I was sitting next to a staffer for CA gubernatorial candidate Bill Simon in 2001 when Simon referred to the "top decile" during a speech. I turned to the staffer and said "tell him to say top 10% in the future".
When you're running for office, you are trying to convince people to vote for you. If you are using words and phrases that large numbers of them do not understand, you are not doing your job. |
|
May not connect with average Americans, but I bet Dennis Miller loves it.
Also, Ronnie quoted Romney as saying "if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening (sic) up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction"
Ronnie then said Bull should concede "Mitt basically lied when he said there were no weapons inspections".
In the quote Mitt never said there were no inspectors let back in to Iraq. Saddam did let the inspectors back in, but, among other things, would not let them inspect where and when they wanted, i.e. suspicious palace sites. Also, the inspectors in their report did not find "that there were no weapons of mass destruction" partly because they were thwarted in their inspections.
So, Mitt's quoted statement was not incorrect. He did not say IAEA inspectors did not go in, but that they did not conclude there were no weapons, probably because Saddam did not open his country entirely and continued to play games. One just has to actually read the full quote and then not willfully ignore the history.
|
|
|
An unvarnished take on Mitt Romney on Hugh's blog. I wonder if Patrick is going to be posting shortly that he has decided to step down to spend more time with his family. |
|
|
|
|
If this is the best criticism you can come up with, Romney's doing pretty well. Nothing wrong with a well-rounded vocabulary that is used correctly. |
|
Remember Hugh's jihad a few months ago when he attacked any GOP member who had the termerity of suggesting benchmarks were necessary in Iraq? It was tantamount to treason.
Now Mitt Romney is for benchmarks in Iraq. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070607/ap_on_el_pr/romney_ap_interview Reaction from Hugh Hewitt. . . can you hear the crickets? |
|
|
What are you talking about? Here's Roney's words "Well, the question is, kind of, a non sequitur, if you will. What I mean by that — or a null set — that is that if you're saying let's turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opening up his country to IAEA inspectors and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction" Instead of addressing what I wrote, you went off the deep end with the Faux news talking points instead conceding that Mitt basically lied when he said there were no weapons inspections. Instead of the typical blather about 9/11, can you just stay on point? Thanks |
|
Mitt has a little speaking skill, but like most GOoPers, he can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. Witness "Bull" above denying actual events for an incoherent insult.
Only the very powerful and the very stupid change the facts to ffit their views. Mitt's not very powerful. |
|
|
I'm not supporting Romney any more. Heck, all I need is a laughably niggling criticism like this to convince me that I've chosen the wrong man. We need someone like Rudy or McCain, who haven't got the discipline to govern their tongues like gentlemen. |
|
|
"we're not gonna build any barriers or fences." |
|
Hugh is coming out with a line of them. Dean will hawk them.
Next month--Black and Blue Suits. Suitable for draping on McCain after Hugh and Dean get through with him.
|
|
"...there actually were inspectors in Iraq prior to the conflict. Just so happens that they were discredited from the get-go, when the Bush administration had already decided on a course of action regardless of the "intelligence"..."
You know, haven't we all had just about enough of the historical revisionists who either fell down asleep at their knees on 9/10/2001 or earlier and still haven't been able to wake up or who are so hell-bent on lying to the rest of us that they'll tell an easily refutable version of history, lying through their teeth just to put something approximating tension in their privates?
Nimrod. We were there. We followed every event along the way, at great detail. We remember. We remember the frustrating discrediting of the inspectors. We remember BushCo going back over and over to the UN, begging them to do something about enforcing their resolutions. We remember the Oil for Food scandal. We remember the dastardly interference for Saddam run by France and Russia and the rest of the worthless Euros. We remember Saddam paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Don't you ever get your belly full of proving to everyone else around you what a moron you are? Doesn't the sound of everyone around you laughing at your flaccid attempts to make an idiot's point ever ring a bell in that cotton insulated noggin of yours?
|
|
|
Except for the two-legged stool - I'm used to that one and if somebody tells me they don't get it, I just give them the look that says, I'm not going to waste time explaining. |
|
|
were doing a bang up job standing up to Saddam and his constantly moving parade of weapons. The UN and its inspectors will surely save the world. |
|
Which brand of Mitt Serial do you like?
Mitt's Serial Panderer - Flip flopping delicious treats with every box.
Mitt's Serial Fibs - Go HUNTING for tasty morsels, but only 2 servings in each box.
Mitt's Serial Lying - Guaranteed to take your short term Iraq memory away or whitewash bad ones. Hans Blinx toy included in specially marked boxes. |
|
|
|
|
The null set is Romney for hoping the American people are dumb enough to have forgotten that there actually were inspectors in Iraq prior to the conflict. Just so happens that they were discredited from the get-go, when the Bush administration had already decided on a course of action regardless of the "intelligence". I'm amazed that Hugh and Dean like this guy so much! |
|
|
this is lamest thing I have read on the Internet is WEEKS. |
|