical obammunist. Willing to tell any lie it takes to get the job done and get your guy back in the white house.

Enjoy your “First Gay President”, he won’t be there much longer.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:44 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Mitt did not come out and support the majority of Americans who wanted to send a strong message for freedom of speech and the right to be against Gay Marriage.

Mitt told them to go to hades. That they were a distraction. That he was not for what they were doing.

How else are you supposed to read this?

Either Mitt is for something or not. He can not have it both ways. If he is for Traditional Marriage he has to take a stand. If he takes no stand he is for Gay Marriage. Because as President he has to take a stand it does make a difference. Will he defend DOMA?

He sure will not defend the Americans that went to Chic’Fila.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:37 PM

You’re tiresome. Why don’t you enjoy yourself a bit more by, once again, telling us how your daughter is going to hell? Makes you out to be such an upstanding citizen.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Again, maybe its just me, but if its more important to focus on jobs issues & growth?

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

As I said, Romney doesn’t have a strong hand on that issue. Obama has a rather weak hand given the the economic doldrums of the nation, so it makes sense to play to that, but people are not going to vote for a one issue candidate.

Simply saying that you can manage the economy better than Obama isn’t a terribly strong argument by itself. Romney doesn’t have a history of creating jobs in Massachusetts, so all we have is his word that he can do these things. If the economy makes an upswing what issues will Romney be left with?

sharrukin on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

tom daschle concerned on August 3, 2012 at 11:45 PM

Dirty diaper?

Really.

Truth hurts or something?

You just diss me because you know darn well I can prove what I say.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

So, let’s see:

So lemme get this straight: Mittens considers stopping in at Chick FA to get a sandwich in support of free speech and Dan Cathy is a “distraction”? Uh huh.

He considers Chick-fil-A a refueling stop. Here’s what he said to Truett Cathy last May at Liberty University’s commencement ceremony, in which Mr. Cathy was being awarded an honorary doctorate:

The Romney campaign comes to a sudden stop when we spot a Chick-fil-A. Your chicken sandwiches were our comfort food through the primary season, and heaven knows there were days that we needed a lot of comfort. So, Truett, thank you and congratulations on your well-deserved honor today.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2914357/posts?page=101#101

Right. So if he said that at Liberty University’s commencement address in which Truett Cathy, the founder of Chick-fil-A was being honored, why did duck the question?

john.frank on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

hmmm the left threatens to put thousands of Americans out of work for the simple reason they don’t agree with the view of the companies CEO.

Yeah a threat. Which, from the looks of it fell flat on it’s face. CFA stood by what they said, there is no proof that they discriminated *legally* against anyone, and supporters for the company turned out in overwhelming numbers….what more could you want?

And Mitt the businessman doesn’t find that frightening and could slip in how time after time the left puts ideology ahead of economic common sense?

Again, the best businessman only takes on what he can handle and delegates the rest. If this was an issue like when Senator Reid wrote that letter against Limbaugh, but this is basically just the media panting for attention on a story about one persons opinion that doesn’t affect anyone’s else rights.

It’s easy to make the chick-fil-a issue and economic one and stand for freedom of speech freedom of religion and freedom of association at the same time.

Again, i stand by my earlier statement: The free market has spoken already louder and clearer on the issue than what anyone else in political office can say right now.

this belief that you can separate the two, culture from economic is foolhardy and stupid.

Well, i can honestly say, that i have more than a few foolhardy and stupid beliefs….doesn’t always make ‘em wrong, though. :o)

How many people has the left put out of work due to its environmental policies based on an ideology? how many people have the left stop credit too because of their belief in “fairness” and equal outcomes? How many woman have the left sentenced to a life of poverty with welfare and food stamps and WIC and out of wedlock births and how many workers have the left murdered in 30 years because of abortion. workers that could be working today paying taxes, making a living, building wealth…..

Okay, now some of those are issues that can be covered sensibly because they DO affect the country through public policy and wasteful management.

but you know Mitt should keep his ey eon the “economic” ball. If he isn’t lucky Mitt is going to miss the entire forest because he never took his eye off that one tree…..

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Again, I’m not saying don’t debate culture issues as much as economic ones, i am saying is this (CFA) the issue of the moment now? Out of everything else that’s going on, this should be the top of the list?

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:54 PM

You’re tiresome. Why don’t you enjoy yourself a bit more by, once again, telling us how your daughter is going to hell? Makes you out to be such an upstanding citizen.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Saul Alinsky alert.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:37 PM

You’re tiresome. Why don’t you enjoy yourself a bit more by, once again, telling us how your daughter is going to hell? Makes you out to be such an upstanding citizen.

MadisonConservative on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Is his daughter converting to mormonism?

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:58 PM

You just diss me because you know darn well I can prove what I say.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

You can’t and you haven’t proved jack squat.

You and Harry Reid fail to understand that “I know a guy who knows a guy who says ________” isn’t proof.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM

hmmm the left threatens to put thousands of Americans out of work for the simple reason they don’t agree with the view of the companies CEO.

Yeah a threat. Which, from the looks of it fell flat on it’s face. CFA stood by what they said, there is no proof that they discriminated *legally* against anyone, and supporters for the company turned out in overwhelming numbers….what more could you want?

