RNC shows soft and tough sides as Ann Romney and Christie take the stage

posted at 2:01 pm on August 28, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

The velvet glove and the iron fist are on the docket tonight as the first official night of festivities hosts Ann Romney, showing the softer side of her husband, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, with his tough rhetoric and tough-love budgetary realism.

Christie has said he’s not changing his speech in anticipation of Isaac, whose churning over the Gulf of Mexico has conjured rain, wind, and predictable political worries to Republicans in late August. Gov. Bobby Jindal has already canceled his appearance at the convention to be in his home state taking care of storm response.

Longtime Christie watchers know he’s not usually a scripted speaker, and he says the scripted environment of the convention won’t change that:

According to Politico, Christie says he isn’t a huge fan of preparing his remarks before he addresses millions of people, but he’s making an exception in this case. “I don’t use text almost ever,” Christie explains. “So most of the time I think about what it is I want to talk about and then I get up there and I talk about it. Now, with the time restrictions here and obviously the different stage, they want you to work off a text and that’s fine.”

Christie is slotted to begin his speech at 10:32 p.m., according to Romney surrogate Russ Schriefer, which gives him a 28-minute window for whatever freelancing he can fit in.

Before him, at 10:05 p.m. is Ann Romney, addressing a vast, national audience for the first time. Romney’s wife is an obvious political asset for her husband, exuding natural charisma and easily connecting with audiences where her husband might have trouble. The Romney campaign is palpably excited to introduce her to the world, but the environment will be different than what she used to, talking comfortably off the cuff in short spurts:

She is not used to speaking from a prepared text and went over it with advisers line by line. She practiced with a teleprompter and discovered she did not much care for it. And to her surprise she found campaign strategists and even her husband weighing in on her clothing options with counsel she considered, well, questionable.

“The funniest thing of all is that Stuart Stevens, who wears his shirts inside-out, is advising me on what dress I should wear tonight,” she told reporters on the plane, referring to the campaign’s senior adviser. She had thought “it was going to be like my wedding dress” where her husband would not see it until the event itself, only to learn that is not how modern conventions work.

Still, she had not completely surrendered to the exigencies of the polls-and-focus-group crowd. Was she going to take Mr. Stevens’s advice? “The verdict is still out,” she said.

She told Reuters correspondent Sam Youngman:

There have been rumors that Mitt Romney may be in the hall to hear his wife’s speech, but organizers were unwilling to confirm them.

“Anything can happen,” Schriefer said in the morning press briefing, where officials were also tight-lipped about the identity of the “mystery speaker” the RNC is touting for Thursday night.

“If we gave you that information, it wouldn’t be a mystery. Tune in!”

Also on the list of speakers today, Sen. Rick Santorum (7 p.m. hour), New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (all in the 8 p.m. hour), Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, Texas Senate Republican candidate Ted Cruz, former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis (all in the 9 p.m. hour), and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Here’s the whole schedule. More preview posts to come!

During the day, delegates will discuss setting rules for the convention and party, where there is a bit of a fight brewing, and take the roll call of delegates. Delegates will declare their support for the presidential and vice presidential candidates today, but the candidates will not technically be nominated until Thursday, Schriefer said.

“I can’t tell you how much we’re looking forward to getting on with the business of making sure we can provide a better future for every American,” said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.


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

I’m looking forward to Ann’s speech.

thatsafactjack on August 28, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The headline will read, “Ann Romney says Barack Obama is good at a hard job.”

Ann Romney on learning to use a TelePrompTer: “I don’t like it. It’s hard. We’ll see how I do.”

Wino on August 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

They should have swapped the order of speakers. After Chris Christie is done with the crowd, nobody will remember who Ann Romney is.

Archivarix on August 28, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Ann Romney: Tough

Chris Christie: Soft

Right Mover on August 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

I can’t really see any of the speakers for all of Romney’s spit in my eyes over the rules. They may as well just cancel the convention as far as I’m concerned.

besser tot als rot on August 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The headline will read, “Ann Romney says Barack Obama is good at a hard job.”

