Mitt Romney said he had no lobbyists leading his campaign. It turns out he does have lobbyists leading his campaign. However the person in charge of his campaign is not a lobbyist. Is it ok to spilt hairs like that? Is it ok to have the press bring this to our attention? The Romney campaign seems to be very upset with the AP reporter who corrnered Romney on the issue.

yes

Totally

Depends on the question. If its about there private life then NO, but this sort of question yes. Its there job to hold the pollies to account

It's not just their right, it's their job. And they don't do nearly enough of it.

Mitt Romney said he had no lobbyists leading his campaign. It turns out he does have lobbyists leading his campaign. However the person in charge of his campaign is not a lobbyist. Is it ok to spilt hairs like that? Is it ok to have the press bring this to our attention? The Romney campaign seems to be very upset with the AP reporter who corrnered Romney on the issue.

Too bad he doesn't have a lobbyist leading his campaign, but you like to spread lies that he does. He has a lobbyist who rides along in the bus with him and gives him advise, but is not allowed in on any of the key strategy meetings.

So why do you feel the need to lie would be a much better question?

Depends on the question. If its about there private life then NO, but this sort of question yes. Its there job to hold the pollies to account


Especially when the journalist is attempting to spread a lie?

that's why there are libel and defamation laws

Too bad he doesn't have a lobbyist leading his campaign, but you like to spread lies that he does. He has a lobbyist who rides along in the bus with him and gives him advise, but is not allowed in on any of the key strategy meetings.

So why do you feel the need to lie would be a much better question?

Angrybell sprout, read what I wrote again. This time do it carefully and slowly. I also understand that it might be a difficult task for a neocon.

MOD HAT: joepistole watch the personal atacks

a neo conservative label is derogatory?

/burns modhat

whats cooking, chef?

He could always provide some evidence for said claims, unless he simply wants to be like his journalist friend and attempt to spread lies about others.

The journalist claimed that Mitt had a lobbyist running his campaign because Mitt was claiming that lobbyists were a key part of some other campaigns. Unless you can show that the lobbyist friend he has is in fact involved with the strategy meetings of the campaign or is in any way leading the campaign, you really should be quiet.

a neo conservative label is derogatory?

/burns modhat

whats cooking, chef?

It is an ad hominem as I am not a neo-con, but when you are already aligning yourself with a liar as the OP did, then why shouldn't we just accept that the OP is a liar himself?

Ok, let me try this again. Romney said several times on camera that he did not have any lobbyists running his campaign. He used the plural form of the word lobbyist not the singular. That implied he had several people running his campaign...makes sense. The individual who is a lobbyist and is traveling with Romney as a senior political advisor. So what do senior political advisiors do if not run campaigns, devise strategy and plot direction. Now Romney wants to use the singular form of the word lobbyist to point to an individual who is not a lobbyist. When he first made the statement it implied that he had no lobbyists on his campaign stalff which is clearly not the case.
As for neocon, it is just like the word liberal. Is liberal a bad word? Most Republicans think so. But Democrats have had the liberal label and worn it proudly for decades. Neocon is a term used to refer to a new generation of conservatives that were brought into the Republican party post Ronald Regan.

That is why I said read again. You obviously did not get it the first time, nor the second time. Instead, you want to go the ad hominen route and call me a liar. A litte good reading could have avoided all this.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/17/politics/main3725945.shtml

Of course, when your lie starts to fall through, grasp to the strawman named semantics.

Then again, still waiting on the evdience that I am somehow a neo-con, or do you love to lie about everything and not just about Romney.

Walks like a duck, squaks like a duck, must be a duck. Necons also like to ignore facts. There is no lie here. I am really confused about what you call a lie? There is no lie here except in your mind. Neocons also are found of constructing false arguements...strawmen. This is a strawman arguement.

show me the lie Angry

Of course, when your lie starts to fall through, grasp to the strawman named semantics.

Then again, still waiting on the evdience that I am somehow a neo-con, or do you love to lie about everything and not just about Romney.

Do you support the current Admin?

If so, then you are a Neo-con.

For the record and for those outside the United States, Romney is a conservative. And I am still waiting to hear why angry has accused the OP, which I assume he means the Associated Press (they are the ones who reported this), and myself as perpetuating lies. This is a common neocon tatic. All unpleasant facts are lies regardless of their verity...evidence and proof not required to support Republicans or conservative positions.