A conservative leader. I mean what do you think a president is exactly? He’s not the CEO of a corporation.

And Mitt the businessman doesn’t find that frightening and could slip in how time after time the left puts ideology ahead of economic common sense?

Again, the best businessman only takes on what he can handle and delegates the rest.

Then obviously we need something more than a businessman.

i am saying is this (CFA) the issue of the moment now? Out of everything else that’s going on, this should be the top of the list?

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:54 PM

Yeah, it is the issue of the moment and there will be other issues that leap out at any president, and you don’t get to delegate that responsibility or pass on them as Romney and Obama do without consequential damage to the nation. You can’t just vote ‘present’ and expect that to work when you sit in the White House.

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Romney response?

GUTLESS.

He’s a squish plain and simple (in the Bush 41 mold) but he’s not a COMMUNIST so he’s the best we’ve got.

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 12:06 AM

Well, they’re part of my “campaign,” you fuc*ing coward. And, to your misfortune, they are part of the American struggle to maintan freedom. This response was a serious mistake.

rrpjr on August 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM


I understand the maintaining focus thing but he’s just a career politician that’s a squish and is going to tell us he’s Reagan bold colors during the campaign and will govern as Bush 41.

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 12:08 AM

You can’t and you haven’t proved jack squat.

You and Harry Reid fail to understand that “I know a guy who knows a guy who says ________” isn’t proof.

Alberta_Patriot on August 3, 2012 at 11:59 PM

You really want more on how bad Romney is just ask.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 12:09 AM

As I said, Romney doesn’t have a strong hand on that issue. Obama has a rather weak hand given the the economic doldrums of the nation, so it makes sense to play to that, but people are not going to vote for a one issue candidate.

True. OTOH, Romney still has a track record better than the President, because whatever he’s going to be able to accomplish, it won’t be in the same way with what we already know, *doesn’t* work.

As for talking about jobs vs. CFA, I don’t mean he needs to turn into a one note singer: we already know that doesn’t work.

My point is that out of the two issues, he needs to talk more bucks, less chicken…lol

Simply saying that you can manage the economy better than Obama isn’t a terribly strong argument by itself.

No it’s not, but Romney got plenty he can hit the President on….

The Economy, Border Security, Cyber Security, F & F investigation…our Foriegn Policy alone is worth 2 months *nonstop* on the campaign trail.

Theres plenty to bring to the table, not just CFA.

Romney doesn’t have a history of creating jobs in Massachusetts, so all we have is his word that he can do these things. If the economy makes an upswing what issues will Romney be left with?

sharrukin on August 3, 2012 at 11:53 PM

Well I never had the pleasure (sic) of living in Mass under Romney, but i’m sure there are some HA posters that could care to shed light on those years?

And, to be fair, sharrukin, that is awfully hopeful to think the economy can lower itself by 9 million jobs in just 90 days?

Maybe the President can make that happen after Election day, but i’m pretty confident to say it isn’t going to happen before that.

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Good. This entire thing is utterly ridiculous anyway.

Reaps on August 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Well, they’re part of my “campaign,” you fuc*ing coward. And, to your misfortune, they are part of the American struggle to maintan freedom. This response was a serious mistake.

rrpjr on August 3, 2012 at 6:10 PM

What’s he going to say? Do you want another week of CFA stories?

John_Locke on August 3, 2012 at 6:13 PM

As a private citizen, Dan Cathy has the right to speak his opinion.” Bound to offend less people than dodging and weaving to avoid saying anything.

But whatever he says, there will be no shortage of people to argue that he said exactly the right thing, or took exactly the right action in refusing to say anything.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:20 AM

My point is that out of the two issues, he needs to talk more bucks, less chicken…lol

The bucks issue isn’t really working that well for him despite Obama’s enormous vulnerability on the subject. Romney should be way ahead of Obama.

Theres plenty to bring to the table, not just CFA.

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:11 AM

Why? Why not deal with this issue?

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 12:21 AM

BlaxPac on August 3, 2012 at 11:35 PM

You make very good points and the economy is #1. However, we have a Candidate running for President of the United States. He has addressed Obamacare because he knows that regardless of the Supreme Court saying it’s a “tax” issue, the American People are against it.

Same thing with Free Speech or any Constitutional Issue. I don’t expect Romney or even a President to address every little disagreement the people have. The very least he could have done was clarify the issue, since it wasn’t about “gays”. Just my thinking on this.

bluefox on August 4, 2012 at 12:24 AM

You really want more on how bad Romney is just ask.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 12:09 AM

You’re positively schizophrenic. You’re seeing secret messages that aren’t there.

Your two links are photos of what is claimed to be George Romney meeting a douchebag (I got invited to a 9/11 truther rally once, it was me in a whole room full of douchebags, and I was the only one in the room who actually knew anything of what happened that day) and a long winded article about George Romney.

You’ve provided nothing about Mitt.

I hope for your sake you never meet a douchebag (aside from the one in your bathroom over the sink), someone might take a photograph and use it to prove you’re evil.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Saul Alinsky alert.

Steveangell on August 3, 2012 at 11:55 PM

Saul Alinsky made a name for himself by pointing out that his opponents were people who talked often of their children going to hell, it seems.

