Ace of Spades HQ

February 29, 2012

Romney: I'm Not In Favor of the Blunt-Rubio Amendment
— Ace

That's the one that would block the HHS birth control mandate.

And that's bad.

But it sounds like he doesn't know what the bill is:

IÂ’m not for the bill. But, look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife, IÂ’m not going there.

It sounds like (and I hope) that it's a case of him not knowing what the amendment is.

If he actually knows what it is and is taking a position against it anyway, then I think I might actually just write him off, and write off the whole election as well.

The reason I have doubts that he understands what he's being asked about is that he has been conservative on this whole question of mandates and religious exceptions for conscience -- again and again in debates has has attacked Obama for this very thing.

It seems strange that he'd reverse all that.

If this is his next flip-flop... that's the last flip-flop for me.

Meanwhile... ABC News now projects that Michigan is a tie on delegates. Split down the middle.

Posted by: Ace at 12:47 PM | Comments (202)
Post contains 207 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at February 29, 2012 12:48 PM (7W3wI)

2 I have been stalwart in opposing this sort of thing. Unless you'd rather I didn't.

Wait, what are we talking about again?

Posted by: Mitt ROmney at February 29, 2012 12:49 PM (7BU4a)

3 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 12:50 PM (8y9MW)

4 It seems strange that he'd reverse all that.

Kidding, right? This is Romney.

Posted by: Valiant at February 29, 2012 12:50 PM (aFxlY)

5 Got a link, Ace? It might make it more clear if he at least should have known (say, by the question lead-in) or not.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 12:50 PM (8y9MW)

6 >>the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a woman, husband and wife

Wrestle that straw man, Willard.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (/kI1Q)

I've got a feeling he's mixing up his briefings.

Weak

Posted by: dblwmy at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (BvTwT)

8 Wow, he's so electable.

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (AQD6a)

9 Unless he means that he is opposed to bandaids on a bad bill, and would rather kill the whole thing, like he previously said.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (NJs1e)

10 Well I don't think he's going to be able to try and use the excuse he used on his poor handling of Ohio's Issue 2 with this one.

Posted by: buzzion at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (GULKT)

11 He's pledged to repeal Obamacare in any case (which would of course also scrap this contraceptive bullshit), so I don't see why he should be out there pushing this.

I think it's rather wise to stay out of another frigging two-week Contraceptive Sideshow.

Posted by: Lou at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (xp1pq)

12 I guess not knowing what it is and opposing it from a position of total ignorance is better than knowing what's in it and opposing it, but not by much. Either way, it doesn't make Romney look good at all.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 29, 2012 12:51 PM (DrWcr)

13 In fairness, Romney did always maintain he was in favor of mandates and that they work so.....

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 12:52 PM (WNzUA)

Got a link, Ace? It might make it more clear if he at least should have known (say, by the question lead-in) or not.

Yeah, I was going to say that even for Romney this seems very strange. Also is there something funky in the bill? I don't remember the exact text off the top of my head but I don't think so.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 12:52 PM (VtjlW)

15 Newt

Posted by: spypeach at February 29, 2012 12:52 PM (hyUyU)

16 What an inspiring leader...

The guy honestly has no clue whatsoever.

Posted by: H Badger at February 29, 2012 12:53 PM (n/0Nw)

The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate. It is extremely broad, and a lot of people are not comfortable with it. Romney may very well know what he is talking about here. My understanding is that this amendment would allow Christian Scientists to refuse to pay for any health insurance for their employees, for example.

I'm guessing that Harry Reid is allowing a vote on it because he knows some Republicans are not comfortable with this. Or if they are, Obama can still veto the bill on grounds that it is too broad.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 12:53 PM (NYnoe)

18
Instead of admitting not knowing the details of the bill, he attempted to punt and he appears to be flip-flopping or protecting the flank.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 29, 2012 12:53 PM (TkGkA)

19 >> then I think I might actually just write him off, and write off the whole election as well.

Welcome to the party.

Try the paint; it's delightfully huffable this time of year.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 29, 2012 12:53 PM (ut/+s)

20 I have to not support this bill before I know what's in it!

Posted by: Mittens McRomneytard at February 29, 2012 12:54 PM (HpT9p)

21 So...down with Romney(pending confirmation). 51st look at Newt? 1108th look at Rick? O, right Newt sucks and Rick will make us go to church. Reality = 3 more months of this...enjoy!

Posted by: Brian at February 29, 2012 12:54 PM (UnMRd)

22 BTW- Here's more on the amendment Romney is apparently against....

http://tinyurl.com/7zqnetd

Olympia Snowe was on MSNBC earlier and said she's voting against it because it's "extreme"

Romney/Snowe 2012

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 12:54 PM (WNzUA)

23 Doofus. Electable indeed.

Posted by: Anabolic State at February 29, 2012 12:54 PM (vV+S1)

The dog ate my notes on this bill.

While on the roof of the car.

Posted by: Mittens the Wonderboy at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (d0Tfm)

25 My move fell in a time frame that precluded me from voting in the primary of either my old or new state.

But I did the motor voter thing when I got me new DL yesterday in the new state so I can hold my nose and pull for whatever ABO the stupid party sticks us with in November.

Posted by: Scott J at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (WAhu6)

26 That government control of private companies is pretty sweet, ain't it?

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (0tkqC)

27 Additionally, wouldn't it be wise not to slam on the panic button until we've heard the audio?

Your source is secondhand, and is the lefty Greg Sargent, who himself is reporting it from a phone conversation he had with the reporter who presumably dug this up.

Considering that the last time this kind of stuff cropped up, the context greatly benefited Romney, I'll hold judgment.

