jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (9 posts)

Romney Gaffe or Admission?

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/07/r … on-speech/

    I watched a lot of this interview on Fox News this morning, and I did catch the part where he said he only included what was important to him in the RNC convention speech, which by implication would mean Afghanistan wasn't important.

    Result of being tired, or an admission that Romney is actually not focused much on the wars at all?  Some members of the right are slamming him for the omission.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Call it what it is. Extreme nit-picking, and out-of-context.

      When giving a speech, you speak about what is important to include in that speech. Any more military talk would have detracted from the message he was giving.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Perhaps a thank you for fighting?  If you believe in the wars, why would you not say SOMETHING about it?

        1. Mighty Mom profile image87
          Mighty Momposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I can answer that one, sooner.
          To Romney, troops = military as corporations = people.
          There is no need to "thank" a corporation for making huge profits, is there?
          I rest my case.

          1. profile image0
            Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            This makes much more sense.

    2. KK Trainor profile image61
      KK Trainorposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      He had addressed a VFW post the day before and given a long speech apparently, maybe he thought that would be enough. But of course the liberals will never be satisfied with anything he does or says, so what's the point really... just as I'm never satisfied with Obama's 3 question press conferences.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, but when he had the highest number of viewers possible in this election, barring a Romney win, he chose to not mention anything.  He needs a new speechwriter tongue

  2. Mighty Mom profile image87
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
    What could Romney possibly say, since his extremely detailed plan (facetious) on his website is exactly the same as Obama's? Of course he doesn't want to talk about it.

    As a larger issue,Romney and Ryan's* speeches are now going to be re-analyzed in light of Obama's and Biden's.
    In going second, the Dems had the opportunity to one-up (more like 1 million up) the GOP convention.
    There was a point by point by point by point rebuttal to any and every possible issue that was addressed and was left on the table at the RNC.
    A giant checklist. Yep, we got that covered.
    The only thing the Dems did not trot out in direct refutation of the RNC lineup, it seems to me, is Beau the Dog.

    *I would sincerely hope there will be no post facto comparison of the star speakers, Eastwood and Clinton. That would just be... wrong. smile

  3. psycheskinner profile image84
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    His speech was about looking warm and fuzzy.  Wars are not warm and fuzzy, so he left them out of that speech.  It's only logical really..