MadisonConservative on August 4, 2012 at 12:26 AM

And this isn’t about “social cons” are nuts, and Mitt needs to wall them off or something. Not at all. Although it is true that abortion can be a divisive issue among conservatives and the larger electorate, opposition to gay marriage is held by 76% of Republicans, and among the Dem leaning independents, gay marriage and gay militancy is a prime area for the Repubs to make pickups.

But few independent voter pickups will be made if Romney himself seems a total unreliable squish on the issue, and people start believing that his position is probably just the same as Obama.

anotherJoe on August 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM

A conservative leader. I mean what do you think a president is exactly? He’s not the CEO of a corporation.

Right, but he is a politician running for office….and he isn’t Reagan. This wasn’t enough of a issue that was going to swing more voters his way.

Don’t forget, that not too long ago, the biggest strike the MSM had against Romney was his Mormonism, and religious Conservatives in general.

The press savaged Santorum so bad, that he couldn’t generate the momentum continuously enough to last until the convention, and would you agree that Santorum is as least as religious as Romney? So what kind of fodder would that have turned out to be?

Then obviously we need something more than a businessman.

Agree in spirit, but right now we need someone that isn’t sticking to such a failed economic plan that the ship of State is aground.

We tried 4 years of Obama…why the heck double down?

Yeah, it is the issue of the moment and there will be other issues that leap out at any president

And that’s PRECISELY the reason why it’s important to think before acting. It’s a disagreement between private parties with *no* legal reason for the Government (EEOC, HRC, etc) to get involved.

Those that support gay marriage & those that support CFA got a chance to air their sides, and CFA clearly came out the winner…now and in the future.

This was not a civil rights issue that needed Government intervention or even a spokesman.

Again, who was the highest elected official that spoke on it, was it anyone from Washington or even from the WH?

and you don’t get to delegate that responsibility or pass on them as Romney and Obama do without consequential damage to the nation. You can’t just vote ‘present’ and expect that to work when you sit in the White House.

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Maybe i was being too glib, or maybe you’re not reading me correctly. I never insinuated that i want Romney to sit on any issue, but it doesn’t make sense for him to inject himself on every issue al la the President.

The shootings in Colorado? Absolutely. The Olympics? Yes. Border Security? DREAM Act? Keystone pipeline? F&F?

Yes to all that. And yes, even to the CFA issue, but again, where in that list do you fit it?

Think triage. The worse problem first, and you pray to make it to the rest in time

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM

RESIST THE SOCIAL BS ! ALL THIS DOES IS TAKES FOCUS OFF OCOMMIE.
Is it really that hard too grasp this concept ???
WTF people ??
You lose INDEPENDENTS big time with this social BS that has no conclusion for you anyway. What the hell – Hey Mitt – Would you overturn ROE v Wade ??? I’m sure that has some kind of freaking meaning to you as well— inquiring minds, want to know.
There is an ELECTION GOING ON- so stop giving the MEDIA a reasons NOT TO COVER WHAT IS PRIORITY IN THIS ELECTION.(
Hint- it aint Chik-fil-a)

FlaMurph on August 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM

With that kind of misdiagnosis, don’t expect the patient to survive.

What is with you people always worrying about “the social BS?” It’s not “the social BS” that cost John McCain the election. “The social BS” didn’t cost Bush any elections.

If you were smart, you’d recognize that social conservatives are your best ally in getting a free-market economy and a strong national security. Instead, you keep chasing the unreliable independents who will drop you in a heartbeat for a little more Hope and Change.

It’s not the social conservatives that are the problem. The problem are the idiots wringing their hands about “the social BS” and trying to move further left to pick up a slightly larger share of the sliver of independents.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:20 AM

Absolutely. It’s not that there was a win or lose margin or significance in play here. Whether he publicly stands out for speaking or not, i don’t think the issue has enough legs to carry along to Nov, not when there are others more pressing right now.

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:41 AM

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:37 AM

Awesome post! You put it so succinctly and eloquently exactly what I was thinking!

melle1228 on August 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM

You make very good points and the economy is #1. However, we have a Candidate running for President of the United States. He has addressed Obamacare because he knows that regardless of the Supreme Court saying it’s a “tax” issue, the American People are against it.

Right, my pooint again being, we can win a cheap battle and forget that we have a real fight on our hands reguardless of the Nov outcome.

Obamacare is more important, IMHO because it…is…law. I can’t escape it, and i violate it at my own peril. If Romney is elected, I want to know his views on that right now (and not some qoute from 1-2 years ago). I want to know that if he’s elected and if Congress passes a repeal of that mess, that he’ll sign off on it.

That’s another reason why, no matter who wins in Nov, we need to make sure as many Conservatives are going to be in both houses.

Same thing with Free Speech or any Constitutional Issue. I don’t expect Romney or even a President to address every little disagreement the people have. The very least he could have done was clarify the issue, since it wasn’t about “gays”. Just my thinking on this.

bluefox on August 4, 2012 at 12:24 AM

See fox, i think you get it, or at least you understand my meaning.

I think in not trying to put himself into every issue he doesn’t look like the President. Yes, he could easily score some shots in, but would it make that much a plus to swing voters?

