Mitt Romney: Pretzel

7:38 pm EST February 16th, 2007 | Uncategorized | 8 Comments

Mitt Romney has gone past the flip-flopper stage and is literally tying himself into knots trying to explain his contradictory positions. The latest is his vote for Paul Tsongas in the 1992 Democratic primary. He’s now offered two explanations. How many more for Mitt?

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

8 Responses to “Mitt Romney: Pretzel”

  1. mdhåtter says:
    February 17, 2007 at 1:09 am

    as many as it takes. As long as he never comes back to Massachusetts again.

  2. mike says:
    February 17, 2007 at 7:47 am

    1. There is nothing contradictory. We have a report from two Boston Globe employees as to why Romney voted for someone 15 years ago. There is no direct quote.
    2. I bet if you asked Scott Lehigh, Frank Phillips, or Mitt Romney that those weren’t the only reasons why Romney voted for Tsongas (the fact that Tsongas was from Massachusetts, and that he was better than Bill Clinton). Do you vote for someone because of only two issues? You might only give two issues, when you have limited time, but no one votes for a candidate because of only two issues.
    3. Why don’t we take Romney at his word. He voted for Paul Tsongas because he liked him better than Clinton, and that he didn’t think that he would win the general election against Bush? Are these somehow mutually exclusive.
    4. The democrats and MSM is going to take everything Romney ever said 10 years ago, tell us it, and then say “however today he says…” blank. They are going to use this tactic weather it contradicted the previous statement or not. They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.

  3. Arthur D. Hlavaty says:
    February 17, 2007 at 7:48 am

    Literally? I want pictures.

  4. minorripper says:
    February 17, 2007 at 11:44 am

    If the Repubs are loyal, like they usually are then they’ll nominate McCain, who is virtually identical to Bob Dole in 1996, and promptly get thrashed. If they want to win, they’ll nominate Romney.
    http://www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

  5. Oliver Willis says:
    February 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Why don’t we take Romney at his word.
    Why in God’s name would we do this? He’s a liar up to now, he’s going to turn a new leaf once he runs for president?

  6. Duros62 says:
    February 17, 2007 at 2:19 pm

    Why don’t we take Romney at his word.

    the question then becomes; Which one?

  7. mdhåtter says:
    February 17, 2007 at 4:43 pm

    okay, mike.

    he’s been my govorner. I actually supported him at first (not that I voted for him), because in MA it is a damned good idea to give one branch of gov’t to the republicans.

    Romney spent 212 days out of state campaigning last year, and left the state claiming there was a 1 billion dollar surpus… which turned out quickly to be a lie, even before the new gov. restored a bunch of social services he cut during his last week in office.

    My point? Even if he is a good private businessman, he really really is a terrible Governor. And since the MA constitution was the model for the US constitution, the experience is rather direct – and he sucked.

    The President is not a CEO, but some of his senior staff ought to be. I’d be glad to see Romney as a chief of staff, or in a cabinet level position, I’d hate to see how little he got done when our nation needs someone so much more effective.

  8. mdhåtter says:
    February 17, 2007 at 4:46 pm

    “They will use this tactic every time Mitt Romney does not repeat his previous statement verbatim.”

    I learned it from watching you

    seriously? it’s a tactic, and a cheap one, but don;t go claiming it’s only a liberal tendency.

    all i see you saying mike is that you know exactly why you are going to be unhappy after the presidential election. For what it’s worth, you’re right.