Quantcast
Opinion

One week later, Mitt still dominates the debate

Comments

Return To Article
  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 1:06 a.m.

    “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney told The Des Moines Register in an interview.

    Two hours later Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life."

    A flip-flop in a two hour time period. Is that a new record?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 10, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    Roland,

    The entire purpose of the Federal Government is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That statement is part of the Declaration of Independence which led to a bloody war that we fought to insure that we would have LIFE.

    Any President who does not protect the unborn has not kept his oath of office. If the most innocent are destroyed without protection from the government that defends us all from all enemies, foreign or domestic, then what is the value of having that government?

    No one has the unilateral right to choose to destroy another human being, especially when that human being is totally defenceless.

    You may call it flip-flopping, I call it leadership. It's time that America stopped the killing of the most innocent among us.

    It is not wonder that Romney is still in the conversations of millions. Millions saw him for the first time as a dynamic leader and they saw Obama for what he really is - unprepared for even the most simple task - a debate.

    The minds of many have been enlightened. Many have changed their vote from Obama to Romney.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 9:25 a.m.

    Mike,

    Are still going to cheer the NEW and improved Rockefeller, Etch-a-Sketch NorthEast BlueDog, moderate Mitt Romney –

    Who --
    Supports the mandate and Obomneycare,
    Fought for stem cell research?
    Wants minimum wage should keep up with inflation?
    signed Gay Marriage in Massachusetts?
    Promised to protect a woman's right to choose?
    And now repeats just YESTERDAY that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and that we should sustain and support it?

    As a side note –
    Are you still going to vote for Orrin Hatch?
    As I recall during the nomination and Primaries – you said and I quote – “I will NEVER vote for Hatch…He is part of the problem we see in Washington… He has shrugged his Constitutional duty and is a traitor to this country.”

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 9:40 a.m.

    The mind of this enlightened has not been changed. As, I suspect is the case for almost everyone in the nation.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    Mike Richards: I don't ever post on abortion, people have their minds made up and no one is swayed by a newspaper comment. What I was commenting on was that Romney reversed his position within a two hour period.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 10:02 a.m.

    Obama can't call Romney a liar to his face. Romney would cheerfully dismantle the accusation point by point, in front of a national audience, who already has begun to notice that the reigning emperor is wearing no clothes.

    @Roland Kayser: You realize, of course, that both of the Romney statements can be true. He can be aware of no existing legislation that he would support, and yet support future legislation designed to protect life.

    If you're interested in exposing real lies, you could turn your attention to Obama's response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    Nate said: Obama can't call Romney a liar to his face. Romney would cheerfully dismantle the accusation point by point...

    Actually nate, probably 20 lies told by mitt were listed yesterday in these comment after one of your fellow deniers challenged anyone to even come up with one... many, many followed but then those issuing the challenge disappeared as usual. Look up mitts lies yourself, I'm tired of listing them so that folks like yourself won't read them anyway, because of their love of ignorance or blind allegiance to a man or party.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Oct. 10, 2012 10:30 a.m.

    Romney saying that he wants to raise the poor to being middle class is what his election needs. At last, finally, someone running for president is beginning to talk about fighting poverty in a meaningful way. Too bad for the Democrats that it is a Republican.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 11:25 a.m.

    @Nate
    "He can be aware of no existing legislation that he would support, and yet support future legislation designed to protect life."

    The Republican House has had dozens of votes on various abortion type legislation, as well as hundreds of state legislature bills. Surely he can find something in there. Mitt Romney himself told Huckabee he supported the Mississippi personhood amendment which would ban all abortions, no exceptions.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 11:36 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi
    Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Romney saying that he wants to raise the poor to being middle class is what his election needs.

    =============

    You realize that that is the very essence and definition of Redistributing the Wealth, don't you?

    FYI - the Middle Class in America has shrunk as American Middle Class jobs were off-shored to Communist China,
    by the same token, interesting to note how the sudden emergence and explosive growth of the Chinese Middle Class coindedendally happened hand-in-hand with said off-shoring?

    WallStreet and America’s Corporations are traitors to America, and yet are bestest buddies and friends with our foes.

    BTW – That’s called Globally – a Re-Distribution of the Wealth.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 1:04 p.m.

    It's the news cycle and what editors want to feature in the news stories. Certainly Michael Gerson will write positive stories about Mitt Romney since he is a conservative columnist. Like Kathleen Parker, he needs to favor one side over the other because his paycheck demands it. The same can be said about Andrew Sullivan, Peggy Noonan, and all the other columnists who write on politics and slant either Right or Left.