Wino on August 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Either my sight is getting poor, or Firefox fonts suck, likely both. For a few bewildered moments, I read it as “Ann Romney says Barack Obama is good at a hand job.”

Archivarix on August 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

There have been rumors that Mitt Romney may be in the hall to hear his wife’s speech, but organizers were unwilling to confirm them.

They need to have him somewhere that they can get reaction shots. He’s smitten with Ann and it shows – He’ll be grinning like a fool the whole time.

Dead Hand Control on August 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

This, uh, this … this woman … uh, owns a, uh, horse. Do you, uh, own an, uh, horse?

- Barack Obamuh
[Commie Convention}

OhEssYouCowboys on August 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ditto Jack

cmsinaz on August 28, 2012 at 2:13 PM

This, uh, this … this woman … uh, owns a, uh, horse. Do you, uh, own an, uh, horse?

- Barack Obamuh
[Commie Convention}

OhEssYouCowboys on August 28, 2012 at 2:12 PM

…well…he hasn’t eaten dog for a little bit!

KOOLAID2 on August 28, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Christie takes the stage?

We’re gonna need a bigger stage.

bgibbs1000 on August 28, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I hope they rehearsed the on-stage kiss.
Gore-Tipper awkward smooch cost him the election.

Bensonofben on August 28, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Ann Romney: Tough

Chris Christie: Soft

Right Mover on August 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Christie probably has softer abs than Ann Romney!

Six sitting Governors giving speeches in one day is quite a lineup! Hopefully they can hit on the theme of letting the states take care of things they do best, without Federal Government interference.

One of them should probably mention the absence of Governor Bobby Jindal, back home doing his job in a time of crisis.

Steve Z on August 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Either my sight is getting poor, or Firefox fonts suck, likely both. For a few bewildered moments, I read it as “Ann Romney says Barack Obama is good at a hand job.”

Archivarix on August 28, 2012 at 2:10 PM

Inadvertent Google traffic-generating post.

Arnold Yabenson on August 28, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Christie probably has softer abs than Ann Romney!

Steve Z on August 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

And a bigger bra.

the_nile on August 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I can’t really see any of the speakers for all of Romney’s spit in my eyes over the rules. They may as well just cancel the convention as far as I’m concerned.

besser tot als rot on August 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

yep. nothing like a conservative to get mitts dander up.

for obama he’ll spread his legs.

renalin on August 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

More like soft side and Pillsbury dough boy squishy soft side.

bgibbs1000 on August 28, 2012 at 2:27 PM

The headline will read, “Ann Romney says Barack Obama is good at a hard job.”

Ann Romney on learning to use a TelePrompTer: “I don’t like it. It’s hard. We’ll see how I do.”

Wino on August 28, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Well, that is true though, when you think about it. I remember Romney saying that if the SC overturns O-care, then Obama’s presidency would be a waste. Since the SC didn’t overturn it, does that mean O’s presidency hasn’t been a waste?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Christie probably has softer abs than Ann Romney!

Steve Z on August 28, 2012 at 2:20 PM

And a bigger bra.

the_nile on August 28, 2012 at 2:24 PM

ROFL. That’s mean.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Ann Romney on learning to use a TelePrompTer: “I don’t like it. It’s hard. We’ll see how I do.”

you ssee the skills on display every time Mr. O gets up in front of us??? just magnificent I tellz ya…../

ted c on August 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Well, that is true though, when you think about it. I remember Romney saying that if the SC overturns O-care, then Obama’s presidency would be a waste. Since the SC didn’t overturn it, does that mean O’s presidency hasn’t been a waste?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Yes and no!. It really just means he won’t sign a repeal bill.

bgibbs1000 on August 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

for obama he’ll spread his legs.

renalin on August 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM

do you really want your mom, wife, or daughters to read that?

repent.
/

ted c on August 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Yes and no!. It really just means he won’t sign a repeal bill.

bgibbs1000 on August 28, 2012 at 2:33 PM

LOL. These Romneys are Cassandras or something.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:35 PM