Posted by: Lou at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (xp1pq)

Let me know when you've heard something you like! After all, it's easy to excite you dumb hicks in the base with incendiary comments. I'm not going to set my hair - my dark, luxurious, well-coiffed and only slightly dyed hair - on fire just to win votes, you know!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (v+QvA)

29
1. Dole - Unelectable

2. McCain - Unelectable

3. Romney - ?

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 29, 2012 12:55 PM (TkGkA)

30 I'm still on my first look at carbon-monoxide poisoning.

Posted by: Mr. Lurky McLurkington, Esq. at February 29, 2012 12:56 PM (9ks0K)

31 Oh, Mitt. I am fighting the urge to say "Screw it, if this ship is going to crash,might as well be Obama at the helm." You're making that really hard for me.

Posted by: Lauren at February 29, 2012 12:56 PM (+E+2z)

32 Fox said this morning it was a 50-50 split but nothing "official". How they split it will tell us volumes, just like AZ flaunting the rules.

Posted by: Vic at February 29, 2012 12:57 PM (YdQQY)

33 The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate. It is extremely broad, and a lot of people are not comfortable with it.
Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 04:53 PM (NYnoe)

Yes, they are called, "liberals".

I'm not sure the Blunt Amendment is that broad but why wouldn't we want an escape valve that anyone could use to get out from underneath ObamaCare (if that's what it does)?

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 12:57 PM (WNzUA)

34 Republicans for Obama 2012: Because voting for someone you hate is better than voting and hating yourself.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 29, 2012 12:57 PM (ut/+s)

35 >>The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate.

So the rest of us get the same rights as Muslims? Interesting.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 12:57 PM (/kI1Q)

36 I favored the Blunt Amendment in college - but not since then. That you know about it.

Anyone got some fritoes? I'm jonesing man.

Posted by: Barack Obama at February 29, 2012 12:57 PM (7BU4a)

37 "It seems strange that he'd reverse all that." Yeah, how strange that Romney might reverse himself on an issue. Oh wait. He did that on guns. And abortion. And the stimulus. And the Reagan administration. And health care. And immigration And...

Posted by: Benson at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (qzcNU)

38 My friends...

Posted by: John Fuckin' McCain! at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (zxrQh)

39 The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate.

Sweet! Let's pass it today!

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (8y9MW)

40 With everything else going on, why is Romney focusing on contraception now?

Posted by: blaster at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (Fw2Gg)

Mea Culpa in order. All-In Ace was willing to go to the mat and alienate 80% of his reader base and attack their lack of strategery, now left himself high and dry, how about acknowledging a couple of "I told you so's"?

Time to rethink which of the potential draft picks needs drafting.

Posted by: jokin at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (IV2nM)

42 From ace's link.....

I just got off the phone with Heath, and he graciously played me the audio. Heath asks Romney if heÂ’s for the Â“Blunt-RubioÂ” amendment, and defines it.

Looks like they told him what it was.

Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (X6akg)

43 ace said;;;If he actually knows what it is and is taking a position against it anyway, then I think I might actually just write him off, and write off the whole election as well.

and then what?

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (TomZ9)

44 Hey, I've been in this medically induced coma line for over a month now; you suckers are behind me,

Posted by: gekkobear at February 29, 2012 12:58 PM (X0NX1)

45 ace do you figure this deserves a Picard facepalm?

Posted by: Mr. Pink at February 29, 2012 12:59 PM (swkkW)

46 So the rest of us get the same rights as Muslims? Interesting.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 04:57 PM (/kI1Q)

The hell you do.

Posted by: Judge Mark "Sharia Uber Alles" Martin at February 29, 2012 12:59 PM (v+QvA)

47 "Asking Presidential candidates their opinion on legislation? I'm not going there" - Mitt Romney So, Romney votes "present" too, huh? But he's so EEEEELECTIBLE!!! Sure...the only thing he does better is drive down voter turnout, along with the rest of the losers we're stuck with.

Posted by: Damiano at February 29, 2012 12:59 PM (A2+pr)

48 Drudge has blurb up saying Gallup shows a new rise for Noot in approval ratings.

The Fat Lady continues to have a bad case of laryngitis.

Posted by: GnuBreed at February 29, 2012 12:59 PM (ccXZP)

Whoa?! A bill about blunts in Washington DC?

Fo shizzle.

Posted by: Snoop "I play golf stoned" Doggy Poo at February 29, 2012 01:00 PM (d0Tfm)

No to Romney . . . and no to Obama.

Downticket votes to conservatives ONLY!

Posted by: Pragmatic at February 29, 2012 01:00 PM (lTnzg)

51 blaster i'm sure he is forced into the discussion as santorum was. he needs to learn from santorum to bat that ball back at them and change to smaller gvt or something

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 01:00 PM (TomZ9)

52 If he actually knows what it is and is taking a position against it
anyway, then I think I migh
***
No gay marriage or Obamacare. Ricky or Mittens, your move Ace.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 29, 2012 01:00 PM (7BU4a)

53 I hope for Mitt's sake this is similar to Santourum with SOPA and he just isn't familiar with it. If it isn't there is no other way to describe being against the Blunt Amendment and calling yourself Conservative except to say you are insane.

Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 01:00 PM (Q1lie)

I just don't get why there's ANY "religious" exemption here at all.

This is CLEARLY about non-medically necessary meds/products, and has NO business being covered (let alone at 100%) by ANY insurance, unless the carrier (or ERISA group) ELECTS to cover them (and charge accordingly).

They should start mandating that auto insurance cover wiper blades and oil changes, too.

Posted by: speedster1 at February 29, 2012 01:01 PM (v40Bj)

55 ace do you figure this deserves a Picard facepalm?

I'm thinking the Hogan's Heroes triple face-palm.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:01 PM (bjRNS)

56 Dr Fish? really ? you don't realize it yet. Romney can not win...Today is another example. How many more do you need? (cough - NASCAR owners - cough) With Romney we give up health care in any future debate. We give up a fighter also...Romney does not fight and he will get beat up just from the MSM and Obama won't have to do anything.