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:52 AM

Don’t forget, that not too long ago, the biggest strike the MSM had against Romney was his Mormonism, and religious Conservatives in general.

The press savaged Santorum so bad, that he couldn’t generate the momentum continuously enough to last until the convention, and would you agree that Santorum is as least as religious as Romney? So what kind of fodder would that have turned out to be?

Do you truly believe that Romney is going to get a pass on this line of attack? They don’t need fodder and hunkering down and trying not to be noticed is a rather difficult maneuver when you are running for president. They aren’t going to spare anyone who is a threat to their power, regardless of how inoffensive they try to make themselves.

Then obviously we need something more than a businessman.

Agree in spirit, but right now we need someone that isn’t sticking to such a failed economic plan that the ship of State is aground.

We tried 4 years of Obama…why the heck double down?

Romney hasn’t really shown much beyond campaign claims that he will do better on the economy without much to back that up. They both suck but at least Obama got Bin Laden.

I mean I don’t buy this, but Romney has to offer more than the businessman if he expects to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This was not a civil rights issue that needed Government intervention or even a spokesman.

The first amendment does need a spokesman and Romney should have acted. Several Democratic politicians spoke out to prevent CFA from entering their jurisdiction and there should have been push-back from the guy who claims to be a leader.

Again, who was the highest elected official that spoke on it, was it anyone from Washington or even from the WH?

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM

The priorities of Washington DC should not be dictating Romney’s campaign, though unfortunately, they seem to be doing exactly that.

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 12:54 AM

instead they are just crying because Romney did not let himself be lead into some long convoluted question about not only same sex marriage, but the Muslim Brotherhood.

It makes me wonder whose side some folks are really on.

Terrye on August 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Wonder your worried mind away. The manner in which our fears and insecurities twist basic issues and truths is remarkable. I can see the formulation developing here: for Romney to say anything about these issues would have been tantamount to “letting himself” be led by the media. You’ve already conceded the media and Left would win (either you fearfully anticipate Romney’s essential weakness or have been so conditioned by these petty tyrants you’ve lost all faith in the moral rhetoric of conservatism and the possibiliy of slamming their sorry little asses to the ground.) You’ve completely ceded even the idea of a verbal conflict. You’re a defeatist.

So when do we speak up? To talk only about “jobs” and the “economy.” We can’t talk about free speech or the Muslin Brotherhood — ever again — because it would mean the media was scamming us? Pathetic.

And what was “convoluted” about the question, or what had to be convoluted abut the answer? Who decided Romney had to play their game, or that his answer would have meant, by definition, that the media had “won.”

What losers we’ve become.

rrpjr on August 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Personally, I’m on the side of getting a conservative President who will push back against the progressives, get our economy back on solid ground, rein in the entitlements, and quit conceding every battle to the activists for fear of letting his campaign be “distracted.”

I get that Romney is not going to be that man. But does he have to act so terrified of saying something halfway conservative?

As it is, if Romney somehow manages to be elected, it will only be because Obama has been such an absolute disaster. And it would be foolish to expect more of him than a slightly more competent management of entitlement programs. And I seriously doubt he would ever be more than a one-term president.

Which will of course lead us right back to the Democrats electing some radical leftist posing as a centrist and trying to “restore” Obamacare. And in 2020, we’ll replay the 2012 election with a squishy RINO trying to “stay focused on the economy,” and “not get distracted by social issues,” while the usual sycophants say, “It’s just too important to get rid of [fill in the name of the new version of Obama] to worry about what’s wrong with our candidate.

I would love to be wrong. But it’s not looking good.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

instead they are just crying because Romney did not let himself be lead into some long convoluted question about not only same sex marriage, but the Muslim Brotherhood.

It makes me wonder whose side some folks are really on.

Terrye on August 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Wonder your worried mind away. The manner in which our fears and insecurities twist basic issues and truths is remarkable. I can see the formulation developing here: for Romney to say anything about these issues would have been tantamount to “letting himself” be led by the media. You’ve already conceded the media and Left would win (either you fearfully anticipate Romney’s essential weakness or have been so conditioned by these petty tyrants you’ve lost all faith in the moral rhetoric of conservatism and the possibiliy of slamming their sorry little asses to the ground.) You’ve completely ceded even the idea of a verbal conflict. You’re a defeatist.

So when do we speak up? To talk only about “jobs” and the “economy.” We can’t talk about free speech or the Muslin Brotherhood — ever again — because it would mean the media was scamming us? Pathetic.

And what was “convoluted” about the question, or what had to be convoluted abut the answer? Who decided Romney had to play their game, or that his answer would have meant, by definition, that the media had “won.”

What losers we’ve become.

rrpjr on August 3, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Personally, I’m on the side of getting a conservative President who will push back against the progressives, get our economy back on solid ground, rein in the entitlements, and quit conceding every battle to the activists for fear of letting his campaign be “distracted.”

I get that Romney is not going to be that man. But does he have to act terrified of saying something halfway conservative?

As it is, if Romney somehow manages to be elected, it will only be because Obama has been such an absolute disaster. And it would be foolish to expect more of him than a slightly more competent management of entitlement programs. And I seriously doubt he would ever be more than a one-term president.