^ Wait wrong classical reference. Maybe I should say Delphic oracles…anyway, cryptic.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Mary Katherine…we need a better picture of Mrs. Romney…she’s much more attractive than what this one shows…no?

lynncgb on August 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Romney may have just lost the election. Commie Chinese do not like him.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/28/chinese_media_slams_romney_as_convention_begins

bayview on August 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Well, that is true though, when you think about it. I remember Romney saying that if the SC overturns O-care, then Obama’s presidency would be a waste. Since the SC didn’t overturn it, does that mean O’s presidency hasn’t been a waste?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You fail logic forever.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Romney’s troops and <strong>their goonlike behavior gutting the grassroots convention involvement has done massively more damage than any speech can undo.

michaelo on August 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

Well, that is true though, when you think about it. I remember Romney saying that if the SC overturns O-care, then Obama’s presidency would be a waste. Since the SC didn’t overturn it, does that mean O’s presidency hasn’t been a waste?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

You fail logic forever.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Wrong. That’s irrelevant. Romney clearly stated that if the SC overturned O-Care, then Obama’s presidency would have been a waste. It’s a contingency-based argument, not an existential one.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I can’t really see any of the speakers for all of Romney’s spit in my eyes over the rules. They may as well just cancel the convention as far as I’m concerned.

besser tot als rot on August 28, 2012 at 2:09 PM

As if you know what you are talking about, before today, you probably didn’t even know they had rules…

right2bright on August 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Oh boy,fiesty me thinks!
_________________________

Ann Romney Is Not Her Husband’s ‘Softer Side’
Aug 28 2012, 2:26 PM ET
***********************

TAMPA — The most anticipated speech of the Republican convention Tuesday night is Ann Romney’s. It’s being widely billed as an opportunity to show the “softer side” of her husband, Republican nominee Mitt Romney. But aside from feminine stereotypes, it’s not at all clear that this is an accurate read of Mrs. Romney’s personality.

Watching Ann Romney on the political stage, what she projects is not “softness”

at all but a tough, hard-edged, even aggressive attitude. During her husband’s last campaign,
*****************************

“there were times when I wanted to like come out of my seat and clock somebody,” she mused
***************************

on Fox a couple of years ago, according to an excellent profile in the Los Angeles Times. Earlier this year,

she joked that she could “just strangle” the press sometimes.
**************************************************************

These aren’t serious threats of physical violence, but they reveal a combative side to her personality that’s at odds with the sweet, nurturing, maternal caricature.
(More…..)
==========

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/ann-romney-is-not-her-husbands-softer-side/261671/

canopfor on August 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM

GOP Convention Live Streaming

http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/republican-national-convention-2012

canopfor on August 28, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Romney may have just lost the election. Commie Chinese do not like him.

bayview on August 28, 2012 at 2:38 PM

You would think the Chinese would like Mitt since he is working hard to turn the GOP into the CPC by way of the Rules Committee debacle.

Look, China! We have a Politburo, too! Be our friends!

Punchenko on August 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Wrong. That’s irrelevant. Romney clearly stated that if the SC overturned O-Care, then Obama’s presidency would have been a waste. It’s a contingency-based argument, not an existential one.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

No, I’m really not wrong. Don’t dig yourself in deeper with this.

Romney stated that a particular circumstance – the overturning of Obamacare – would cause Obama’s presidency to be a wast. He did not say “this is the only way Obama’s presidency could be a waste.

Is this really this hard?

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

Since the SC didn’t overturn it, does that mean O’s presidency hasn’t been a waste?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:30 PM

no, it’s been a total and utter success. now, off you go.

jimver on August 28, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Soft and tough sides ?
Only ONE angle, according to CNN : http://twitpic.com/aog0b2

pambi on August 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM

No, I’m really not wrong. Don’t dig yourself in deeper with this.

