[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314216]Or, a more reasonable explanation, is that Romney was simply telling the truth. He doesn't currently know of any legislation, nor has he (over the past 6+ months of campaigning) put forth any legislation, on abortion issues. Parsimony.

[/QUOTE]

Or, how I learned to love obfuscation to try not to piss off a large group of supporters while at the same time misleading another group just enough to vote for me, but not enough that I actually promised them anything?

Double-speak? I'll drink some Victory Gin to that!

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux]Yeah, the more I read on this, the more it seems like a manufactured controversy.[/QUOTE]

Manufactured by ??? the Conservatives he's been promising anti-abortion legislation to for a year and a half? The moderate women voters that his party has so alienated in this election that he can't find traction in swing states? The Media who can't seem to report on the things that Romney obviously means instead of the stupid things he says? The Romneys of the Senate races and Governor races who were pro-choice and even donated money to Planned Parenthood?

Isn't the fact that for any given issue we don't know what Romney's actual stance is an issue?

[QUOTE=chappy;314218]Or, how I learned to love obfuscation to try not to piss off a large group of supporters while at the same time misleading another group just enough to vote for me, but not enough that I actually promised them anything?

Double-speak? I'll drink some Victory Gin to that![/quote]OR...

I'll tell the actual truth. People will misunderstand, I'll clarify. But the opposition will try to obfuscate.

Sheesh.

[quote]
Manufactured by ??? the Conservatives he's been promising anti-abortion legislation to for a year and a half?[/quote]Call for reference. Where has Romney promised legislation? [By the way, if you can show me such a promise, I will admit I'm wrong on this. Promises to [i]support[/i] pro-life efforts are of a different nature, as I already explained.]

[quote]The moderate women voters that his party has so alienated in this election that he can't find traction in swing states? The Media who can't seem to report on the things that Romney obviously means instead of the stupid things he says? The Romneys of the Senate races and Governor races who were pro-choice and even donated money to Planned Parenthood?

Isn't the fact that for any given issue we don't know what Romney's actual stance is an issue?[/QUOTE]Give me a break. People can and do change their mind. Or are you so blind not to recognize similar behavior in your own candidate, in your own life, and in the lives of lots of people around you.

Are you going to fall for these manufactured controversies on piddly topics like Romney's dog, when there are actual issues that matter like Libya, the debt, etc... which, apparently, you give no comment to?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314224]OR...

I
Call for reference. Where has Romney promised legislation? [By the way, if you can show me such a promise, I will admit I'm wrong on this. Promises to [i]support[/i] pro-life efforts are of a different nature, as I already explained.][/QUOTE]

"[URL="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/democrats-target-romney-on-reproductive-rights/"]In early October[/URL] on his Fox News show, Mike Huckabee asked Mr. Romney if he would have supported “a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception.”

“Absolutely,” Mr. Romney said."

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314224]
Give me a break. People can and do change their mind. Or are you so blind not to recognize similar behavior in your own candidate, in your own life, and in the lives of lots of people around you.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely they do. You might, for example, promise to end a war on foreign soil, but then when given that chance, be persuaded by all the enormity of the actions that you choose a slower, less politically expedient, but in the long term more effective and better path of slow and stable withdrawal. I respect that.

You mean to stake out the claim that because a pro-life candidate would have a hard time winning in Massachusetts had nothing to do with Romney's pro-choice position. And because a pro-choice candidate has no chance of winning the republican nomination at the national level had nothing to do with Romney's "change of position." That's a hell of a conveniently political conscience he's got. I suppose he was lucky in more things than being born rich.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314224]
Are you going to fall for these manufactured controversies on piddly topics like Romney's dog, when there are actual issues that matter like Libya, the debt, etc... which, apparently, you give no comment to?[/QUOTE]

Again, I don't think this is manufactured. I think this is a real reflection of a candidate who will seem to bend to popular opinion on basically any issue, then hours later will back-track and clarify, and prevaricate. His own party called him on it dozens of times in the debates. But, now that he is their candidate they fully endorse him.

Further, if you can find on this forum or any other where I have even mentioned Romney's dog (before just now) I will give you my i7-3570k machine which I love more than life itself. I've contributed to many discussions of the Debt--here and on other forums. I'm of the opinion that it's not as big a deal as people seem to think it is. But, that is my opinion. If Romney thinks its a big deal then why does he (sort of, maybe, kinda, but at other times not really) support Ryan's plan that doesn't balance the budget for nearly 30 years?

And what about Libya do you want to discuss? Why don't you tell me [URL="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/where-is-mitt-romney-on-libya/"]Romney's position on Libya[/URL] and I'll discuss whether or not I agree or disagree or agree or disagree.

And if you seriously mean to defend the notion that because Romney isn't talking about an actual written proposed law, that he is in the clear for not knowing about any anti-abortion legislation that would come up in his campaign, I'm not sure we can have a discussion about these issues. That's bush-league pettifogging. "Uh, I don't know the numbers of any currently pending legislation, that, uh, have been sponsored by anyone at the present time" that's just BS.