    For example, Kathleen Parker writes about the troglodytes in the Republican Party who say really bad things about women, but she remains faithful to the cause. Peggy Noonan condemns Romney for this 47% comments, but is praising him in the next sentence. Gerson does his part to keep a positive light on Romney's campaign as if by repeating it will he improve Romney's chances in the next debate.

    We just have to see. News cycles go up and down. If Romney does poorly in the next debate, will the conservative columnists moan and groan or will they come up with "positive" stories and emphasize the "bad" in the other guy. Will it be the "new" Romney or an "even new and improved" Romney?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 1:18 p.m.

    atl134
    "has had" and "existing" are not the same thing.

    LDS Lib,
    no, the Romney plan and redistribution of wealth or no more the same thing than soviet style socialism is free enterprise. redistribution of wealth and soviet style socialism are giving a man a fish (by taking from the fisherman, whether he likes it or not); raising the poor into the middle class is teaching them to fish.

    and of course, BO's support for global warmoing treaties just furthers the global redistribution of wealth from us to the rest of the world.

    MadHatter,
    Parker can condemn those in the repub party who are sexist and still support repub ideals. Bill Maher said even worse things about repub women; why have we heard nothing from any on the left condemning him as Parker condemned the "troglodytes"? Their silence speaks volumes about how the left views sexism against conservative women as OK.

  • Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 1:23 p.m.

    Will the new Mitt Romney, if elected, be allowed to govern as a pragmatic moderate? Many on the Left believe that he is "lying through his teeth" when he says things like he's been saying recently. However, judging from what I believe is the essence on the man, he is adaptable and he changes to the situation.

    Although Romney declared himself to be "severely conservative", I don't think his business problem solving skills are conducive to being an ideologue. His "flip flops" are his way of dealing with reality. If one problem requires a certain solution, he applies that solution. The choice of taxing or not taxing to increase revenue depends on the problem and not some piece of paper shoved in front of him by Grover Norquist.

    I don't think that Romney intends to be the "signing robot" that Norquist demands. He may turn out to be the pragmatic moderate that his father was (not as liberal on social issues because that would be the kiss of death), but he may just avoid dealing with those issues that the extreme Right covets. Abortion legislation, for example, may not be very high on his priority list.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 1:36 p.m.

    Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

    "No one has the unilateral right to choose to destroy another human being, especially when that human being is totally defenceless."

    I commend you on your remarks regarding the of killing the defenseless. The Catholic Church teaches that all life is precious. However, how does your defense of the unborn (a zygote, if you please, or even an unfertilized egg and sperm in the fallopian tubes prior to fertilization) extend to the life of a innocent civilian targeted in a drone strike in the Middle East?

    I'm sure you were opposed to the Rape of Nanking by the Japanese soldiers in WWII. What are your thoughts on the bombing of Dresden? What about Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Not only were "innocent zygotes" destroyed, but thousands of innocent children (not to mention adults)?

    Or are you selective in what "innocents" should and should not be killed? With regard to an abortion, do you think government has the right to interfere in a woman's right to choose? And what other areas of a person's personal life should the government be involved?

  • Ford DeTreese Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 2:56 p.m.

    @Nate

    "Obama can't call Romney a liar to his face. Romney would cheerfully dismantle the accusation point by point."

    Romney would simply deny that he is a liar, which in itself would be a lie. In fact, this is exactly the Romney-Ryan approach. They can say anything, no matter how ridiculous, and then, when they are called on it, they cry foul, or they claim that the fact checkers are wrong. Where does the deceit end? Hopefully not in a Super-PAC-paid trip to the White House.

  • Mad Hatter Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    lost in DC West Jordan, UT

    "MadHatter,
    Parker can condemn those in the repub party who are sexist and still support repub ideals. Bill Maher said even worse things about repub women; why have we heard nothing from any on the left condemning him as Parker condemned the "troglodytes"? Their silence speaks volumes about how the left views sexism against conservative women as OK."

    As you may not like generalizations regarding conservatives, perhaps you might lend the same understanding of the differences in people of the Left. Sure, I can accept Kathleen Parker and her support of Republican ideals. Seriously, I think she would like to purge the Party of those she considers harmful and shift back towards the center.

    Similarly, I disagree with a lot of what Bill Maher says. It does not mean that just because someone considers himself/herself politically liberal doesn't mean they can't be obnoxious and disreputable. Think about the terms "conservative" and "liberal" and what they mean in the context of political discourse, not the knee-jerk, simplistic comments you read here.

    Many define themselves by partisan views, but few see the complexity that lay within. Few are pure ideologues

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 10, 2012 5:28 p.m.