Posted by: Brian at February 29, 2012 01:01 PM (UnMRd)

57 Downticket votes to conservatives ONLY!
***
Wouldn't be prudent - those wierdoes want to repeal Obamacare

Posted by: The Republican Establishment at February 29, 2012 01:01 PM (7BU4a)

58 1. Dole - Unelectable

2. McCain - Unelectable

3. Romney - ?

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 29, 2012 04:55 PM (TkGkA)

Untrainable.

Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 01:01 PM (Q1lie)

59 But it sounds like he doesn't know what the bill is Pander first, ask questions later.

Posted by: Mittens! at February 29, 2012 01:02 PM (FcR7P)

60 It doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, my hatred of Obama will be enough to fuel my car on the way to the voting booth.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at February 29, 2012 01:02 PM (swkkW)

61 do you figure this deserves a Picard facepalm?

I don't know about ace, but I think it does.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:02 PM (8y9MW)

62 The Republican Party: Come Whig Out With Us

I like the bumper sticker.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:02 PM (bjRNS)

63 Well this is a fine mess he's gotten himself into....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (eNw/Q)

64 They should start mandating that auto insurance cover wiper blades and oil changes, too.

Posted by: speedster1 at February 29, 2012 05:01 PM (v40Bj)

And a replacement automobile when I destroy the engine because I didn't change the oil. Ever.

Posted by: Insomniac at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (v+QvA)

65 1. Dole - Unelectable

2. McCain - Unelectable

3. Romney - ?
***
I'll say this for Dole and McCain, they at least knew what they were supposed to say as theoretical conservatives.

Posted by: 18-1 at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (7BU4a)

66 If Romney really is opposed to Blunt, all hell is about to break out.

Even if he flips by saying "oh, I misunderstood....." it's going to be ugly.

What a clusterfrak this whole thing is.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (WNzUA)

67 Mitt, did you not see the jet-drier ahead of you, the big thing with flashing lights?

Posted by: t-bird at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (FcR7P)

68

Dr Fish? really ? you don't realize it yet.

Posted by: Brian at February 29, 2012 05:01 PM (UnMRd)

It was a fill in the blank...your call...my decision was months ago.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 29, 2012 01:03 PM (TkGkA)

69 Christian Scientists to refuse to pay for any health insurance for their employees, for example.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 04:53 PM (NYnoe)

Employers are not required to pay for health insurance now. Many do not. Even under Obamacare they can get away with paying a fine instead.

Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (Q1lie)

70 My friends, you have nothing to fear from a Romney presidency.

Posted by: John McCain at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (v+QvA)

71 >> and then what?

Then Ace drunks himself into a stupor, drunk-dials AllahPundit at 4am, has a total black-out, and eventually comes to his senses in a Florida jail cell, facing charges of vandalism for attacking a garbage bin in a back-alley while sobbing like a madman.

In other words, business as usual.

Posted by: sandy burger at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (ut/+s)

72 Hey everybody, welcome to the party of getting screwed over by Romney.

As Kasich was falling on his sword trying to reform the public-sector unions, what did he do? Come out against the bill the *day of* voting.

He's a marionette and has no core conviction, this is why regardless of being elected he'll fold like a cheap suit on the first real conservative/"moderate" battle and send us down the river.

Posted by: Rob at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (du87N)

73 just when i started to believe i could just keep my head down and quit talking politics re vote for romney, deny romneycare is similar, this comes up. thanks for another stomach flip.

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (TomZ9)

74 Yeah, it would be totally unlike this guy to flip-flop. I also don't see him taking a liberal stance on this. /sarc

Posted by: yinzer at February 29, 2012 01:04 PM (/Mla1)

75 I didn't listen to your question, I was too busy listening to my answer.

Posted by: His Mitt-ness at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (FcR7P)

76 Family ask how I could ever like Newt... this is why.. because when a group including the media comes after him, his brain (thanks to past personal issues) switches into "smash something into their face" mode. The one thing we could rely on each and every day of a Newt administration is that the media would come up with new ways to attack and try and tear him down and every day he would come up with something to shove in their face. I call it "Newts law of emotional counter gravity."

The media will never offer him a carrot as POTUS, which my sense of his past is the only thing that ever tricks him into helping the left.

Now you are metaphorically .02 cents richer.

*IRS NOTIFICATION* -all $.02 qualifies as requiring a 1099E form to be filled out in triplicate. Remember to send .01 is owed to his Grand Holiness Lord Obama of Washington DC.... the other .01 is owed to your exwife that cheated on you. you also now owe us 74$ for the cost of this notification and delay in payment fees. *IRS NOTIFICATION ENDED*

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (RfvTE)

77 I don't buy the "and defines it" thing. If he had to define it, Romney didn't know what it was. Further, the guy seems left to me, so his "definition" would be putting it negative terms. He would make it sound like a bill to restrict birth control. If he had to define it, it sounds like Romney was caught unprepared and trying to offer up vague principles about not interfering in birth control.

Posted by: ace at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (nj1bB)

78 thanks for another stomach flip.

I'm worrying that I'm going to be casting the deciding vote in June.

Hawley Carp.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:05 PM (bjRNS)

79 And he wants to pick Rubio as his VP?

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (d0Tfm)

80
I'll tell you what, if Mitt is playing the "move left of center really early" game because who else are the repubs going to vote for and try to get every last indy, then more power to him, but it is very dangerous.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (r+9M6)

81 vomitus interrupted moment.

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (TomZ9)

82 #75 Good point. Romney screwed over Kasich on the union reform vote, too.

Posted by: Benson at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (qzcNU)

83 Employers are not required to pay for health insurance now.

Nor should they be.

Seriously, there's any debate about which side of this Republicans should be on?

Hmmm... this Amendment gives Americans an 'out' from ObamaCare, just in case the Courts don't do what they should. I wonder if I should support it, or if it's "too broad."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (8y9MW)

----------------------------------------------

So? What's the problem? I see nothing wrong with this.

Posted by: Soona at February 29, 2012 01:06 PM (LWXry)

85

I am a leaf on the wind - watch how I soar!

