Tag: Mitt Romney

Report: Romneys’ Sons Contradict Mom about Fate of Seamus the Irish Setter

Jon Ponder

photo-fleeing-setter

No one but a cruel idiot or a heartless cyborg would force a dog to ride in kennel strapped to the top of a car for 12 hours, as Mitt Romney famously did in 1983. But a new report suggests that Mitt’s wife Ann may have lied to reporters about the ultimate fate of Seamus, the Irish Setter — reportedly according to her own sons:

Mitt Romney may not have told the whole truth about the scandalous tale of his Irish Setter, Seamus, being strapped to the roof of his car during a 12-hour family road trip to Canada. According to a trusted Politicker tipster, two of Mr. Romney’s sons had an off-record conversation with reporters where they revealed the dog ran away when they reached their destination on that infamous journey in 1983.

Mr. Romney’s wife, Ann, has previously said Seamus survived the trip and went on to live to a “ripe old age.” As of this writing, Mr. Romney’s campaign has not responded to multiple requests for comment on this story.

Last month, another aspect of this story came to light when it was reported that Seamus had violent attack of diarrhea while he was in the kennel. Romney’s response was to haul the dog down off the roof, hose him off and then, despite the fact that the dog was obviously terrified, sick and suffering, put him back in the kennel on the roof for the rest of the trip.

If Seamus really did run away from his captors when they finally let him out in Canada, it was a perfectly rational response.

The Myth of Mitt’s Moderateness

Trish

So much for the arguments by independents that Mitt Romney is a moderate.

Mitt is not a moderate, he’s not a liberal, he’s not a conservative. He’s a rich guy doing whatever he thinks he needs to do to claim the power that rich guys feel entitled to.

Mitt is not a moderate, he’s not a liberal, he’s not a conservative. He’s a rich guy doing whatever he thinks he needs to do to claim the power that rich guys feel entitled to. And if that means saying one thing to these people and the opposite to others, so be it.

Addicting Info on Romney’s reaction to the decision by an appeals court that California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state, is unconstitutional:

Not long after the ruling was handed down, Mitt Romney, eager to pander to ultra conservative anti-gay hate groups, made a statement, condemning the decision.

[Romney’s statement begins] “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage. This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.” [Romney’s statement ends]

The problem with Mitt’s statement is that the judges did indeed correctly interpret the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage. It does not say that straight couples are the only ones who can marry, nor does it say that homosexuals can’t get married. What the Constitution does say is that everyone has the right to personal liberty, privacy, and equality under the law. Laws that ban consenting adults from marrying violates the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Constitution. In other words, the judges made the right call. So basically, Romney is promising to appoint judges who will consistently misinterpret the Constitution, which is similar to what Newt Gingrich has promised to do.

Romney Should Be Concerned About the Very Poor

Trish

If Romney truly wants to be president, he sure as heck should not be dismissive of the nation’s poor. In fact, he should be willing to listen to them, understand how hard many of them work and determine what policies he can advance that will help them graduate from poverty to the next level.

— CNN’s Roland Martin, reflecting on Mitt Romney’s statement that, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. There’s a safety net there, and if it needs repair I’ll fix it.”

In Florida GOP Primary, 41% of Tea Party Supporters Voted for Big Government Republican Romney

Jon Ponder

Just two years after Florida Republicans elected a corporatist tea-party candidate Rick Scott as governor, with a narrow, 48.9 percent to 47.7 percent win over his Democratic rival Alex Sink, these same voters tacked decisively to the left in their presidential primary election yesterday, giving Mitt Romney, the former liberal Republican governor of Massachusetts, a decisive 14-point win over tea party-aligned, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

All four Republican presidential candidates support criminalizing abortion, which would require a huge new government bureaucracy to monitor the medical records of the 4 million American women who become pregnant each year

Granted, pickings were slim for Florida’s “true” conservatives. In a field of four, two of the candidates — Romney and Gingrich — have big government records. In the past, Romney has supported women’s reproductive rights and gay rights and imposed restrictions on guns. He also implemented the right-wing Heritage Foundation’s individual mandate as a big-government solution to health-insurance reform when he was governor of Massachusetts. Gingrich, who took millions in lobbying fees from federal housing agencies after he was forced out of Congress, has supported climate science in the past and advocated for NASA, the government-run space agency, while campaigning in Florida last week.

[…]

Gingrich’s Megalomania Is Deepening

Buck Banks

You mean those who said I was dead in June? Those who said I was dead in December? They are about as accurate as they were the last two times they were wrong.

— Newt Gingrich, quoted by ABC News, refuting predictions the presidential race would be effectively over if he lost in Florida. He said the race would go on for “six or eight months” and then added: “unless Romney drops out earlier.”

Flashback to Romney’s ‘Blind Trust’ Argument

Buck Banks

The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.

— Mitt Romney, in a 1994 debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Romney currently defends his own investments on the grounds he can’t control money in a “blind trust.”