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

[joepistole]

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.

[pjdude1219]

yes

[Nickelodeon]

Totally

[Asguard]

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

[Xelios]

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

[angrybellsprout]

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?

[angrybellsprout]

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?

[Asguard]

that's why there are libel and defamation laws

[joepistole]

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.

[Asguard]

MOD HAT: joepistole watch the personal atacks

[Gustav]

a neo conservative label is derogatory?

/burns modhat

whats cooking, chef?

[angrybellsprout]

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.

[angrybellsprout]

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?

[joepistole]

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/...n3725945.shtml

[angrybellsprout]

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.

[joepistole]

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.

[joepistole]

show me the lie Angry

[VRob]

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.

[joepistole]

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.

[angrybellsprout]

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/co...3/cr071003.htm
http://www.iconservative.com/neoconservatives.htm
http://www.washington-report.org/bac...91/9104027.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/lind1.html