Neocon is a term used to refer to a new generation of conservatives that were brought into the Republican party post Ronald Regan.


Nice to see that the liar doesn't even understand the roots of the word neocon, as if you did, then you would have mentioned their great leader Leon Trotsky from before they infiltrated the Republican Party and took it over.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
http://www.iconservative.com/neoconservatives.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104027.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

Neocon is a term used to refer to a new generation of conservatives that were brought into the Republican party post Ronald Regan.


Nice to see that the liar doesn't even understand the roots of the word neocon, as if you did, then you would have mentioned their great leader Leon Trotsky from before they infiltrated the Republican Party and took it over.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm
http://www.iconservative.com/neoconservatives.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/9104027.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html

For the record Angry, it was Leo Strauss who is generally credited with founding the NeoConservative Movement in the United States...Not Trotsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

But let's get back to your orginal accusation, calling me a liar. Show me the proof!

Neocon is a term used to refer to a new generation of conservatives that were brought into the Republican party post Ronald Regan.


Nice to see that the liar doesn't even understand the roots of the word neocon, as if you did, then you would have mentioned their great leader Leon Trotsky from before they infiltrated the Republican Party and took it over.

You forgot, After a failed attempt to overthrow the Dem party. But otherwise I'd agree.

Georgie, Dick and the rest of the original gang are all part of the Neo-con movement. I've said for many years, this isn't the Repub party. They've been hijacked by the Neo-cons.

For the record Angry, it was Leo Strauss who is generally credited with founding the NeoConservative Movement in the United States...Not Trotsky.

But let's get back to your orginal accusation, calling me a liar. Show me the proof!


You have yet to prove that an unpaid advisor who isn't allowed in on campaign strategy meetings is somehow running the campaign.

I have seen several posts from you Angry, but not one addressing your orginal post claiming the Associated Press and I lied.

You forgot, After a failed attempt to overthrow the Dem party. But otherwise I'd agree.

?

Woodrow Wilson and FDR are great heros of the neo-cons for their attempts to democraticize the "savage nations" of the world.

You have yet to prove that an unpaid advisor who isn't allowed in on campaign strategy meetings is somehow running the campaign.

Let me try this again:

You are again changing the arguement. The issue in this thread was canidates spliting hairs and changing positions to misrepresent themselves...in particular Mitt Romney. He said first that he had no lobbyists (Plural) leading his campaign. That says there are more than one person or persons leading his campaign and none of them are lobbyists, per his statement. When called on the rug by the reporter, he changed his postion to:

The leader (singular) of my campaign is not a lobbyist. Romney back peddled when confronted with facts. Common sense would say to me that Romney is leading his campaign. But apparently not, it is someone else.

This reminds me of the Clinton arguement about the meaning of the word "is". If this senior advisor, traveling with Romney, is not providing thought leadership and advice, what is he doing? What do advisors do for campaigns? Do they not provide thought leadership? If not, why have them?

The issue of if this guy is allowed into stratgey meetings is not relevant. First, you nor I know if that is a true statement. You do not know what he considers a strategy meeting. But why have an advisor traveling with you, if he does not provide you with thought leadership and advise. If he is not a senior advisor, is that a misrepresentaion of his position? And then why would Romney misrepresent the lobbyists postion, if as you assert that were the case.

Bottom line Romney misrepresented his relationship with lobbyists, and this misrepresentation would have gained him political favor amoungst nonbiased electors were it not for the fact that he got called on the rug for it in a rare event where the media questioned his statement.

The statement you attributed to me and quoted here, was never said by me. It was constructed and published by you. This is called a straw man arguement, a typical neocon arguement used by Limbaugh, Hannity, and many others on your side of the fence.

This is my orignal Statement:

"Mitt Romney said he had no lobbyists leading his campaign. It turns out he does have lobbyists leading his campaign. However the person in charge of his campaign is not a lobbyist. Is it ok to spilt hairs like that? Is it ok to have the press bring this to our attention? The Romney campaign seems to be very upset with the AP reporter who corrnered Romney on the issue."