Romney stated that a particular circumstance – the overturning of Obamacare – would cause Obama’s presidency to be a waste.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 2:52 PM

I’m not digging myself deeper at all. Romney stated that IF the SC overturned ObamaCare, THEN Obama’s presidency would be a waste. The SC upheld ObamaCare. Under the conditions which Romney himself set out, Obama’s presidency would have to be something other than a waste. Now if Romney meant that Obama’s poresidency was a waste in general, then he was being redundant. “IF I don’t take that microwavable lunch with me to work today and eat it at lunchtime, my lunchtime will have been a waste. I took the lunch with me and ate it, so my lunchtime was not a waste.”

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I’ll watch Ann and Christie tonight. I hope they’re to the point and don’t ramble. Brevity is the key to memorable moments. Length is the key to disaster.

athenadelphi on August 28, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Wrong. That’s irrelevant. Romney clearly stated that if the SC overturned O-Care, then Obama’s presidency would have been a waste. It’s a contingency-based argument, not an existential one.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 2:42 PM

ABRtard logic (or lack thereof) on display.

So, you going to support Obama. Either by voting FOR Obama, not voting at all, or voting third party, right?

Gunlock Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

ABRtard logic (or lack thereof) on display.

So, you going to support Obama. Either by voting FOR Obama, not voting at all, or voting third party, right?

Gunlock Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Oooooooh, what a brilliant Romtard riposte.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:17 PM

So, you going to support Obama. Either by voting FOR Obama, not voting at all, or voting third party, right?

Gunlock Bill on August 28, 2012 at 3:15 PM

More Romtard “logic”. Here’s a primer for you:

A vote for Romney is a vote for Romney.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

A vote for neither is a vote for neither.

What’s so hard about that?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I predict the polls will rise higher than the oceans.

faraway on August 28, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I’m not digging myself deeper at all. Romney stated that IF the SC overturned ObamaCare, THEN Obama’s presidency would be a waste. The SC upheld ObamaCare.

Correct. IF A, THEN B

In general, given two statements A and B, there are 4 possibilities: both are true, neither are true, only A is true, or only B is true.

Stating “IF A THEN B” rules out only one of these 4 possibilities: namely, the possibility that A is true and B is false. If A turns out to be false, then that allows you to conclude nothing from the statement.

Under the conditions which Romney himself set out, Obama’s presidency would have to be something other than a waste.

No! This is absolutely 100% false! Romney never said anything in this quote about what the implications of upholding Obamacare are.

A priori, there are 4 possibilities:

1. Sc overturns Obamacare and Obama’s presidency is a waste.

2. Sc overturns Obamacare and Obama’s presidency is not a waste.

3. Sc upholds Obamacare and Obama’s presidency is a waste.

4. Sc upholds Obamacare and Obama’s presidency is not a waste.

Romney’s statement rules out possibility #2. All 3 other possibilities remained open, until the supreme court actually upheld Obamacare, at which point possibilities 3 and 4 remained.

Now if Romney meant that Obama’s poresidency was a waste in general, then he was being redundant.

There’s no redundancy. Romney never said “I am outlining the only possible way obama’s presidency could be a failure.”

“IF I don’t take that microwavable lunch with me to work today and eat it at lunchtime, my lunchtime will have been a waste. I took the lunch with me and ate it, so my lunchtime was not a waste.”

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:00 PM

While it is probably true that your lunch time was not a waste, that is not a consequence of your previous statement.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM

There’s no redundancy. Romney never said “I am outlining the only possible way obama’s presidency could be a failure.”

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No, no, no. That’s a weaselly attempt at obfuscation. Romney himself in his statement made the contigency of O-Care’s constitutionality the criterion on which to judge the waste/non-waste character of O’s presidency.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM

* contingency, that is.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM

…I love Ann!

KOOLAID2 on August 28, 2012 at 3:30 PM

There’s no redundancy. Romney never said “I am outlining the only possible way obama’s presidency could be a failure.”