Posted by: Mitt "Landslide Will" Romney

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (kdS6q)

86 Meicyslaw, nasty thought.

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (TomZ9)

87 Now Romney is a dog I wouldn't mind tying to the roof of my car...

Posted by: phoenixgirl at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (eNw/Q)

88 Mittens is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable flip-flopper.

Posted by: CheshireLion at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (tqE0E)

89 What a farce. I support Romney faute de mieux, but come on, dude, give me something.

Posted by: Emperor of Non-Christian Cultists for Jesus at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (epBek)

90 so i guess we cannot expect Romney to look at all like He will move to the right?

Posted by: willow at February 29, 2012 01:07 PM (TomZ9)

91 I don't buy the "and defines it" thing. If he had to define it, Romney didn't know what it was.

Yeah. That makes it better.

He couldn't have said, "I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the text of the Amendment, so I can neither support nor oppose it?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:08 PM (8y9MW)

92 #80 Ace You don't know what the bill says. You have a biased reporter giving you some lefty description. You're lost as to what it does. So you say "IÂ’m not for the bill"? Not "I'll have to read it" or "I want to see it for myself before I take a stand". No, you flat-out say you don't support it?

Posted by: Benson at February 29, 2012 01:08 PM (qzcNU)

93 Romney DOES KNOW he just doesnt give a $h!t.
Said it before , say it again if romney is the nominee we'll have 4 more years of obama

Posted by: Dien Cai Dau at February 29, 2012 01:08 PM (DmsGc)

94 Oh Lord. Can I persuade any of you to look at Newt again?

Posted by: Y-not on clunky phone at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (5H6zj)

None of this is difficult:

1. CONCENTRATE on CONGRESS: More 'R' Reps, more 'R' Senators, preferably TeaParty types / real conservatives ... ones who listen to their constituents

2. VOTE for the 'R' candidate for President (maybe even if it's Ronulus the Paulistinian)

Posted by: Arbalest at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (DBMBe)

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (TomZ9)

97 "If this is his next flip-flop... that's the last flip-flop for me."

Hi. I also play a scorpion. It's what. I. do. Well, me and John Kerry. It's in the Massachusetts water we traverse on the frog's back.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (eHIJJ)

98 Memo to Mitt Romney: And you want to be my latex salesman?

This from a guy who has been running for President for years. Who is advising this man?

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:09 PM (iYbLN)

99 Why do you conservative nutcases keep expecting me to set my gorgeous quaff on fire? Now shut up and get in line, teabaggers, or I'll fire you.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (A2+pr)

100 Repeat from this morning:

Mittens' weaknesses (and they are legend) will not matter in the
general, as it is just Barky against America, but if it were any sort of
normal election Mittens' would be dismembered in the general,
especially given the way he's fought the primary.
--------------------------------

Mutt will lose close States in the South like NC and VA as a small percentage of conservatives stay home. Sanatarium will lose close States in the North that favor liberals.

Thus neither of these candidates are electable. But my MAJOR concern is the depression of turnout of the Republican base, who has NEVER liked Mutt.

If that happens, not only will we not win the Senate, we will lose ground there and in the House. We could even be back to Dems owning everything again.

In short, it is McShitty and 2008 all over again. And if that happens it will be the end of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Vic at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (YdQQY)

101 Whatever. It doesn't sound like he understood what it was.

Odd thing to decide to sit out an election on, though. We'll have Obama for four more years, but we'll have proved a point, I guess. So there's that.

Posted by: Me at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (gI9Bk)

102 Y-not i have been . but really can he climb back up? i just don't know!

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (TomZ9)

103

good thing that palin chick didn't run

she's unelectable

Posted by: navycopjoe at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (aeve0)

104

It makes me SICK that Mitt Romney doesn't want politicians talking about the immorality of contraception! SICK!!!

Posted by: Rick Santorum at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (HzhBE)

105 Soona -- It means I'm going to need to exercise atheistic taqiyya and claim that yes, I am a Catholic.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (bjRNS)

106

"He couldn't have said, "I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with the text of the Amendment, so I can neither support nor oppose it?"

The list of stuff he could have said is getting pretty long. I'm about ready for a Neut Renewal. Or SMOD. I'm not picky at this point.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at February 29, 2012 01:10 PM (d0Tfm)

107 Well, Mitt is getting better at this "politics" thing. He managed to put off the base-killing stupid-ass gaffe until the end of the business day after a primary win, rather than doing it on the morning news shows.

Yup, he's "electable" alright!

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 29, 2012 01:11 PM (dcoFe)

108
The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate. It is extremely broad, and a lot of people are not comfortable with it. Romney may very well know what he is talking about here.
Posted by: rockmom

So those Federal Romneycare waivers Mitt has promised to issue on day one, are those going to be extremely broad or a tad nuanced?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 29, 2012 01:11 PM (kdS6q)

109 Meicyslaw, nasty thought.

Well, I had been complaining that my vote doesn't count 'cause I'm in California.

I should be more careful what I wish for.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:12 PM (bjRNS)

110 @30 Thread winner

Posted by: Y-not on clunky phone at February 29, 2012 01:12 PM (5H6zj)

111 This morning I said "If Mitt doesn't say something stupid"

Right on queue.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 01:12 PM (RtKsX)

112 Politicians that survive any length of time are cockroaches. If you want to control cockroaches, then you have to control the media.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at February 29, 2012 01:12 PM (RfvTE)

113 I feel your pain Meiczyslaw. I thought it would be all over by the time it got to Cali.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (iYbLN)

114 Heh... I bet every one of you scumbags $10,000 that I will still be the nominee. It's my turn and I payed for my chance. Deal with it.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (A2+pr)

115 The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate.

and suddenly 315 million people in the US are very religious.

