Romnian Semantics
From Politico, from a press conference today:
“I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign,†(Mitt) Romney said. “I don’t have lobbyists that are tied to my — â€
Glen Johnson, an Associated Press reporter who was sitting on the floor as he typed on his laptop computer, interrupted to point out that Ron Kaufman, one of Romney’s top advisers, is a lobbyist.
“That’s not true, governor!†Johnson interjected, according to CBS News’ Scott Conroy, who was there. “That is not true. Ron Kaufman is a lobbyist.â€
CBS has posted the video.
“Did you hear what I said — did you hear what I said, Glen?†Romney replied. “I said, ‘I don’t have lobbyists running my campaign,’ and he’s not running my campaign. He’s an adviser. And the person who runs my campaign is [campaign manager] Beth Myers, and I have a whole staff of deputy campaign managers.â€
Objectively Unfit Mitt is trying to play the media persecution card on this incident. Give me a break.
Romney specifically said “I don’t have lobbyists that are TIED to my –” before being interrupted. Obviously the missing word is “campaign.”
Romney then admitted that Ron Kaufman is TIED to his campaign by when he acknowledged that Kaufman is an “adviser,” and again later when he agreed that Kaufman has been in debate preparation(s).
But then, Romney tried to pretend he only said “running,” when everyone in the room, and now every video viewer, clearly saw him say “tied to.”
AP reporter Johnson is right. He caught Romney red-handed.
Leave it to Mitt Romney to make an AP reporter actually look good.
And Eric “Don’t Be Argumentative with the Candidate” can take a flying leap.
Objectively Unfit Mitt looks more like the second coming of Bill “Meaning of Is” Clinton with each passing day. In fact, “Romnian” would likely replace “Clintonian” in the lexicon if, heaven forbid, he were elected President.
__________________________________________
UPDATE: Allah at Hot Air gets it right (”Mitt gets testy with AP reporter over lobbyist accusations”) –
The charge is that Romney, the self-styled candidate of vacuous “changeâ€, is letting his campaign be run by a guy who not only served as political director in the George H.W. Bush administration but is known to some as a “mega-lobbyistâ€, whose firm raised more than $21 million in fees in 2006 alone. True? Strictly speaking, no. Ron Kaufman appears to have no formal role with the campaign, although he’s mentioned in this Fox News story as a member of Mitt’s “inner circle†and is frequently described as a “senior advisor†in other news reports.
But of course, Kaufman is TIED to the campaign.
Bryan’s assessment at the same Hot Air post misses the mark. Romney comes off as a near-bully, and Fehrnstrom as a definite bully. That’s would be a net loss for Objectively Unfit Mitt, who turned a molehill into a mountain.
I think the perjorative “unfit Mitt” really tells us all we need to know about where you’re coming from.
Words mean things, and your silly inference that an unpaid advisor is somehow “tied” (implying an obligation one way or another) and that any other interpretation is ridiculous, is disingenuous at best.
Romney makes the larger point–he is not a creature of Washington, he doesn’t owe anything to the K street crowd (who are all Democrats anyway) and he’s spent his own money and that of the grassroots supporters to get where he is.
He is clearly the least beholding politician we’ve had in living memory.
I’ve enjoyed Bizzyblog since its inception and this puerile name calling and tantrum is very disappointing.
Comment by Mick Stockinger — January 17, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
#1 you obviously didn’t follow the link to see why he’s unfit. Please do.
Assuming you agree that constitutions mean something, you’ll understand perfectly why he and he alone has earned that moniker in the nearly three years I’ve been blogging. If you don’t, you’re apparently OK with government by craven executive whim. I’m not.
As to the AP-Romney spat, all I can say is “Kaufman IS tied, and Mitt clearly lied.” Par for the course.
Comment by TBlumer — January 18, 2008 @ 12:32 am
So what?! I guess I don’t think its unusual that a large national campaign hoping to run the government would have someone advising that does government for a living. I’d question the credibility, forethought, and management skills of one who didn’t.
I have not commented about your anti-Romney crusade before, and probably won’t in the future, but your list of reasons are tending to get a little moonbatty. Stick with the health care/abortion thing. It wasn’t enough for me, but at least it was substantive. My choice is Thompson but Mitt is #2, then Giuliani, Huckabee, Bealzebub, dirt, McCain.
Comment by Joe C. — January 18, 2008 @ 7:26 am
I shouldn’ have said “moonbatty;” but there is certainly a decreasing marginal benefit.
Comment by Joe C. — January 18, 2008 @ 8:29 am
#3 and #4, that’s OK.
Consider me a counterweight to virtually everyone else. In the face of the obvious stubbornly refuses to address the blatant unconstitutionality (MA’s constitution) of Romney’s unilateral imposition of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. I’ve never seen such an open-and-shut abuse of power by a GOP person so consistently ignored by those who should, and do, know better.
Comment by TBlumer — January 18, 2008 @ 8:39 am
This report above is simply not true. See http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/mitt-romney-attacked-by-pretzel-jackass.html
or
http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2008/01/when_did_semant.html
The lobbyist you refer to is an unpaid ADVISOR who is not on Mitt Romney’s Senior advisor staff!!! Please, before you write your nonsense on a blog spewing forth untruths as fact…do a little research.
Mitt told the truth.
You lied.
Comment by THIS BLOG SUCKS — January 18, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
#6, you can try to recast it all you want, but you can’t change what Mitt said.
The question isn’t whether Kaufman is a paid or unpaid adviser or whether is or isn’t “senior staff,” it’s whether he is “tied” to the campaign.
Kaufman is an adviser. Kaufman has sat in on debate prep(s). Looking to the definition of “tied” (i.e. Meaning 22 at link — “a bond or connection, as of affection, kinship, mutual interest, or between two or more people, groups, nations, or the like”), Kaufman meets it. With ease.
Kaufman is tied. Mitt lied. Your argument is fried.
GP and others are letting their visceral disdain for AP reporters in general get in the way of what actually happened. Oh well, no one’s perfect.
Comment by TBlumer — January 18, 2008 @ 2:05 pm