    Roland,

    Abortion is not reversible. It ends a life. There are no "second chances". Either you believe in ending an innocent life, or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.

    Romney has made his position clear. You seem to want to sit on the fence. It's time to get off the fence and state your position. Do you think that an innocent unborn child should be destroyed because one person doesn't want that unborn child to live? For that matter, do you think that you, or anyone else, should be able to tell anyone in society that their life doesn't matter because YOUR life would be better off if they didn't live?

    That is the real choice. That is the only option. That is the position that every candidate has to make.

    Obama told us that a living, breathing BORN infant must be allowed to die if the mother desired to destroy that infant and the abortion was somehow blotched.

    How do you feel about that?

    Romney told us that the unborn have rights. I agree with Romney. No mother has the "right" to destroy her unborn children.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 8:30 p.m.

    @mrichards

    "...Romney has made his position clear..."

    Which Romney?

    Which position?

    Which day?

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 11:08 p.m.

    If there is a middle ground on abortion I think Romney found it. But here's the rub. Who cares? I am not planning on having an abortion. I just want the economy to get better...

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Oct. 10, 2012 11:09 p.m.

    @atl134

    See what I mean? The only specific legislation you can point at is an amendment to a state law in Mississippi. How exactly does that become "part of [a president's] agenda"?

    @Ford DeTreese "Where does the deceit end?"

    Probably never...there will always be people like Obama and Biden. All you can do is refute them with facts, over and over again. Eventually they get voted out, or their term ends. The real question is, how do you repair the damage?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 11, 2012 9:27 a.m.

    Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Either you believe in ending an innocent life, or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.

    I agree with Romney. No mother has the "right" to destroy her unborn children.
    •5:28 p.m. Oct. 10, 2012

    ================

    Richards,
    There you go again with your All-or-Nothing false reasoning.

    1. Of course there is Middle Ground, and there is a Choice.

    2. You keep parroting the GOP party-line of No Abortions, ever, not for any reason. You can have your PoliticalParty opinions, but keep in mind they are not inline with the LDS Church’s policy.

    3. Mitt Romney’s is actually more in line with the LDS Church’s and against the GOP party platform – allowing for Rape, Incest, Life and Health of the Woman, and Viability of the fetus. He also said just this week that he will not push for a change in Roe v. Wade or promote any anti-abortion legislation [do you still agree with him on that?].

    4. You either support the LDS Church and its policies regarding abortion, or you oppose it. There is no middle ground.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2012 9:56 a.m.

    @Ford DeTreese

    Obama has adopted a strategy of "kill Romney, because Obama cannot run on his own record - so he must make his opponent toxic to even have a change:
    Obama must simply deny that he, himself, is a liar, which in itself would be a lie. In fact, this is exactly the stated Obama approach - to lie about Romney, Libya, war on women, jobs; anything in the way of his power.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 11, 2012 4:11 p.m.

    @Ford DeTreese

    Obama is a failure and his only chance at winning is the infamous "kill Romney" strategy to make his opponent toxic; which is why his deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter, has been spreading lies all summer (Failure in Libya is a result of Romney's media circus; Romney wants to cut 5 trillion in taxes; Romney is a felon: All of which are certifiable lies)

    Yet Obama would simply deny that he is a liar, which in itself would be a lie. In fact, this is exactly the Obama approach.

    @WHAT NOW?
    Endlessly repeating the question "Which Romney?" merely exposes your own confusion. Anyone looking past the Obama MSNBC media spin machine can see Romney quite clearly

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 12:43 p.m.

    re: Howard Beal 11:08 p.m. Oct. 10

    "If there is a middle ground on abortion I think Romney found it. But here's the rub. Who cares? I am not planning on having an abortion. I just want the economy to get better..."

    Agreed.

    Just like the Repubs. Regardless of the situation, they trot out an emotional wedge issue to keep their base vehemently rabid to obfuscate more important issues i.e. economy.

    P.S. For me, the obesity epidemic takes higher precedence than abortion.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Oct. 12, 2012 4:36 p.m.

    Impact Wrestling on Spike last night was far more credible, realistic, & entertaining than the debate.

  • Mister J SLC, UT
    Oct. 13, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    @ Mike Richards 5:28 p.m. Oct. 10, 2012

    "Romney told us that the unborn have rights. I agree with Romney. No mother has the "right" to destroy her unborn children."

    If the unborn have rights; what about the undead?

    Seriously, the way you phrase your claim makes me realize how ludicrous the whole abortion argument can be.

    Morality should NOT be legislated. At some point, we will all suffer repercussions for all the choices we make... whether it me karma, deity, or poetic justice.