Which will of course lead us right back to the Democrats electing some radical leftist posing as a centrist and trying to “restore” Obamacare. And in 2020, we’ll replay the 2012 election with a squishy RINO trying to “stay focused on the economy,” and “not get distracted by social issues,” while the usual sycophants say, “It’s just too important to get rid of [fill in the name of the new version of Obama] to worry about what’s wrong with our candidate.

I would love to be wrong. But it’s not looking good.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

I get that Romney is not going to be that man. But does he have to act so terrified of saying something halfway conservative?

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

He already did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rFCRs9PHAo

Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman“. – Willard M. Romney

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 1:06 AM

The first amendment does need a spokesman and Romney should have acted. Several Democratic politicians spoke out to prevent CFA from entering their jurisdiction and there should have been push-back from the guy who claims to be a leader.

Not to mention that one of them was Obamas former Chief of Staff.

melle1228 on August 4, 2012 at 1:08 AM

CFA showed a scary side of government. What did Cathy’s personal beliefs have to do with the operations of a chicken restaurant? lil Mussolini Rahm Emanual gets to set up a value system that the citizenry must follow? Is he like a prophet or holy man?

And WHA! with the “Chicago values”. It was so weird. I was like “uh oh”, these guys in Chicago and Boston are fascists and it’s not the tinfoil talking to me this time.

This was a watershed moment and I don’t think it will forgotten soon.

BoxHead1 on August 4, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Do you truly believe that Romney is going to get a pass on this line of attack? They don’t need fodder and hunkering down and trying not to be noticed is a rather difficult maneuver when you are running for president. They aren’t going to spare anyone who is a threat to their power, regardless of how inoffensive they try to make themselves.

NO i don’t say “hunker down” but i do say that as far as “important” battles go, is him giving it more air time going to carry it or his campaign further?

Ya gotta remember: this isn’t a limitless battle; each campaign has to allocate resources to achieve maximum effect.

Romney wasn’t going to convince people on the issue one way or the other and certainly, outside of his core of supports, those that support him because he’s the only choice outside of Obama are still going to vote for him. I don’t think enough people are going to be so turned off by his not commenting on *this* issue that he’ll lose votes or a 3rd party will seize power.

Romney hasn’t really shown much beyond campaign claims that he will do better on the economy without much to back that up. They both suck but at least Obama got Bin Laden.

Again, it’s not so much that I am a Romney booster, but he’s no Obama, and if that’s the only issue, then that makes me a one issue voter.

If there was a viable electable 3rd party choice, i would go for that. But since no other candidate like that is available, Romney is it.

I mean I don’t buy this, but Romney has to offer more than the businessman if he expects to get to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

As stated before, I agree to that, but right now I know he can be good at at least doing that much. How’s the current Administrations track record been?

The first amendment does need a spokesman and Romney should have acted. Several Democratic politicians spoke out to prevent CFA from entering their jurisdiction and there should have been push-back from the guy who claims to be a leader.

Yes the 1st Amendment can always use good representatives, but in this instance, I don’t see how his input would have advanced the issue.

Take your example: Several politicians spoke out about CFA, but they were Mayors or state level politicians.

Romney is running for Federal office, these were State officials expressing an opinion themselves…as far as i know, no law was broken or passed to affect CFA franchises.

The priorities of Washington DC should not be dictating Romney’s campaign, though unfortunately, they seem to be doing exactly that.

sharrukin on August 4, 2012 at 12:54 AM

Well the priorities of Washington is Special Interest.,

Romney didn’t comment one way or the other on the issue, so isn’t he *not* doing what Washington wants?

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 1:18 AM

those that support him because he’s the only choice outside of Obama are still going to vote for him.

YOu realize that campaigns that run ‘Atleast I am not that guy” always fail… see Kerry and Dole if you need examples.

melle1228 on August 4, 2012 at 1:22 AM

I would love to be wrong. But it’s not looking good.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

I would love to be wrong. But it’s not looking good.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Does posting twice mean it needed emphasis? Or that I need to go to bed?

Wait, I know what it means: Oops.

There Goes The Neighborhood on August 4, 2012 at 1:25 AM

YOu realize that campaigns that run ‘Atleast I am not that guy” always fail… see Kerry and Dole if you need examples.

melle1228 on August 4, 2012 at 1:22 AM

And yet we have a bunch of whining idiots here on a conservative website throwing everything they have at the republican nominee trying to drive his support down.

It’s like they’re terrified of Romney winning. They think it’s going to happen.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 1:28 AM

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 12:25 AM

Right how many fathers of Communism in America have you met and asked people to listen to?

Mitt was Georges spokesman then so not like it does not matter.

Furthermore Mitt interpreted for his father as he met with the North Vietnamese while we were at war with them in Paris. His father then went to Russia and South Vietnam.

Mitt returned as his fathers spokesman from his mission and they ran on surrendering to North Vietnam saying that George was brainwashed by the Americans in South Vietnam. And the North was fantastic and it would be a paradise for the South if we just left. We eventually did which lead to millions murdered by the wonderful North and their puppets.

