CDZ Speaking Truth to Power

[usmbguest5318]

Mitt Romney's winning the Utah senatorial race for Orin Hatch's seat would place a very formidable voice of "truth to power" in Washington, and it'd be a voice that need not concern itself with Utah voters' disapproval on account of their approbation for Donald Trump.

Though, in 2016's presidential election, Trump won the overall Mormon vote, he did so by a margin of three-to-five. In contrast, both Romney and Bush won the Mormon vote by four-to-one. Indeed, in Utah, Trump didn't even win a majority of the votes cast, winning but 45% of the popular vote in Utah.

Of course, Romney has not won the race and even if he does, it remains to be seen in what regard and to what extent he indeed becomes a voice of vehement opposition to Trump. That said, nobody would be surprised if Romney were to use a senate win and the platform it gives him to launch a primary bid for the GOP 2020 presidential nomination, and Lord knows that no matter what one hears from Trump's base, there's no paucity of Republicans would happily see just about anyone other than Trump in the WH.

Additional reading:

• How Pro Trump are Mormons?
  
• Trump raves about canned tuna at Mormon church food pantry | Daily Mail Online
  
  I suspect Trump didn't increase his perceived intellectual acuity among Mormons when he went to a food bank, Welfare Square Cannery, Mormons operate so that poor people can go there to get food for free and that Mormons use as a staging place for distributing food and supplies to needy people in distant locales. Just what did Trump think he was doing by gathering grocery items that one cannot pay for because they are given away?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

 

[Rambunctious]

Swamper....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

Why encourage him?

I can assure you that Mr. Romney neither seeks nor needs my encouragement; thus I wouldn't waste my time or his giving it to him.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

Why encourage him?

I can assure you that Mr. Romney neither seeks nor needs my encouragement; thus I wouldn't waste my time or his giving it to him.

It was a rhetorical question.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

Why encourage him?

I can assure you that Mr. Romney neither seeks nor needs my encouragement; thus I wouldn't waste my time or his giving it to him.

It was a rhetorical question.

Okay.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Do you even now rather he had assumed the mantle of intransigent SOB?

• Sept 11 --> Embassy attacked.
• Sept 12 --> Obama: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
• Oct 16th's --> Romney: "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack at Benghazi an act of terrorism."
  
  

Crowley corrected Romney because his statement was factually and contextually inaccurate. Romney retreated (rhetorically) because that's what mature people of any degree of fleeting (albeit not unwavering) integrity do when they have their bluff called or their assertions shown not to be true. There are a number of ways Romney could have presented the idea he attempted to convey, not the least being to have qualified his remark in myriad ways, all of which left room for him to have been mistaken. One way, thought not the only way would have been saying something akin to "Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it took the President 14 days...." or "If I recall correctly, it took the President 14 days ...." An even better way, of course, is to simply not air publicly ideas one has not confirmed are factually and contextually true; thereby never needing to "back down" because everything one says will be accurate.

It's worth noting something else Obama said in that speech: "Our country is only as strong as the character of our people." As goes Romney's character, though it's imperfect, it's markedly nearer to sterling than is that of the cad who -- when he's not doing that which he chided Obama for doing and that he yet does more than any POTUS I can think of, golfing -- currently resides 1600 Penn. Ave. Romney showed in that debate that he at least has the decency to yield to truth.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Crowley's own network reluctantly reported her error the very next day.

That Romney folded so easily kept many people home election day.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Crowley's own network reluctantly reported her error the very next day.

That Romney folded so easily kept many people home election day.

Crowley's own network reluctantly reported her error the very next day.

I don't care what her network or anyone else said or didn't say. I can read the transcript of Obama's speech and watch the video of the debate. I provided that content for you and anyone else to see for yourselves. I should hope, having immediate visibility to those pieces of information, nobody need rely on or deign cite what anyone else says. (I've represented that information below.)

• Sept 11 --> Embassy attacked.
• Sept 12 --> Obama: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
• Oct 16th's --> Romney: "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack at Benghazi an act of terrorism."
  
  

Quite simply, by no reckoning is fourteen days the time between September 11, 2012 and September 12, 2012, and what anyone says to the contrary is not going to alter that fact. Crowley may have committed some sort of error, but it damn sure wasn't the error of asserting that Obama took 14 days to call the attack an act of terrorism, which is precisely the nature of the errant statement Romney made and that was the inaccurate statement from which he had to retreat as a result of Crowley's remarks.

That Romney folded so easily kept many people home election day.

That many people stayed home election day testifies more to their comprehension of the matter than it does to how Romney comported himself in the face of being shown to have inaccurately described the sequence of events.

 

[usmbguest5318]

That Romney folded so easily kept many people home election day.

I've said that insofar as Romney made an inaccurate statement, was shown that he had done, and he, in turn, retreated from it, one can accord to him some measure of integrity, as a man possessed of some element of good character. I am saying that not because he backed down, but because he exhibited, if nothing else, better sense than to stand on a falsity.

What you appear to be saying is that many people declined to vote for Romney (or anyone else, apparently) because they took exception with the fact that rather than be intransigent, Mitt acquiesced to the central point of the case he was then making holding no water and letting it drop, that Republican voters (and other would be Romney supporters) would have preferred that he stood his ground regardless of its being all but rhetorical quicksand.

• Is that not the underlying nature/sentiment in your above quoted statement?
• If it is not, what, then, do you posit "many people" who "stayed home" found distasteful about Romney's not having persisted in prosecuting his point based on a false premise?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

• Is that not the underlying nature/sentiment in your above quoted statement?

No.

• If it is not, what, then, do you posit "many people" who "stayed home" found distasteful about Romney's not having persisted in prosecuting his point based on a false premise?

Romney was correct, but showed a jelly spine when confronted by Obama and his minions.

 

[usmbguest5318]

• Is that not the underlying nature/sentiment in your above quoted statement?

No.

• If it is not, what, then, do you posit "many people" who "stayed home" found distasteful about Romney's not having persisted in prosecuting his point based on a false premise?

Romney was correct, but showed a jelly spine when confronted by Obama and his minions.

Romney was correct, but showed a jelly spine when confronted by Obama and his minions.

How exactly do you read the transcript of the debate (or watch it) and read Obama's speech and conclude that correct be Romney's assertion that Obama took 14 days to call the attack an act of terrorism? (That information, again, is below.)

• Sept 11 --> Embassy attacked.
• Sept 12 --> Obama: "The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. ... No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."
• Oct 16th's --> Romney: "It took the President 14 days before he called the attack at Benghazi an act of terrorism."
  
  

 

[2aguy]

Romney's just another loser. He even backed down from Candy Crowley.

Why encourage him?

The left loves Republicans that are losers and who refuse to fight......that is why they have a new found love of Romney...

And they get orgasmic over any Republican who will get in Trump's way.....

 

[sartre play]

Romney, just what we need one more extremely wealthy person who has no working connection to the needs or wants of the working class.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Romney, just what we need one more extremely wealthy person who has no working connection to the needs or wants of the working class.

Tell that to all the wealthy people who once were working class. Such individuals are demonstrative evidence of the continued viability of the American Dream. Like it or not, most wealthy people were not "to the manor born."