MEDIA MITT-GASM IGNORES FLIP-FLOPS DURING FLORIDA DEBATE
Anyone whose knowledge of the MS/NBC GOP Presidential Debate at Florida Atlantic University comes only from media reports thinks that the Gucci Chamaeleon -- Willard Mitt "the Flip" Romney -- won.
Of course those who actually watched the debate know better.
It’s not as if MS/NBC didn’t try their best to throw the debate to Mitt. At one point, the moderators asked Romney at least three questions in a row. Repeatedly, the moderators asked Romney soft-ball follow-ups that dovetailed into "Romney 3.0's" canned stump speech.
Supporters of Governor Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul undoubtedly wondered if their candidates would EVER get a question at some junctures.
Cynics will conclude that MS/NBC had the fix in for Romney, understanding that Romney polls as the weakest candidate against the Democrats. They know that Romney plays into virtually every elite, country-club, big business, establishment stereotype the media pushes about Republicans.
Many Heartlanders will assume that given the collapse of Rudy’s Florida strategy, the clubby New York-Boston-Washington Ivy League golf & cocktail circuit (to which all network types apparently aspire) has settled on Romney because he’s from that discrete and insular social strata. The Ivy League snobs simply can’t risk someone in power who didn’t matriculate at a selective Eastern college or who hasn’t genuflected to the REAL powers on Wall Street and Madison Avenue.
Of course, the only reason anyone is talking about a focus-grouped stiff like Mitt Romney (who before this year had only one successful election under his belt and less than five years of elected experience) is his "Citizen Kane" act – attempting to buy the election with tens of millions of his own dollars.
Yet serious watchers of the debate noted that Romney’s almost legendary ability to flip-flop was on stark display in the Florida debate.
For example, Governor Huckabee (a rock-solid gun rights candidate) asked Mitt-the-Flip a simple question: Do you support the "so-called assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill?" (Huckabee’s question was technically correct because t the ban wasn’t really about true military assault weapons, but about scary-looking assault-styled semi-automatics)
Mitt’s struggling answer was a salient window into the vacuity of Romney when he’s off his stump speech script. First, Mitt extolled his support for renewing the ban (ignoring that the proposals he supported could have affected virtually all ordinary semi-automatic shotguns and other common weapons), and lamented the failure of renewal. Then Mitt proclaimed the glories of the Massachusetts "assault weapon" ban.
But in a breathtaking flip-flop, Mitt then said we don’t need any more gun laws.
Huh? Did Romney forget the first couple of paragraphs of his answer that touted his support for more gun laws?
Another bizarre moment for Romney came when he endorsed a "national" catastrophic property insurance fund to address the Florida insurance "crisis," but then said that people in Iowa shouldn’t have to pay for it.
What exactly does "National" mean to Mr. Romney? Is Iowa not part of the Nation? Obviously, if the fund is only paid for by people in hurricane states or regions, it’s not a "national" program.
Romney also repeated his misinterpretation of the "no religious test" provision of the U.S. Constitution, which I previously have debunked here.
Finally, "Citizen Mitt" refused to say how much of his own fortune he’s pouring in to buy the Florida election. He claimed that it was for strategic reasons that he wasn’t sharing the information with the other campaigns.
What!?!
At least in Citizen Mitt’s paid media, he can stay on the script and avoid his apparently natural tendency to flip-flop.
Anyone whose knowledge of the MS/NBC GOP Presidential Debate at Florida Atlantic University comes only from media reports thinks that the Gucci Chamaeleon -- Willard Mitt "the Flip" Romney -- won.
Of course those who actually watched the debate know better.
It’s not as if MS/NBC didn’t try their best to throw the debate to Mitt. At one point, the moderators asked Romney at least three questions in a row. Repeatedly, the moderators asked Romney soft-ball follow-ups that dovetailed into "Romney 3.0's" canned stump speech.
Supporters of Governor Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul undoubtedly wondered if their candidates would EVER get a question at some junctures.
Cynics will conclude that MS/NBC had the fix in for Romney, understanding that Romney polls as the weakest candidate against the Democrats. They know that Romney plays into virtually every elite, country-club, big business, establishment stereotype the media pushes about Republicans.
Many Heartlanders will assume that given the collapse of Rudy’s Florida strategy, the clubby New York-Boston-Washington Ivy League golf & cocktail circuit (to which all network types apparently aspire) has settled on Romney because he’s from that discrete and insular social strata. The Ivy League snobs simply can’t risk someone in power who didn’t matriculate at a selective Eastern college or who hasn’t genuflected to the REAL powers on Wall Street and Madison Avenue.
Of course, the only reason anyone is talking about a focus-grouped stiff like Mitt Romney (who before this year had only one successful election under his belt and less than five years of elected experience) is his "Citizen Kane" act – attempting to buy the election with tens of millions of his own dollars.
Yet serious watchers of the debate noted that Romney’s almost legendary ability to flip-flop was on stark display in the Florida debate.
For example, Governor Huckabee (a rock-solid gun rights candidate) asked Mitt-the-Flip a simple question: Do you support the "so-called assault weapons ban and the Brady Bill?" (Huckabee’s question was technically correct because t the ban wasn’t really about true military assault weapons, but about scary-looking assault-styled semi-automatics)
Mitt’s struggling answer was a salient window into the vacuity of Romney when he’s off his stump speech script. First, Mitt extolled his support for renewing the ban (ignoring that the proposals he supported could have affected virtually all ordinary semi-automatic shotguns and other common weapons), and lamented the failure of renewal. Then Mitt proclaimed the glories of the Massachusetts "assault weapon" ban.