Here are the reported facts in the CBS link provided earlier:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/17/politics/main3725945.shtml

"Republican Mitt Romney said Thursday he could govern in the country's best interest because "I don't have lobbyists running my campaign," although Washington insiders are on his senior staff and registered lobbyists are top advisers.

One of them, Ron Kaufman, chairman of the Washington-based Dutko Group, regularly sits across the aisle from Romney on his campaign plane, participates in debate strategy sessions and just last week accompanied Romney to a lunch in Myrtle Beach with Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Another adviser, former Rep. Vin Weber, R-Minn., is chairman of Romney's policy committee. He also is chief executive officer of Clark & Weinstock, and his corporate biography says he "provides strategic advice to institutions with matters before the legislative and executive branches of the federal government."

"I think it's time for Washington - Republican and Democrat - to have a leader who will fight to make sure we resolve the issues rather than continuously look for partisan opportunity for score-settling and for opportunities to link closer to lobbyists," Romney said during a news conference. "

Are you saying that Chairing the Romney Policy Committee iis not a campaign leadership position? Notice also, Romney has more than one lobbyist on his senior staff.

Again, I challenge you to show me the lie!

You forgot, After a failed attempt to overthrow the Dem party. But otherwise I'd agree.

Georgie, Dick and the rest of the original gang are all part of the Neo-con movement. I've said for many years, this isn't the Repub party. They've been hijacked by the Neo-cons.

I agree with you. That is why despite being a registered Republican all my life, I have not voted Republican in decades. I find the party to be morally lacking.

For the record. Clinton is in bed with the lobbyists too.

Angry, I am still waiting for proof that the Associated Press and I lied, per your previous posts!

For the record. Clinton is in bed with the lobbyists too.

No doubt. Both parties are bought and paid for.

I voted for Reagan, and Bush I also.

Outside of voting for Kerry last time, I've voted 3rd party since Bush I.

I get emotional when it comes to monied interests buying my government. It ticks me off in a big way. I was brought up to believe that we had a government by the people and of the people and for the people. Now I find that was all just a big lie. We have a government of the special interests, and for the special interests and they are ruining the country.

I get emotional when it comes to monied interests buying my government. It ticks me off in a big way. I was brought up to believe that we had a government by the people and of the people and for the people. Now I find that was all just a big lie. We have a government of the special interests, and for the special interests and they are ruining the country.

I couldn't have said it any better.

I get emotional when it comes to monied interests buying my government. It ticks me off in a big way. I was brought up to believe that we had a government by the people and of the people and for the people. Now I find that was all just a big lie. We have a government of the special interests, and for the special interests and they are ruining the country.
Most of it stems from the decision to give corporations the same rights as people under the law. A corporation is not a person. The sooner that's fixed the sooner the country can pull a U-Turn and head back toward what it's supposed to be like.

Most of it stems from the decision to give corporations the same rights as people under the law. A corporation is not a person. The sooner that's fixed the sooner the country can pull a U-Turn and head back toward what it's supposed to be like.

Correctamundo!!

This was a horrible decision.

The journalist claimed that Mitt had a lobbyist running his campaign because Mitt was claiming that lobbyists were a key part of some other campaigns.

The journalist did not claim that.

Unless you can show that the lobbyist friend he has is in fact involved with the strategy meetings of the campaign or is in any way leading the campaign, you really should be quiet.

First of all, the lobbyist is working for the campaign. Secondly, Romney admited the lobbyist helped him prep for a debate, then denied such preparation constituted being involved with "strategy meetings." In order for this to be true, one must assume Romney's debating is devoid of strategy.

i think the sprout is gonna find sci a tad bit more hostile
ja
lemme turn on another brain cell

sure

Romney got caught in a lie plain and simple. Everyone has lobbyists in their campaigns. I don't know why the candidates keep denying this.

Does the Press have the right to ask unpleasant questions of canidates?

only if he isnt jewish.

Romney got caught in a lie plain and simple. Everyone has lobbyists in their campaigns. I don't know why the candidates keep denying this.

Because it will cost them some votes. I think Romney has picked up on the "Change Message" as being advertised by the Democrats. Under the current Republican administration, they have taken the art of selling legislation to historical highs. They even had a Vice President of Marketing in the form of Tom Delay in the House.

Voters want to throw the bums out. Only John Edwards has clean hands in this...Obama is a close second.