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Exactly. The only way ddrintn is correct is if Romney’s statement was “If, and only if, the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare…”

…had to take the opportunity to exercise my college Logic/Philosophy minor from 21 years ago.

right of the dial on August 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Exactly. The only way ddrintn is correct is if Romney’s statement was “If, and only if, the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare…”

…had to take the opportunity to exercise my college Logic/Philosophy minor from 21 years ago.

right of the dial on August 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Romney said that IF ObamaCare is overturned, Obama’s presidency will have been a waste. It was upheld. Now either Romney was being redundant, or else in Romney’s universe the Obama administration would have to, on the basis of the continuing survival of O-Care, be something other than a waste. Period. You can’t make the survival of O-care the criterion by which to judge to value of O’s administration and then say that, even in the face of that continuing survival, O’s presidency was a waste. It’s not possible.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM

No, no, no. That’s a weaselly attempt at obfuscation. Romney himself in his statement made the contigency of O-Care’s constitutionality the criterion on which to judge the waste/non-waste character of O’s presidency.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:29 PM

He said nothing of the sort. He made a simple if-then statement:


If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president’s term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” Mitt Romney said at a campaign rally in Salem, Virginia.

He said nothing about it being the criterion for anything.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I no longer have any respect for the Republican Party.

It detest freedom of the States to choose their own delegates. To hell with the will of the people. Romney knows better.

It now thinks it can decide better than the people who should run for Senate. For the first time in the history of the Party a man is being harrassed and being forced out as a nominee of the party simply for a stupid statement he made then quickly retracted even if he could win the seat for Republicans. Obviously this is now some kind of an elite club only for Republicans the party chooses. Some group of snobs get together and decide. This is Stupid on steroids. Obviously those in charge of the party could care less if Democrats keep the Senate.

Planks of the party are now openly criticized by the nominee of the Party who obviously only has disdain for the majority of the Party who approved these planks.

The Republican Party is now Pro Abortion upon telling a lie. You can even choose which lie you are willing to tell based on coaxing by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood furthermore is assured continued funding.

I see very little difference between the Romney Republican Party and the Obama Democratic Party. They are both pure evil.

Time to retake the Republican Party or replace it.

Steveangell on August 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

He said nothing of the sort. He made a simple if-then statement:

“If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president’s term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” Mitt Romney said at a campaign rally in Salem, Virginia.
He said nothing about it being the criterion for anything.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Romney made it the criterion with that statement. Obama’s foirst 3 1/2 years would have to be said to have been spent on something other than a waste. good grief. The pretzels the ‘bots have to twist themselves into to defend this guy.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

^ Why couldn’t Romney have just said O-Care is a waste from top to bottom, constitutional or not? Put you college Logic/Philosophy class experience to work on that one.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Exactly. The only way ddrintn is correct is if Romney’s statement was “If, and only if, the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare…”

…had to take the opportunity to exercise my college Logic/Philosophy minor from 21 years ago.

right of the dial on August 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Precisely. Stated much more eloquently than I did. You clearly did the reading.

A+

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Time to retake the Republican Party or replace it.

Steveangell on August 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Replace is going to be the only way eventually.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Exactly. The only way ddrintn is correct is if Romney’s statement was “If, and only if, the Supreme Court overturns Obamacare…”

…had to take the opportunity to exercise my college Logic/Philosophy minor from 21 years ago.

right of the dial on August 28, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Precisely. Stated much more eloquently than I did. You clearly did the reading.

A+

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Wrong. Romney didn’t have to say “if and only if” given the contigent nature of his original statement. It was baked in.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Romney made it the criterion with that statement. Obama’s foirst 3 1/2 years would have to be said to have been spent on something other than a waste. good grief. The pretzels the ‘bots have to twist themselves into to defend this guy.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Making a simple if-then statement does not make a criterion for anything. in addition to your logic being flat out wrong, you are also being disingenuous with your assertion that the majority of posters here are “bots”, when you know full well that the majority either didn’t support Romney in the primaries at all, or supported him as the best of a set of bad options.

You offer no actual solutions to anything, and instead, simply gloat and sneer. Your trolling is quite tiresome.