People say Mitt is not a Communist like Obama but he sure was then and his fathers face was on his buss in 2008 so not like Mitt thought his father was wrong.

But sure. I’m crazy for not just buying Mitts lies.

Research him. He is just like Obama more like Obama than any other Politician I have ever researched other than perhaps Patrick Duval who took over for Mitt as Governor of Mass.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 1:32 AM

You realize that campaigns that run ‘Atleast I am not that guy” always fail… see Kerry and Dole if you need examples.

melle1228 on August 4, 2012 at 1:22 AM

Yes i do. But i also realize that Romney is not just running on “Im NOT Obama”. He’s actually pushing a message, albeit one i don’t agree to 100%, but i knew that beforehand.

Kerry lost not *just* because he tried to say he was the other guy but that “he’s a regular guy” and we come to know that he’s not. Not in the least, Kerry is more the rich boy caricature than the MSM tries to pin on Romney…or even Bush for that matter.

Dole faded out the same way that McCain did, he tried to be such a nice guy with the press unnecessarily which NEVER buys you any slack. If anything i think it paints a bigger target on your back.

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 1:36 AM

Obamacare is more important, IMHO because it…is…law. I can’t escape it, and i violate it at my own peril. If Romney is elected, I want to know his views on that right now (and not some qoute from 1-2 years ago). I want to know that if he’s elected and if Congress passes a repeal of that mess, that he’ll sign off on it.

That’s another reason why, no matter who wins in Nov, we need to make sure as many Conservatives are going to be in both houses.

BlaxPac on August 4, 2012 at 12:52 AM

You are correct, Obamacare is law and your view on this is important. And yes, we definitely need as many Conservatives elected to Congress as possible.

I think the CFA issue has been divided. Some view it a “gay” issue and you have pros & cons on that. Others think it’s a First Amendment issue and argue for that. It is not a “gay” issue just because the “gays”/dems want to make it so. It really is a First Amendment issue and that is how I look at it and the reason Romney could have made a statement regarding that and not about any perceived “gay” issue. That is why I think it was important for him to address this. Otherwise, we are most likely in agreement as to the seriousness of the election:-) We also need to keep in mind the other side will use anything said or done in order to distract & we need to pick & choose wisely on what is responded to.

bluefox on August 4, 2012 at 1:38 AM

O/T somewhat…

I went to my local Chick-Fil-A shortly after 8pm EST and did not see a single protester. I did see however a Chick-fil-A sponsored moon bounce in the grass, A fake Elvis singing on a stage, and little kids treated with rides in train cars shaped like cows around the parking lot.

F15Mech on August 4, 2012 at 1:50 AM

Furthermore Mitt interpreted for his father as he met with the North Vietnamese while we were at war with them in Paris. His father then went to Russia and South Vietnam.

Mitt returned as his fathers spokesman from his mission and they ran on surrendering to North Vietnam saying that George was brainwashed by the Americans in South Vietnam.

You’re referring to that war that Democrats got America into, wouldn’t let American troops fight to win and republicans got America out of… right?

I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that a republican would describe democrats as brainwashing people about Americas wars.

But sure. I’m crazy for not just buying Mitts lies.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 1:32 AM

You’re a rank hypocrite is what you are. Damn near everything out of your filthy mouth is a lie. You lie like a used car salesman yet you think it’s ok for you to lie like Reid.

America is going to have a Mormon President Stevie-boy.

Be afraid, be veeerrry afraid!

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:03 AM

You’re a rank hypocrite is what you are. Damn near everything out of your filthy mouth is a lie. You lie like a used car salesman yet you think it’s ok for you to lie like Reid.

Bah… this place needs an edit function.

That was supposed to read “You preach against lies, yet you think it’s ok for you to lie like Reid.”

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:08 AM

CFA showed a scary side of government. What did Cathy’s personal beliefs have to do with the operations of a chicken restaurant? lil Mussolini Rahm Emanual gets to set up a value system that the citizenry must follow? Is he like a prophet or holy man?

And WHA! with the “Chicago values”. It was so weird. I was like “uh oh”, these guys in Chicago and Boston are fascists and it’s not the tinfoil talking to me this time.

This was a watershed moment and I don’t think it will forgotten soon.

BoxHead1 on August 4, 2012 at 1:10 AM

Exactly.

Facisim is not at all what most believe it to be. It is the enforcement of a Communist Dictatorships belief system. Enforcing what the State believes on it’s citizens.

Exactly what the Democrats are doing here. Attempting to force everyone in America to agree with Gay Marriage. And if you do not then you can not work, you can not own anything. Are the gas chambers that far off. /s (last sentence)

This is very scary stuff. For Mitt to have no opinion on it really makes one wonder. Does Mitt agree with this type of bullying.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:03 AM

So you have no problem with Mitt being a communist.

You have no problem with North Vietnamese murdering millions of people.

You have no problem with George Romney working with our enemies to undermine America. With him claiming we were doing the Brainwashing not North Vietnam. (Sell that to McCain).

We got out because the Democrats made it impossible to fight the war. We should have listened to Eisenhower then there would be no North Korea or North Vietnam. But no. Fight a “war” but do not kill the enemy. Right. Does not work.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 2:30 AM

You’re a rank hypocrite is what you are. Damn near everything out of your filthy mouth is a lie. You lie like a used car salesman yet you think it’s ok for you to lie like Reid.