Posted by: Lifeisdeath at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (90C1z)

116 In this thread... we all play the little woman from Poltergeist who warns the family of the scary shit soon to befall them

Posted by: soothsayer at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (vyPsz)

117 Bizarro Romney: I stand by my repeated vetoes of health care in my home state of Massechussets. I stand by them now and will do the same as President. I will veto any government control of Americans healthcare, and anyone getting in between them and their doctors. This is an issue the government has no business being involved in, and the simple fact that we are even discussing this is disgusting to me as an American. People right now are fighting in other countries for our freedoms, and here we are giving the government the power to force you to buy a product from a private company while it forces religious institutions and INDIVIDUALS to pay for day after abortion pills, a clear violation of their 1st amendment rights. This bill will not stand, and my first act as President will be to grant the entire country a waiver, which is allowable under the unConstitutional law. My second act will be telling the justice department to stop defending the law in court, a precedent Obama has established, thus allowing the entire law to be overturned. I know full well the Democrat party will veto any senseable repeal of this bill, as they are tied to it at the hip, and lost their congressional majorities in the 2010 elections in the biggest landslide since the 1930s. I know they wish to thawart the American peoples desire to overturn the law, safe in bastions of their electability in New York, San Franscisco, and Chicago. I am running for office of President of the United States, to govern for all Americans and to safeguard your freedoms, not take them away in the dark of the night on Christmas eve.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (swkkW)

118 Let's not overeeact to this.

Posted by: steevy at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (7W3wI)

119

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 05:03 PM (WNzUA)

be quite tru-con, Romney is the most electable person in the world. If you're not for Romney, you're for Obama or something

Posted by: The Dude at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (M8yfa)

120 Do Gucci loafers leave a footprint on one's dick? -Mitt Romney

Posted by: trumpetdaddy at February 29, 2012 01:13 PM (dcoFe)

121

Suck it winguts. 4 more years. Say it once, the hurt will go away

Posted by: Greg at February 29, 2012 01:14 PM (kaOJx)

122 Ace, you said above:

"It sounds like (and I hope) that it's a case of him not knowing what the amendment is.

"If he actually knows what it is and is taking a position against it anyway, then I think I might actually just write him off, and write off the whole election as well."

Either way, it's bad, isn't it?

This illustrates why I have been baffled by your assertions that 1) Mitt is so danged electable, and 2) that this electability is so patently obvious that anyone who disagrees is either an idiot or an asshole.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 29, 2012 01:14 PM (IlZPo)

123 Update on the link:

UPDATE: HereÂ’s what the reporter said to Romney: Â“Blunt-Rubio is being debated later this week that deals with allowing employers to ban providing female contraception.Â”

Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 01:14 PM (X6akg)

124 Meicyslaw, yeah i've been regretting my anyone but Obama for a couple of mths now. abo, than rp looked like he would have some votes, and i almost jumped off a cliff.

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:14 PM (TomZ9)

125 I mean, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the reporter is biased, the description was awful, and he was ignorant. Does that excuse his opposing a Republican-sponsored bill he has no knowledge about? That means he took a stance on Republican legislation that he knows nothing about, based solely on a biased reporter's description. That should make me feel comfortable about his fall electioneering and governance thereafter?

Posted by: Benson at February 29, 2012 01:14 PM (qzcNU)

126 I'm pretty sure this is being quoted out of context right now. Don't have your panties in a wad just yet, wait until the whole interview comes out.

Posted by: Haner at February 29, 2012 01:15 PM (i/SK/)

127 73 My friends, you have nothing to fear from a Romney presidency. Posted by: John McCain

Now that would be the political kiss of death.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:15 PM (iYbLN)

128 Cowardly Joe Manchin supports Blunt.

http://tinyurl.com/83sbobd

Here's the pdf of the amendment. Seems reasonable to me.

http://tinyurl.com/83brmnu

If he really opposes this, we are beyond fucked.

Posted by: DrewM. at February 29, 2012 01:15 PM (WNzUA)

129 Yeah I am not buying the Rubio authored a bad bill excuse. This also shows me Rubio would have zero positive effect on Romney if Marco were his Veep.

Posted by: Y-not on clunky phone at February 29, 2012 01:15 PM (5H6zj)

130 The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell. Confucius ...

Posted by: Davy Jones Locker at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (qr+7C)

131 Mitt's handlers shouldn't let him actually speak or answer questions from the press so soon after a primary..........or after an especially good bowel movement..........or very soon after having sex with the wifey........or very soon after eating..........or, oh hell, you get the picture. Just don't let him talk at all. Then maybe, just maybe.

Posted by: Not an Artist at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (Lo/3Q)

132

Maybe the four Republican candidates will make "one term only" pledges. That would make this process more palatable.

Posted by: wooga at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (vjyZP)

133

I'm just saying that Blunt's amendment was worded much more broadly than it needed to be. That doesn't make it "the TrueConservative" position. I think he was trying to make a point that this issue goes beyond contraception/abortion and so the law should allow anyone to refuse to pay for insurance that they find morally objectionable. But the Democrats are going to have a field day with this, and will claim that it will allow people to refuse to buy insurance that covers AIDS, treatment for STDs, and even cancer treatments for some people. Believe me, they will find a way to demagogue the hell out of this.

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (qE3AR)

134
Text of the amendments: http://goo.gl/oa7My

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (kdS6q)

135 Can I persuade any of you to look at Newt again?

Posted by: Y-not on clunky phone at February 29, 2012 05:09 PM (5H6zj)

of the three cocksuckers, god would I rather have Newt be on top

Posted by: The Dude at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (M8yfa)

136 130 I'm pretty sure this is being quoted out of context right now. Don't have your panties in a wad just yet, wait until the whole interview comes out.

Rest of the interview: garble, gurgle, gargle, grrrp (Mitt trying to remove shiny shoes from mouth.)

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:16 PM (iYbLN)

137 Alright, based on the update just posted at the original article, I'm... not sure. I'm still in the camp of "just admit you don't know, and say it would be inappropriate to comment."

