Does anyone actually like Romney?

[adaher]

@gamerunknown

From here.

Guantanamo reversal.

Cite?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-521948.html

[Fiddle_Peghead]

@adaher

The President says a lot of things. One of his actual weaknesses is that he doesn’t always do what he says he’ll do. As one of his spokesman said after a speech he gave on health care, “The President’s statement was not meant to be taken literally.”

Hmm. I’ve searched online and can’t find anything of the kind. Wikipedia says Palin made a similar statement about comments she made regarding “death panels,” which of course came up during health care discussions. Maybe this is what you were thinking of?

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Actually, the “wasn’t meant to be taken literally” quote is from the spokesman for Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) in April 2011:

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) defended Republicans’ willingness to shut down the government over funding for Planned Parenthood by falsely claiming that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.” In reality, just three percent of its work is related to abortion. This afternoon, CNN brought on Planned Parenthood’s Judy Tabar to discuss his comment. During the interview, CNN anchor TJ Holmes relayed a statement from Kyl’s office walking back the comment, claiming the statement was not meant to be “factual”:

HOLMES: We did call his office trying to ask what he was talking about there. And I just want to give it you verbatim here. It says, ‘his remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.’

Next?

[BrainGlutton]

Well, it appears they don’t like Romney in Poland. (“You forgot Poland . . .”)

[Measure_for_Measure]

@kaylasdad99

He is equally odious. He’s a Republican. The Republican Party is odious, from the ground up, and must never again be permitted to put a candidate into the Oval Office.

I wouldn’t say never. The Republican party once had a large rump of moderates who in practice ran the show. They even had a wing of liberals in the 1950s, 60s and 70s.

Their key base is middle aged and elderly white dudes. That demographic is in decline. It will take a couple of electoral disasters for them to pivot towards textbook economics and away from gut-level tribal appeals and posturing. The Democrats did some soul-searching from 1985-1992 and came out stronger. Some day the Republicans could do the same.

For the moment though, we’ll get candidates like Romney who flip flop and contradict themselves and trust their base not to notice. That’s the one thing a liberal shares with Mitt Romney: they both chuckle at his base. Does Mitt Romney have a problem with the truth? - Politics & Elections - Straight Dope Message Board

[adaher]

Here is the link I posted to the administration saying the President’s words should not be taken literally:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-521948.html

Yes,Republicans said it a lot afterwards, because it’s fun to mock.

[Jas09]

Wait, your cite is Bricker? Referencing an AP article that no longer exists? Searching for the phrase only brings up GOP types repeating it and linking it back to the same un-sourced AP article. Can you give me an actually cite of someone in the administration saying it?

[adaher]

All the other links reference an article that no longer exists. I’m sorry, I forgot the internet rules: if it’s no longer on the internet, it never happened.

[Fiddle_Peghead]

Yeah, that’s all I was able to find. Some mysterious White House spokesman supposedly said it. For all I know, it’s true, but I couldn’t find any evidence online. But politicians don’t lie, so I believe it.

[Airbeck]

@adaher

All the other links reference an article that no longer exists. I’m sorry, I forgot the internet rules: if it’s no longer on the internet, it never happened.

No, its not that it proves that it didn’t happen, its just that on the SDMB we require a cite for an assertion. So if you cannot cite it, then you cannot assert it as a fact. This is a reasonable expectation for an intelligent conversation I would think.

[adaher]

I can cite the original link, but it’s the same as the cite in the Straight Dope archive. THe fact the AP decided to remove it and all that is left are the various reactions to it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, and we also have little things called memories. The internet did not make the need to actually learn things and remember things obsolete.

I recognize a lot of names in that thread of people who are supporters of the President and post here regularly. They should be able to attest that they actually saw the story.

[Jas09]

But even the original quote from the AP was un-sourced. So saying that “a spokesman” said it is not true - we have no idea who said it.

ETA: Hell, the original article doesn’t even say that the “official” said that it shouldn’t be taken literally, merely that he “suggested” it.

[Airbeck]

@adaher

The internet did not make the need to actually learn things and remember things obsolete.

Well then, I guess its a good thing that noone ever said that it did, isn’t it?

So we can agree upon this anyway. That’s progress.

But you can’t assert this dig at Obama as a fact in a debate if you can’t cite it. This is SDMB protocol, and always has been. I mean you can assert it, but it isn’t going to win you any points here.

[adaher]

I presented evidence that it was said. It may not be as good as a cite, but it’s not nothing either. You can decide to discount it if you wish, but I would hope that we wouldn’t have to cite important events that happened recently and that everyone knew about.

Also, factual statements are made all the time on SDMB and few are backed up. Opponents ask for a cite when they dispute the accuracy of something. So if I say the WTC towers are no longer standing, hopefully no one would ask for a cite for that. Likewise, I would hope an informed discussion board would flush something unpleasant down the memory hole just because the original story got deleted a few months after it was first posted.

[Jas09]

Well, in general cites are more likely to be asked for when the claim is a direct quote (as in your post). Particularly when informed readers know that it can’t be a direct quote because nobody in the administration was ever quoted saying that. If you had left it with your couple of sentences, or left out the quotes, I doubt anybody would have asked for a cite. The fact is, a spokesman didn’t say that - the AP claimed that an unnamed administration official “suggested” that.

Surely this is enough of a digression at this point.

[Airbeck]

@adaher

I presented evidence that it was said. It may not be as good as a cite, but it’s not nothing either. You can decide to discount it if you wish, but I would hope that we wouldn’t have to cite important events that happened recently and that everyone knew about.

Also, factual statements are made all the time on SDMB and few are backed up. Opponents ask for a cite when they dispute the accuracy of something. So if I say the WTC towers are no longer standing, hopefully no one would ask for a cite for that. Likewise, I would hope an informed discussion board would flush something unpleasant down the memory hole just because the original story got deleted a few months after it was first posted.

You are trying to smear Obama with uncited information.

That is not the same as saying that the WTC was destroyed and being asked to cite it. Its kind of ridiculous to compare these two things IMO.

I don’t remember this story at all, so it is not true to say that “everyone knew about” it. It wasn’t Obama that allegedly said it anyway. Do you even know what the name of the staffer was that supposedly said this? Do you hold Romney responsible for everything his unnamed staffers and advisers say? Do you even hold him accountable for the things he actually says himself?

I’m just saying that you shouldn’t expect this uncited smear to carry much weight here, or convince anyone of anything.

[adaher]

So if I go back to that thread, I won’t find that you posted on it? Because a few liberals who are still here and arguing with me on other threads don’t seem to have anything to say here.

[Airbeck]

@adaher

So if I go back to that thread, I won’t find that you posted on it? Because a few liberals who are still here and arguing with me on other threads don’t seem to have anything to say here.

I did not post to that thread. So what?

So do you take the lack of instant response by certain posters to be proof that you are correct or something? Is that what you’re implying? If not, then I’m not sure what your point is here.

Besides, there’s not much to say because this is a thread about Romney and his likability, not an Obama smear thread. Even though it seems like you want to turn every politics thread on this board into an Obama smear thread.

[adaher]

When making an accusation against a candidate, it’s fair play to determine if his opponent has the same problem. Accusing Romney of being a bad candidate because he lies is like saying that Aaron Rodgers is a bad quarterback because he throws interceptions. Providing context is justified.

[Airbeck]

Oh ok, so your contributions to this board amount to:

But, but Obama is bad too!!!

Is that about it then?