Bah… this place needs an edit function.

That was supposed to read “You preach against lies, yet you think it’s ok for you to lie like Reid.”

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:08 AM

You do your own research. I provided the links you glossed through them and just ignored what you read.

Yes I said things from other links. But I guarantee you it is in fact the truth.

Harry Reid is also a Mormon you vote for his as well?

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 2:36 AM

So you have no problem with Mitt being a communist.

Mitt’s not a communist, you lying sack of scum.

You have no problem with North Vietnamese murdering millions of people.

Mitt didn’t murder them.

You have no problem with George Romney working with our enemies to undermine America. With him claiming we were doing the Brainwashing not North Vietnam. (Sell that to McCain).

I have a problem with YOU working with Americas enemies to guarantee Obambi another 4 years to sell America to red China.

We got out because the Democrats made it impossible to fight the war.

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 2:30 AM

So now YOU are the one saying the democrats brainwashed Americans about Vietnam.

By you’re own self-contradicting illogical reasoning, YOU are now a communist and should be executed for treason.

Harry Reid is also a Mormon you vote for his as well?

Steveangell on August 4, 2012 at 2:36 AM

Harry Reid temple recommend is going to be in tiny strips at the bottom of a waste basket in the Ward Clerks office by the end of the week.

But that’s not what keeps you up at night.

You better memorize the lyrics to “The Spirit of God” and “Praise to The Man” before inauguration day, Stevie-boy! :D

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM

This thread only goes to show that despite what they say, SoCons really are only concerned about fundamentalist issues such as gay marriage and abortion to the exclusion of almost everything else. Here we are standing in the midst of what is quite possibly the most critical moment our nation has faced since the Civil War, and you people are sitting around bitching about petty nonsense such as this.

JFS61 on August 4, 2012 at 4:55 AM

You better memorize the lyrics to “The Spirit of God” and “Praise to The Man” before inauguration day, Stevie-boy! :D

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 2:52 AM

There’s something very Islamic in how Mormons indulge in triumphalism. You do realize this is a Christian country, don’t you Alberta Patriot? Best not to go mocking your hosts. People generally don’t take to well to this type of provocation.

sartana on August 4, 2012 at 5:59 AM

There’s something very Islamic

Lol!

You do realize this is a Christian country

Duh… how else would a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints get the nomination?

People generally don’t take to well to this type of provocation.

sartana on August 4, 2012 at 5:59 AM

Stupid people, you mean. When someone proves as reality challenged as the rabid “better dead than Romney” crowd, you can say whatever you want to them as the normal when you’re joking.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 6:43 AM

Romney on Chick-fil-A: That’s not something that’s part of my campaign; Update: Obama ducks too

Bravery.

/

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 4, 2012 at 6:56 AM

Neither is winning any part of the Romney campaign. I guess he must like 0bama since he also worked behind the scenes to ensure a McCain loss in 2008.

DannoJyd on August 3, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Still waiting for some kind of proof here, Danno.

How did Romney trick McCain into endorsing Obama, saying “Obama is an honorable man, and you have nothing to fear if he becomes president”?

How did Romney trick McCain into shutting his campaign down for a week while he ran back to Washington and did nothing?

How did Romney trick McCain into not touching 20 year attendance of Jeremiah “them-Jews-are-out-to-get-me” Wrights church?

How did Romney trick Steve Schmidt into schmoozing with HBO and making a trash movie that pinned the whole thing on Palin?

How did Romney trick McCain into hiring Schmidt?

How is Romney responsible for any of the goofs, blunders and self-destruction of the McCain goat rodeo?

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 7:11 AM

A real Conservative or for that matter a real Mormon would have let people know he supports Traditional Family Values. BRACE Yourselves for another Rino hell bent on destroying the Conservative brand through ineptitude and a closet affinity for elite liberal ideals.

Afterseven on August 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM

A real Conservative or for that matter a real Mormon would have let people know he supports Traditional Family Values.

Afterseven on August 4, 2012 at 7:14 AM

He did.

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” – Willard M. Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcB2tA93M78

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Distraction may all and well be a good reason to avoid these contaminated social issues, but the reality is, conservatives, that far too many Americans do vote on these issues (most on the wrong side) they are key to our freedom, our nation’s character, and ultimately, moral issues are at the core of the difference between our system and their Godless communism.

It is for moral reasons that the state doesn’t have unlimited rights to your property, your money, your children’s values. We just have drifted so far away from Nature’s God that we don’t even see that our failed morals are the cause of all this destruction–economic as well as social.

Don L on August 4, 2012 at 7:29 AM

MITT doesn’t do “Controversial”.

Means he’s gonna be picking Portman or TPaw. Non threats to the real goal in the Bush endorsements earlier this year.

Position Jeb for 2016.

Romney /no hair lighting person 2012

PappyD61 on August 4, 2012 at 7:30 AM

Romney should stick with the economy. It is smart for him to avoid these wedge issues and keep talking about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

Dollayo on August 4, 2012 at 7:42 AM

Distraction may all and well be a good reason to avoid these contaminated social issues, but the reality is, conservatives, that far too many Americans do vote on these issues (most on the wrong side) they are key to our freedom, our nation’s character, and ultimately, moral issues are at the core of the difference between our system and their Godless communism.