However, granted that he has some pathological need never to be shown *gasp* ignorant, I can see why Romney, based on the question provided, might give this answer. In the light of the question as asked, it's just a North Eastern RINO, "what's the middle way?" answer- not a complete trashing of the party.

If he did know about it- and he should, his team should have made sure about it- then this inexcusable, and should be disqualifying (when added to everything else, anyway).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:17 PM (8y9MW)

138 and suddenly 315 million people in the US are very religious.

Amen, brother.

Though this means I gotta go to an Easter mass, right?

The High Easter Vigil is the cool overnight one, right?

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:17 PM (bjRNS)

139

The GOP is SofaKing screwed. They have botched an excellent opportunity to dethrone Obama.

Say I forgive all of Romney's failures on policy; You are telling me this guy can campaign against Obama? Everything that comes out of his mouth is a soundbite for the Democrats or a stab in the back of conservatives. He cannot articulate the message that conservatism is the solution to many of our problems.

He is not electable. None of them are. Obama is on the fast track to re-election.

Posted by: California Red at February 29, 2012 01:17 PM (DXTKe)

140

This was just published in the Washington Post's Plum Line Blog:

UPDATE: HereÂ’s what the reporter said to Romney: Â“Blunt-Rubio is being debated later this week that deals with allowing employers to ban providing female contraception.Â”

-----------

Sooo, it sounds like the reporter provided a bullshit definition of the amendment. Really, we rant and rave about the media playing on the left's team, but then we go right ahead and believe their reports.

Posted by: TiredWench at February 29, 2012 01:17 PM (oPceJ)

141

Look, if you don't like it, wait 5 minutes and he will flip against it as soon as he hears that you don't like it.

It means nothing either way. Which way does he ACTUALLY feel, and where will he lobby, and what will he push, and how will he govern? That's an act of blind faith. No one has the slightest clue.

The question is, do you trust Republicans?

Posted by: Entropy at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (Ci0JG)

142 Soona -- It means I'm going to need to exercise atheistic taqiyya and claim that yes, I am a Catholic.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 05:10 PM (bjRNS)

-------------------------------------

Tomorrow's headline: WE ARE ALL CATHOLICS NOW

Posted by: Soona at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (LWXry)

143 Behold, the idiocy of Your Republican Frontrunner!

Posted by: Tony Kennedy at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (+kznc)

144 Fucking tempest in a teapot.We need to keep hitting the REAL enemy.Oh nevermind,let's just bash our candidates while Greg jerks off.

Posted by: steevy at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (7W3wI)

145 Maybe Romney responded, "I'm not familiar with the bill...." and the reporter heard "I'm not for the bill...."

Yeah, I got nothin'.....

Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (X6akg)

146 I'm pretty sure this is being quoted out of context right now. Don't have your panties in a wad just yet, wait until the whole interview comes out.

Posted by: Haner at February 29, 2012 05:15 PM (i/SK/)

ok, this is actually a good point. we have been fooled before.

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (TomZ9)

147 The emotion of it all can be quite blinding... My ideological sense of what to expect from a Romney administration would be Bush 41.

Posted by: Shiggz RocketSurgeon at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (RfvTE)

148
Mitt wears Bruno Magli, and we know they're "ugly ass shoes" because OJ told us so.

Posted by: Doctor Fish at February 29, 2012 01:18 PM (TkGkA)

149 I'd mark this up as a case of doesn't have all the information yet. The LDS church does not question contraception decisions between husband and wife which Romney shares that view too.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 01:19 PM (et2m1)

150 @149 I would think that's a likely case of the reporter skewing what he heard.

Posted by: Kaitian at February 29, 2012 01:19 PM (et2m1)

151 Meicyslaw, yeah i've been regretting my anyone but Obama for a couple of mths now. abo, than rp looked like he would have some votes, and i almost jumped off a cliff.

Do not mention the Laup Nor. My fear is all the crazies out here will vote for him (open primary), and he'll win the state.

Jose Cuervo, you are a friend of mine ... o/~

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:19 PM (bjRNS)

152 #148 While you have a bitter, ongoing primary you don't focus on your general election opponent. It matters what the people vying for the party's nomination say and believe.

Posted by: Benson at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (qzcNU)

153 Romney is a fucking Democrat mole.

Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (7+pP9)

154
I get this feeling if Romney makes it to the White House he'll follow in the scoamf foot steps and be a one termer.

Posted by: YIKES! at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (2TRSa)

155 Leave my boyfriend alone!

Posted by: Ann Coulter's Obsession at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (eHIJJ)

156 I wonder if Mitt will borrow one of Olympia Snowe's suits to wear at his inauguration?

These seem like the same fit and all.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (iYbLN)

157 AllenG. Couldn't he just say "i'd like to discuss this with Marco first" pr something? I mean he hears Rubio and does not think "hey maybe I should inform myself before opining"?

Posted by: Y-not on clunky phone at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (5H6zj)

158 17-The Blunt amendment allows anyone to claim a religious exemption to any Obamacare mandate. It is extremely broad, and a lot of people are not comfortable with it. Wait a minute: Romney has made it clear he will hand out Presidential exemptions from Ocare to any state that asks. Do you--does he--favor Ocare or not??

Posted by: Tony Kennedy at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (+kznc)

159 I'm voting "none of the above". Then I am going home and starting on a drinking bing until SMOD's triumphant arrival. 2040 can't get here soon enough.

Posted by: Damiano at February 29, 2012 01:20 PM (A2+pr)

160 Romney campaign supports the Blunt amendment and it's an incorrect report according to Twitter.

Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 01:21 PM (Q1lie)

161 I'm still stuck on the straw man.

No one's trying to outlaw birth control.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at February 29, 2012 01:21 PM (/kI1Q)

162 RT @DavidMDrucker: Per the @MittRomney campaign: The gov supports the Blunt amendment. It's being "incorrectly reported" campaign tells me.

Posted by: Rocks at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (Q1lie)

163 Leave my boyfriend alone! - Posted by: Ann Coulter's Obsession at February 29, 2012 05:20 PM (eHIJJ)
---------------

Back off, bitch!