^ Why couldn’t Romney have just said O-Care is a waste from top to bottom, constitutional or not? Put you college Logic/Philosophy class experience to work on that one.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM

He has said that, as you know perfectly well. Had it been overturned, we would have had the benefit of it being clear, even to the law’s supporters, that it was a waste as well.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Time to retake the Republican Party or replace it.

Steveangell on August 28, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Replace is going to be the only way eventually.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM

What absolute BS. Replace with what? Everyone who wanted to run had ample opportunity to present themselves to the republican primary electorate. The voters coalesced around the one guy who actually seemed to be interested in running.

Is it the republican establishment’s fault that every other candidate either didn’t run, or was found lacking by the voters?

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Wrong. Romney didn’t have to say “if and only if” given the contigent nature of his original statement. It was baked in.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:52 PM

There is no “contingent nature” “baked in” to his statement, whatever that’s supposed to mean. It’s an if-then statement. There are no words in his statement about any contingency.

He says the word “if”, then says a statement, then says “then”, and proceeds with another statement. There is no matter of interpretation or ambiguity here. There is only one interpretation of such a statement. If you disagree, you are arguing against essentially every logician, mathematician, grammarian, etc., on the planet.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

“If Obamacare is not deemed constitutional, then the first three and a half years of this president’s term will have been wasted on something that has not helped the American people,” Mitt Romney said at a campaign rally in Salem, Virginia.

Two things on this statement.

1) Is Mitt saying that Obama Care helped the American People. Sure seems like that to me. After if he says the three and a half years would only be wasted if the SCTOUS overturned it. They did not.

2) At the end listen to Romney “Then we’re going to have to have a President and I’m not one to get rid of Obama Care. I will repeal it from day 1.

We all know repealing it on day 1 is impossible. We get rid of that and Romney is saying he will keep Obama Care. I think that was the truth and thus a Gaff.

Steveangell on August 28, 2012 at 4:21 PM

CNN of all news outfits did a special on the Romneys and the Mormon Church last night that was really pretty darn good.

John the Libertarian on August 28, 2012 at 4:23 PM

How old is Ann Romney? She looks great!

PattyJ on August 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM

What absolute BS. Replace with what? Everyone who wanted to run had ample opportunity to present themselves to the republican primary electorate. The voters coalesced around the one guy who actually seemed to be interested in running.

Is it the republican establishment’s fault that every other candidate either didn’t run, or was found lacking by the voters?

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:06 PM

But now Mitt wants to change the rules to make RINOS like himself have a privileges assuring them far more control of the process. He wants to rig the game essentially.

Then we have Akins who got about the same amount of support Romney got. In almost every primary before the others all dropped out Romney got 40% or less of the vote. Yet Romney wants Akins out because he disagrees with Akins. He does not want the rules to apply there. This is unprecedented. Never before has someone been asked to pull out over a statement no matter how stupid. In fact many have won election with felony indictments hanging over them. This is a power grab that should not be allowed. The people and only the people should decide on the nominee and once chosen they must be supported by the Party or the Party becomes meaningless. For now it is the Establishment Republican Party Conservatives not welcome.

Steveangell on August 28, 2012 at 4:28 PM

There is no “contingent nature” “baked in” to his statement, whatever that’s supposed to mean. It’s an if-then statement. There are no words in his statement about any contingency.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:15 PM

“If it’s overturned by the Supreme Court” is a contingency, genius. Good grief.

He has said that, as you know perfectly well.

RINO in Name Only on August 28, 2012 at 4:01 PM

Was that after “repeal the bad and keep the good”, or before? It’s hard to keep up.

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM

A vote for neither is a vote for neither.

What’s so hard about that?

ddrintn on August 28, 2012 at 3:19 PM

So you’re not voting for the Presidency?

Deanna on August 28, 2012 at 5:51 PM

I’m not digging myself deeper at all.

Here’s how logic works: If A then B does not mean that “if Not A, then Not B.”

Proof:
“If you vote for Obama, you have your head up your arse.”

Let’s now say that you break your leg, and don’t get to vote at all. You did not vote for Obama.

Yet you still have your head up your arse.

QED

Wino on August 28, 2012 at 8:03 PM