But in a breathtaking flip-flop, Mitt then said we don’t need any more gun laws.
Huh? Did Romney forget the first couple of paragraphs of his answer that touted his support for more gun laws?
At least Romney stopped short of again claiming a National Rifle Association endorsement THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE!
Another bizarre moment for Romney came when he endorsed a "national" catastrophic property insurance fund to address the Florida insurance "crisis," but then said that people in Iowa shouldn’t have to pay for it.
What exactly does "National" mean to Mr. Romney? Is Iowa not part of the Nation? Obviously, if the fund is only paid for by people in hurricane states or regions, it’s not a "national" program.
Romney also repeated his misinterpretation of the "no religious test" provision of the U.S. Constitution, which I previously have debunked here.
Finally, "Citizen Mitt" refused to say how much of his own fortune he’s pouring in to buy the Florida election. He claimed that it was for strategic reasons that he wasn’t sharing the information with the other campaigns.
What!?!
Is Mitt somehow afraid that the cash-strapped campaigns of Rudy, McCain and Huckabee will take that "strategic" information about Mitt’s personal donations to his campaign and suddenly hit up all the South Florida payday lenders and pawn shops for more campaign cash?
Everyone on the ground in the Sunshine State realizes that Mitt is going "all in" to win with a massive blitzkrieg of paid media.
At least in Citizen Mitt’s paid media, he can stay on the script and avoid his apparently natural tendency to flip-flop.
Labels: gun laws, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, NRA
posted by Editor at 06:52
10 Comments:
Geez! How do you really feel about Romney?
Got an agenda, there?
Chris Matthews asked Tucker Carlson on the post-debate who he thought had won the debate. Whom Tucker replied "Mike Huckabee" Tucker never reappeared in the show afterwards. Didn't he get the email?
The talking heads of MSNBC (as well as Fox) will not be able to convert my vote from McCain to Romney whatever they say! Romney the flip-flopper needs to be exposed more and I sincerely welcome more article like this to expose the phony Romney.
If Romney is so loved by the media, try to find a positive article about him...Fox, CNN, NBC, Newspapers across the country are all McCain lovers.
He HAS won virtually every debate, and is disliked because he can actually stay married, and has been successful in business. And Romney has zero scandals.
What is news against Romney is the status quo for Huckabee and McCain. Their flips flops make me sick! Immigration, economy knowledge, freedom of speech, taxes...
Huckabee and McCain are lifetime politicians moving up the ladder. Romney could sail off into the sunset, but chooses to serve his country instead.
Mitt Romney 2008!!!
I not going to vote for Willard Zombie. Values voters are going to stay home if he is the nominee. A vote for Willard is a vote for Billary.
One flip you forgot--when asked by Russert about his spending his own money, Romney first noted that he had received more outside donations then any other candidate. In his next breath, he claimed that since he was spending his own cash, he would not be indebted to anyone. How does that work, Willard? Your donors-which have given more than everyone else's--expect no favors, while every other candidate has sold their souls? You can't have it both ways.
Romney is polished and a great debater,no doubt. It's just the substance that is lacking.
What's amazing is that people supporting Huckabee wouldn't change their support regardless of what he does because of their didain for Romney because of one thing and one thing only...his religion. Because of their connection to Mike's faith, none of Huckabee's supporters are willing to look at Mike's scandals as governor or at his own flip-flops. It is absolutely hypocritical. At least Romney has no scandals under his belt.
McCain showed himself to be lying through his teeth by saying Romney wanted to pull out of Iraq. This after McCain has flip-flopped on the economy, tax cuts, and immigration.
I'm sorry, but I feel I can definitely trust Romney more than either Huckabee or McCain.
Anonymous said: "One flip you forgot--when asked by Russert about his spending his own money, Romney first noted that he had received more outside donations then any other candidate. In his next breath, he claimed that since he was spending his own cash, he would not be indebted to anyone. How does that work, Willard? Your donors-which have given more than everyone else's--expect no favors, while every other candidate has sold their souls? You can't have it both ways."
This is such a silly accusation. How would someone who has paid $2,300 max to Romney be owed by Romney in any way other than him actually getting the nomination. Your point about this flip-flop holds no water. As for substance, Romney is the only one to give in-depth answers about how to solve solutions. He has more substance (and integrity) than McCain and Huckabee combined.
I think it is absolutely hilarious to hear people say that Romney is more trustworthy than any candidate.
I also love to hear people call McCain a Liberal. I was disappointed even in the National Review endorsing him. It shows how much the Republican Party has changed in the last 40 years. Barry Goldwater was right when he said, "the religious right is neither religious nor right". He warned about their tricky in the early years of the Neo-Con revolution.
Anonymous said: This is such a silly accusation. How would someone who has paid $2,300 max to Romney be owed by Romney in any way other than him actually getting the nomination. Your point about this flip-flop holds no water.
I didn't make the accusation, just pointe dout the obvious contradiction in Willard's statement.
However, the fact is that Willard did skirt campaign finance regs and took $250k from Peter Karmanos as well as many other donations in excess of the limit through a loophole. Read for yourself;
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6127
Post a Comment
<< Home