Posted by: polynikes at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (AQD6a)

164 I'm going to get soooo fucking drunk from November 2012 to November 2016. Hopefully it'll kill enough brain cells so I don't remember anything.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (xGjRE)

165 Yeah, I got nothin'.....

Greg Sargent says that's the correct quote- says his source played him the full audio.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (8y9MW)

166 "UPDATE: HereÂ’s what the reporter said to Romney: Â“Blunt-Rubio is being debated later this week that deals with allowing employers to ban providing female contraception.Â”"

If it were put to me that way, I would say I don't support it either.

On the other hand, it is example 7,391 of Mitt falling for a trick question to embarrass him.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (RtKsX)

167 i hate that i don't trust our presumed candidate at all. i really want to.

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (TomZ9)

168 Who cares, rockmom? The Dems do that with any and every bill that the GOP puts out. Might as well go big.

Posted by: Lauren at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (+E+2z)

169 I'll take 4 more years of Obama, over this clown. Thanks.

Posted by: kevinw at February 29, 2012 01:22 PM (afIq/)

170

Posted by: rockmom at February 29, 2012 05:16 PM (qE3AR)

-----------------------------------------

Quit being so naive. The dems and MFM are going to demogogue everything the repubs do.

Posted by: Soona at February 29, 2012 01:23 PM (LWXry)

171 Ace put the video up of the interview.

Posted by: Tami at February 29, 2012 01:23 PM (X6akg)

172 Really, we rant and rave about the media playing on the left's team, but then we go right ahead and believe their reports.

So instead of being against the exemption, Mitt's just completely clueless about the current big issue?

I feel so much better. /sarc

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at February 29, 2012 01:23 PM (bjRNS)

173 Shouldn't our first inclination as conservatives be that proposed legislation is going to be bad and an abridgement of our freedoms regardless if it is from an R or a D? I mean, it's not like the GOP has actually been for small government in decades.

Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at February 29, 2012 01:24 PM (YhZFe)

174 168 I'm going to get soooo fucking drunk from November 2012 to November 2016.

I'm buying a home on wheels and moving on down the line.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:24 PM (iYbLN)

175 You're getting a little retarded here Ace. It's pretty clear Romney didn't want an audioclip of him saying he wants to "ban contraceptives" (which is the phrasing used by the reporter). Banning contraceptives isn't what the Blunt amendment is about. His campaign just said Romney supports the Blunt amendment.

Posted by: Haner at February 29, 2012 01:24 PM (i/SK/)

176 All Romney wants to talk about is contraception and icky social stuff. Ridiculous.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 29, 2012 01:25 PM (lVGED)

177 150 I'm pretty sure this is being quoted out of context
right now. Don't have your panties in a wad just yet, wait until the
whole interview comes out.

Posted by: Haner at February 29, 2012 05:15 PM (i/SK/)

Would make for decent psy-ops to release damaging "reveals" about the frontrunner candidate the day after a primary, to get Republican voters feeling betrayed and demoralized.

Or, maybe Romney just doesn't like us all that much. "Wait and see" is getting a good work out this primary season.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 29, 2012 01:25 PM (v3pYe)

178 I want to like Mitt, really I do but I feel so slimy afterwards. It must be the algae.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:25 PM (iYbLN)

179 Couldn't he just say "i'd like to discuss this with Marco first" pr something? I mean he hears Rubio and does not think "hey maybe I should inform myself before opining"?

Yeah, that's another option. I could probably, given some time, come up with a list of 15 or 20 responses that would have been worlds better than this, but the first I came up with- off the top of my head- would have sufficed quite nicely.

And, no, Romney Apologists, this is not an "interpretation" of his answer. Per the original article- it's a quote.

And, for that matter, why not just default to supporting your team? It's cosponsored by Marco Rubio- you could say, "I'm familiar with Marco Rubio, and I trust he has the best of intentions..."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at February 29, 2012 01:25 PM (8y9MW)

180 "Greg Sargent says that's the correct quote-"

Dude ... Greg Sargent...

Posted by: Dave in Fla at February 29, 2012 01:26 PM (RtKsX)

181 Or, maybe Romney just doesn't like us all that much.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 29, 2012 05:25 PM (v3pYe)

considering he's said that a few times already, I would go with that

Posted by: The Dude at February 29, 2012 01:26 PM (M8yfa)

182 Mitt, you want my vote?
Easy.
Set your hair on fucking fire then I'll vote for you.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 01:26 PM (iYbLN)

183 Greg Sargent? I'm back on thee Romney bandwagon!

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 29, 2012 01:27 PM (lVGED)

184 Look folks - this kind of shit being pushed by the MFM is going to go on until November. The effort is to keep the debate away from the economy - at all costs. And it's working brilliantly. As long as we're talking about birth control and any issue surrounding that subject - Barky wins. It is a very smart strategy by the Barky campaign - you have to give them that.

Posted by: Not an Artist at February 29, 2012 01:27 PM (Lo/3Q)

185 vic sez: In short, it is McShitty and 2008 all over again. And if that happens it will be the end of the Republican Party. I knew there was a pony in here somewhere!

Posted by: the dopey kid next door at February 29, 2012 01:28 PM (+kznc)

186 I'm in ur election, stealin' ur rubbers

Posted by: Mitt Romney at February 29, 2012 01:28 PM (kaOJx)

187 179 You're getting a little retarded here Ace. It's pretty clear Romney didn't want an audioclip of him saying he wants to "ban contraceptives" (which is the phrasing used by the reporter). Banning contraceptives isn't what the Blunt amendment is about.

His campaign just said Romney supports the Blunt amendment.

Posted by: Haner at February 29, 2012 05:24 PM (i/SK/)

In other words he's trying to pull the same shit he did with Ohio's Union bill. Its almost been a year and he hasn't learned his lesson. Yep, right there is a smart man.

