Mitt Romney appears to be suffering from amnesia when questioned about anything negative from his past. He doesn't recall bullying a gay classmate in high school or cutting the kid's hair. Now, his memory seems to have failed him as to what he said on Sean Hannity's radio show in February regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
A superPAC put $10 million dollars of racist ads together to attack President Obama for his association with his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. During the 2008 campaign, much was made of Wright's outspokenness. He's a pastor of an all black church, what do you expect? Of course he's going to be talking about issues that affect black people! White people are NEVER going to understand those issues.
Romney repudiated the ad attack only after the marketing plan was leaked to the New York Times. The document stated that the group was about to do something McCain would never let them do -- use race in the campaign. That's a low blow even for Romney.
Romney had every intention of going through with the ads. This is just another example of him folding under pressure. And this guy wants to be President of the United States?!
When asked about comments he made about Rev. Wright on the Hannity radio program, his response was: "I'm not familiar with precisely what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was. I'll go back and take a look at what was said there."
Somebody that has to keep going back and checking what they said is a liar. People who tell the truth can repeat what they said because it's true. They don't have to think about which lie they told to whom.
Mitt Romney has stated during GOP debates that he would "go back and look" at things he said and did, as governor or otherwise. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing.
America really doesn't need a President speaking to other world leaders today, making agreements then going back next week and responding with "I'll go back and look at what I said last week, but I don't think I agreed to that, did I?"
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 64
I wonder if they'll pull the trigger, as it acknowledges that voters “still aren’t ready to hate this president,” and they'll need to “explain how forces out of Obama’s control, that shaped the man, have made him completely the wrong choice as president in these days and times.”.
Strategically using a black spokesman and "a group of black business leaders" along with incendiary race based material is a hard sell to the moderate majority.
The leaking of it will have an affect as well.
The mainstream media has given up on this one.
Hey, did you hear about the story of the dog on the roof of the car?
Thank you for the thought provoking article and Please excuse my posted comment thereto. A comment which I realize is opinionated and somewhat off topic, but I wanted to express my honest feelings about Mitt Romney.
There is little doubt in my mind that should Mitt Romney become POTUS, he will lead the nation by two means (1) as he did as Governor acting in full business CEO mode (2) as per who and how much pressure is put on him by various people and entities.
In other words, I believe that Mitt Romney is not a man of the people, nor a man who is capable of standing alone on any issue, nor a man who has the backbone to be president, nor a man who possesses the tenacity to fight for that which he believes, nor the moral fiber to protect those less fortuneate in our society, nor a man having sufficient ethical standards to standup to those who will attempt to dismantle/desolve/destroy social government agencies.
Further, I view Mitt Romney tio be a man of corporate thinking and reasoning, a man of the wealthy, a man of the entitled elite, a man who will do the bidding of the puppeteers, a man of the Wall Street Industrialist, a man apart from the common people and more-so, a man who has never known the pain of hunger nor the strife of wondering where the money will come from to pay the bills nor the agony of not being able to properly support your family nor the disillusionment and lost faith in government when government fails to provide help nor the embarrassment of having to ask for social assisstance.
It would also be my opinion that if Mitt Romney is elected to the presidency, there will certainly be dark days ahead. However, I also believe that our country will survive the trials and tribulations which will be associated with his term in office. After all, we are America and Americans, first last and always, need I say more.
Anyone part of the 99% can expect their interests and concerns to get short shrift. Those amongst the 99% who have fallen into Tea Party orbit will vote for him expecting some vague notion of economic freedom and receive for their trouble the freedom to fail. A lot.
Running government like a business is a recipe for a lot of suffering for ordinary folks.
Personally I don't see any reason to run government like a business. I also don't see any reason to run government or a business like a family budget. The family budget analogy plays well with voters though.
Another way, if Jesus was willing to endure pain and die on the Cross for me and all of us, if I must endure pain to fight evil and fight for the ideals of America against the onslaught of the progressives and others who want to destroy my county, I will. Even though I'm middle aged, if I had to slog through the woods with an M1 Garand rifle on my back and a .45 on my hip, I would do so. If I have to be a truck driver/medic/radio operator/POW camp manager (I had a dream about where I was the comptroller and assistant warden of a POW camp during CWII) in support, I would do so. If I could run for office or be a judge, I would do so.
He is the Republican nominee solely on the basis of the fact that all other candidates had more obvious negatives than he did. They have nominated not "the best man for the job" but "the least bad candidate" they could scare up.
Having said that, though, I will defend his penchant for saying he would have to listen to the tape to be sure of what he said. When you are a public personality who talks for a living you say a lot of things and can easily lose track of what you said to whom. Though I am not in a position comparable to an American presidential contender, I do speak publicly a fair bit and am recognized within my own community. I can easily lose track of exactly what was said in what venue. It's not about lying, its about remembering the context of the discussion.
Which is not to say Romney isn't lying or doesn't lie habitually. He very well may. But this is not necessarily an indication of it.
But I will pass on your sage words to my loved ones so they can adjust their views accordingly. Or not.
Romeny's a smart man. He'll focus on the economy, the unemployment numbers, the budget, the debt, gas and food prices, and on and on and on. Who needs to use this? We already know what Obama learned in Wright's church for 20 years.
ARF...you're an odd one. Should Newsweek feature Obama with a halo donning gas pumps now? MWAHAHAHAHA!
As far as the economy in general is concerned, there's a limited amount government can do about the situation, particularly since it's impossible to get the kind of spending measures through congress that would do any good. We need something on the scale of WWII spending to really affect the economy. The Euro and Great Britain are demonstrating how well austerity works. Yup, works as well as it did in the US in 1937.
I'm guessing what Obama learned in Wright's church was how to look awake during the service and sermon. That's a valuable skill.
Yet, in your first paragraph you claim I have misplaced faith?
Come on, Nippy. What about the left's misguided faith and loyalty for Obama? It's almost a hypnotic trance for most of them.
Looks like the Mormons are the new boogieman. B-P
I don't have a problem with Mormons, almost all I've ran into are good people to me, we can learn a lot from them.
I rest MY case!
Could you clarify this a bit? Let's see: Compared to whom? Bigoted against whom?
OK, there's the opiate of the masses thing. There's also liberation theology in the Catholic Church, the leadership roles of a variety of protestant ministers in leftist causes, the Berrigan brothers during the Viet Nam war, leftist Buddhist monks,... I dunno.
There are also theories that liberalism in politics and life is an expression of a genetic predisposition to excessive time spent in fantasyland. Makes perfect sense, since liberalism is based in prejudice and bigotry, specifically faithophobia but including militaryophobia, and of course fear of strong conservative women, especially attractive ones.
But there are other things liberals hate that they're not necessarily afraid of: Rich successful people, hard-workers, people with morals and values, and anyone who expresses love for their country and support for the US troops, respect for the flag, etc.