It is for moral reasons that the state doesn’t have unlimited rights to your property, your money, your children’s values. We just have drifted so far away from Nature’s God that we don’t even see that our failed morals are the cause of all this destruction–economic as well as social.

Don L on August 4, 2012 at 7:29 AM

This is a battle that doesn’t need to be fought in or over the Oval Office. The best place for this fight might just well be at home.

Remember, gays can’t breed and liberals don’t want to.

Be good christians, teach your children well and have lots of them. Even with a less than optimal candidate like Romney (no one ever said he was perfect, douchebags), we can bury these pinheads at the polls. A good conservative christian family with 5 kids will have 2.5 times more future voters that Barry and Michelle have created. Imagine the crushing electoral victory margins we can have in a generation or two.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Be good christians, teach your children well and have lots of them…A good conservative christian family with 5 kids will have 2.5 times more future voters that Barry and Michelle have created. Imagine the crushing electoral victory margins we can have in a generation or two.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 7:51 AM

Really? You’re promoting breeding as a means of achieving a conservative electoral majority?

Will you, as the Nazi’s did, give special recognition and privileges to women who pop out particularly large numbers of baby Rightists?

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Alberto_Patriot, you’ve got to score the touchdown before you do your chimpy war dance, you silly man.

sartana on August 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:04 AM

According to history books I’ve read, members of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party also breathed oxygen and used forks.

sartana on August 4, 2012 at 8:42 AM

What makes you think we haven’t already won?

(you can tell someone with poor reality testing anything, remember?)

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 9:10 AM

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 8:04 AM

According to history books I’ve read, members of the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party also breathed oxygen and used forks.

Neither of which are inherently creepy, while breeding your way to world domination is.

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM

This one’s liable to get me in trouble. I let it all hang out.

My take.

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Neither of which are inherently creepy

urban elitist on August 4, 2012 at 9:45 AM

What’s creepy is filling in “Nationalist Socialist” where there isn’t any.

If you are breathing oxygen and/or using forks, like the Nationalist Socialists did, you should consider suspending one or both of these activities before you hurt someone.

Your mind is clearly prone to leading you in that direction.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:12 AM

Seems like its more profitable if you are a believer and God rewards those who honor him and his works and words.

unseen on August 3, 2012 at 11:19 PM

…”for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.”

bluefox on August 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

This one’s liable to get me in trouble. I let it all hang out.

My take.

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:02 AM

You’ll be relieved to know that Mitt Romney has already defended traditional marriage.

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman” – Willard M. Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcB2tA93M78

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100174209/romney-cant-ignore-sarah-palin-in-2012-the-tea-party-champ-is-more-politically-relevant-than-ever/

“Then there was Sarah Palin’s intervention into Chick-fil-A-gate. In what could be the definitive conservative moment of the last few years, she posted a photo of herself on facebook eating at the anti-gay marriage chicken restaurant. Here was Palin’s appeal distilled: an ordinary woman out with her husband, doing what ordinary Americans do, looking ordinary – yet making a profound political statement at the same time. And she used social media to let the world know about it! That photo has “political science PhD thesis” written all over it.”

renalin on August 4, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Given that the Chick-fil-A question here was packaged with another question about Bachmann and the Muslim Brotherhood, he had two dilemmas. One: If he weighs in on either, that’s a story and now suddenly he’s being asked about gay marriage and Islamism instead of jobs for the middle class. If you want a candidate who’s more interested in culture-war issues than economic growth, try Romney 2008.

This is only partially a cultural issue. The bigger issue is the government trying to infringe on the 1st amendment. That is why many democrats I know also went to Chik-fil-A appreciation day. I don’t understand how Mitt could not pick up on this. He could have said he supports a person’s right to free speech, regardless of his station in life.

The Muslim Brotherhood issue isn’t just a cultural issue either, it is a national security issue.

So what this article is saying is that Mitt is too timid to stand up for free speech and national security, not just cultural isues.

Ibanez Lotus on August 4, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Great. Why didn’t he say it again?

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Great. Why didn’t he say it again?

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Because he’s better off talking about things when he can set the terms. Not under “drive by” questioning by the media where there isn’t as much control.

Obama has shown us how badly a candidate can screw up even when he does have control (eg. “The private sector is doing fine”, “You didn’t build that” and “We tried our plan and it worked”).

Romney is being a smart disciplined candidate. He’s being careful not to hand Obama ammunition the way Obama has handed him some of the best soundbites in political history.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM

The Muslim Brotherhood issue isn’t just a cultural issue either, it is a national security issue.

So what this article is saying is that Mitt is too timid to stand up for free speech and national security, not just cultural isues.

Ibanez Lotus on August 4, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Romney’s ahead of you on that one, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foj_glQCr3w
(just watch the vid, ignore the paultarded comments)

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Sacrificing conviction for political expediency?

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Sacrificing conviction for political expediency?

kingsjester on August 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

There’s no reason to think that.

Alberta_Patriot on August 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6