Posted by: buzzion at February 29, 2012 01:28 PM (GULKT)

188 So, our choices are 4 more years of Obama (end of American civilization and most likely Global civilization), or... 4 years of Mitt Romney (essentially the same as Obama, but with a severely conservative bow). Then in 2016, the Democrats have an open season blaming "Republican Policies" for the inevitable disaster. Yeah, I'll take Obama. At least those that survive will be able to point the finger at the correct party and have a chance of picking up the pieces with the right people.

Posted by: Damiano at February 29, 2012 01:29 PM (A2+pr)

189 I'll take 4 more years of Obama, over this clown. Thanks.
Posted by: kevinw at February 29, 2012 05:22 PM (afIq/)

I like you.
How you like 20 trillion dollars in debt as a token of my apppeciation?

Posted by: The Great SCOAMF at February 29, 2012 01:29 PM (2TRSa)

190
Set your hair on fucking fire then I'll vote for you.

Posted by: mpfs at February 29, 2012 05:26 PM (iYbLN)

This would be a great way for Romney to show he cares what the conservative base thinks. It would be a memorable press conference, too ...

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at February 29, 2012 01:29 PM (v3pYe)

191 New post/clarification.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 29, 2012 01:30 PM (lVGED)

192 smod, you're late. no nookie for you!

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:30 PM (TomZ9)

193 I like you.
How you like 20 trillion dollars in debt as a token of my apppeciation?

Posted by: The Great SCOAMF at February 29, 2012 05:29 PM (2TRSa)

hold on a second, we should all get a union tag number and go ahead.

Posted by: willow the amishone-scoot over amish guy at February 29, 2012 01:31 PM (TomZ9)

194 Look folks - this kind of shit being pushed by the MFM is going to go on until November. The effort is to keep the debate away from the economy - at all costs. And it's working brilliantly. As long as we're talking about birth control and any issue surrounding that subject - Barky wins. It is a very smart strategy by the Barky campaign - you have to give them that.

Posted by: Not an Artist at February 29, 2012 05:27 PM (Lo/3Q)

----------------------------------------

What is more of an impact on the future of the economy than ObamaCare? However or whenever it's discussed is fine by me. If BC is the avenue right now to expose this POS law, then so be it.

Posted by: Soona at February 29, 2012 01:31 PM (LWXry)

195 It sounds like (and I hope) that it's a case of him not knowing what the amendment is.

Which, rather than being a mitigating circumstance, actually makes things worse. Kind of like luaP noR "not knowing" the contents of a newsletter that had his name all over it. "Not knowing" equals "not paying attention" at best, "speaking without thinking" at worst.
Just one time, I'd like to find a politician who actually hires, and listens to, intelligent advisers.

Posted by: antisocialist at February 29, 2012 01:33 PM (j/nZn)

196

"The High Easter Vigil is the cool overnight one, right?"

Fo shizzle.

Posted by: Snoop "I play golf stoned" Doggy Poo at February 29, 2012 01:33 PM (d0Tfm)

197 Mitt was just on the radio, stated it was not worded like that by the reporter, he does support the bill.

Posted by: MFM at February 29, 2012 01:49 PM (SEOs4)

198 Wait! I have a wonderful idea! Let's nominate a Northeastern Flip Flopper and spend the entire campaign apologizing for the previous day's remarks! That's a sure winning strategy. And, as we all know, if Romney is the candidate, the MSM will undoubtedly keep the election's focus on the economy. Not those icky social issues that wierdos like Santorum keep bringing up... Pinky swear.

Posted by: Insert Clever Name Here at February 29, 2012 01:50 PM (XMX7O)

199 Romney is another "shit sandwich" served up by DC

Posted by: John Blutarsky at February 29, 2012 01:52 PM (e8kgV)

200 The next flip-flop is the last one for you? Yeah, there's an ultimatum that Mittens will take seriously.

Shit, since Santorum is an idiot Bible-thumper, Perry quit, Cain is banging some skank right now, and Gingrich is an attention whore, that only leaves RON PAUL!!!!!!

Posted by: SGT Dan at February 29, 2012 03:00 PM (up/so)

201 Well, sure I'll get flack from all sides here, but my official position has just recently become the following on the republican presidential nominee:

Can't stand any of them.

As usual what we've got is a whole lot of self serving, mushy weasels who don't have a single principle among the lot, save for maybe Ron Paul - he has principles. Granted, on foreign policy there pretty much completely the wrong principles, not just misguided but horribly dangerous, but hey, at least the guy actually sticks to his beliefs no matter how idiotic they are.

Santorum, Romney and Newt have already demonstrated a shocking pattern of tossing conservatives/conservatism under the wheels of any oncoming bus the moment it suits them, placing them all in the "Not worth the gunpowder it would take to blow them straight to hell" category as far as I'm concerned.

As usual I'll be holding my nose and pulling the lever for a worthless piece of shit regardless. So I'll let you folks decide which worthless piece of shit it will be, as far as I'm concerned there all equally terrible. The only thing that could possibly be worse is 4 more years of Obonehead.

Sigh..

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at February 29, 2012 03:55 PM (R5yLq)

202 A Mormon. A flat-footed Mormon. If he can get bitch-slapped like this when he should be on his guard... us old guys know, we K N O W it will degenerate into another Nixon-show, going down in flames, like Saigon, rapprochement with the most populous Totalitarian regime (who btw had been actively opposing us in Saigon), foreign policy controlled by a virtual Democrat like HK, a Keynesian, but whereas the Quakers (Nixon's tribe) had little national interest beyond self-immolation, Romney's wants a very large cut of the action, and will "baptize" your dead relatives. These are just ratchet clicks to restoring Mormonism to its true glory as the most effective underage girl-marrying machine since Islam. [And, like Islam, the more you know about Mormonism, the less you like it.]

Posted by: Thorvald at March 01, 2012 04:59 PM (OhenJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

172kb generated in CPU 0.1055, elapsed 0.2876 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2473 seconds, 330 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.