I understand his dilemma, if he stays consistent he will lose in the swing states. If he flips too much he will demoralize his base. If he implies just enough and plays with semantics long enough he just might win.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314224]OR...

I'll tell the actual truth. People will misunderstand, I'll clarify. But the opposition will try to obfuscate.

Sheesh.[/QUOTE]

If I may share my personal perspective...

Here in Barbados the Leader of the Democratic Labour Party, David Thompson, promised the electorate a Freedom of Information Act within 100 days of his election.

He was elected. And within 300 days he died of cancer.

Surprise! The FOIA was never enacted....

Edit: Yeah, believe it or not, a "trusted" off-shore tax haven has no FOIA.

[QUOTE=chappy;314225]"[URL="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/democrats-target-romney-on-reproductive-rights/"]In early October[/URL] on his Fox News show, Mike Huckabee asked Mr. Romney if he would have supported “a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception.”

“Absolutely,” Mr. Romney said."[/quote]And he still does. And his recent statement says nothing to the contrary. [I think you are missing the difference between supporting legislation as it arises, versus promoting or even writing legislation on your own as part of your ticket. Romney would support a constitutional amendment, but he isn't making it part of his plan. He is focused on the economy.]

Try again.

chalsall,

It is one thing to break your promises. It is another to make it [i]appear[/i] like you are breaking your promise, when in fact you are not.

[URL="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/01/barack-obamas-top-10-promises-broken-kept/"]Anyway, here are some more broken (and kept) promises.[/URL] On the link: 86 promises Obama has broken. Of the 508 promises, that accounts for about 1/6th of them...

Apparently I missed this little bit:[QUOTE]And if you seriously mean to defend the notion that because Romney isn't talking about an actual written proposed law, that he is in the clear for not knowing about any anti-abortion legislation that would come up in his campaign, I'm not sure we can have a discussion about these issues. That's bush-league pettifogging. "Uh, I don't know the numbers of any currently pending legislation, that, uh, have been sponsored by anyone at the present time" that's just BS. [/QUOTE]I went to the Des Moines Register, the newspaper which initially reported the quotation from Romney. They have a [URL="http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/10/10/how-did-romney-answer-the-registers-abortion-question-transcript-here/article"]transcript[/URL] of the questions and responses. As you can see, he was specifically asked if he, personally, intended to pursue any legislation.

It is true that the first sentence of Romney's answer, taken out of the context of the question and his entire response, might lead someone to believe he wouldn't support legislation pursued by others. Thus, [i]immediately[/i] after the article was published, his campaign clarified the issue.

You might view answering a question, as asked, as pettifogging. I don't. Romney clearly answered the question he was asked, with a brief answer not covering every nuance. When it was taken out of context, his campaign clarified.

But I suppose we could continue to delve into these little nitpicky things instead of looking at the picture of what the candidates actually stand for. Romney stands firmly in the pro-life group, except allowing abortions in cases of rape or incest. He has mentioned several things he would do differently than Obama. Reinstate the Mexico City rule. Stop federal funding to abortion providers. Obama stands firmly in the pro-choice group. His voting record is what it is from his days in the senate, as are his support of Obamacare providing abortificants on tax-payer money. Let's talk about the actual issues here, not the blatant spin the campaigns gives.

-----------------

I did more homework for you guys. Apparently, in June 2011, Romney did say he would push for legislation.

[QUOTE]The Democratic National Committee pointed reporters to a June 2011 opinion piece published in the National Review Online in which the candidate identifies a piece of legislation for which he would advocate as president.

"I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion," Romney wrote in the piece, headlined "My Pro-Life Pledge."[/QUOTE]

I stand corrected.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314274]I did more homework for you guys. Apparently, in June 2011, Romney did say he would push for legislation.

[QUOTE=Romney]"I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion," Romney wrote in the piece, headlined "My Pro-Life Pledge."[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Did he articulate then, or subsequently, what is, in his mind, the definition of pain? Pain-capable?

[QUOTE=chalsall;314315]Did he articulate then, or subsequently, what is, in his mind, the definition of pain? Pain-capable?[/QUOTE]I suppose it would be similar to [URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.+3803:"]this bill[/URL], which (if I read it right) puts the time at 20 weeks. (When the nerves are all present, as are the connections to the brain.)

One might actually interpret Romney's statement (which was made in 2011) as speaking of support for this bill specifically; and thus moot now that it has been voted on. However, I'm not a Romney apologist, and would hold him (due to his previous comment) to supporting another vote on this (or a similar) bill.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314323]I suppose it would be similar to [URL="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.+3803:"]this bill[/URL], which (if I read it right) puts the time at 20 weeks. (When the nerves are all present, as are the connections to the brain.)[/QUOTE]

I read that as no later than 20 weeks. And possibly a great deal sooner.

Not quite sure how Congress "finds and declares" that. Maybe that's while the bill failed.

I do appreciate your honesty. If you were running for president, and I could vote for you, I would.

This is the best video I've ever watched!

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg&feature=g-u-u"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg&feature=g-u-u[/URL]