Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan From the "I'll Say Anything You Want to Hear to Get Elected" Department (first in a series)... <a href="http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3010181" target="_blank">http://www.abcnews.go.com/Poli tics/wireStory?id=3010181</a> >>In a question-and-answer session Tuesday in Keene, N.H., Romney spoke of his experience with hunting in a manner that suggested a close affiliation with the sport. "I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I've been a hunter pretty much all my life," he told a man sporting a National Rifle Association cap. Yet the former Massachusetts governor's hunting experience came during two trips at the bookends of his 60 years: as a 15-year-old, when he hunted rabbits with his cousins on a ranch in Idaho, and last year, when he shot quail on a fenced game preserve in Georgia<<
Originally Posted By gadzuux He's trying to pick up the cheney supporters. If not by hunting, then by lying.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Doonesbury is running a good series this week on Romney's attempts to look more "conservative," even though he really hasn't been that way all his life. It's rather humorous.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Well this is too funny. He needs to cut this stuff out, or the press will tag him the same way they tagged Al Gore. Didn't matter what he said, they'd find the one slight exaggeration and run it as the headline.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka He spent last summer in Alaska hunting wolverines with his cousins.
Originally Posted By DAR Note: remove Romney from list of people to vote for. Lied about his hunting experiences.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Note: remove Romney from list of people to vote for. Lied about his hunting experiences. >> I can see the sarcasm here and the effort to trivialize this bit of news. We can always argue that a white lie about something benign like hunting isn't all that worth getting worked up over, but wouldn't it be nice if we could find a politician who could just be honest and forthright about small things and big things alike? How am I, as a voter, supposed to determine if a candidate is going to be honest about the really important issues if they show a less than honest approach to the way they deal with the small issues. It's personal integrity all the same. I seriously doubt we have any candidates who are truly honest and forthcoming about anything these days. It's amazing that the honesty of our country's founding fathers and great political figures is the stuff of legends and lore -- George Washington and the famous cherry tree, "Honest Abe," etc. -- these days we just shrug our shoulders and expect lies and deceit from our politicians. How disappointing is that?
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "How am I, as a voter, supposed to determine if a candidate is going to be honest about the really important issues if they show a less than honest approach to the way they deal with the small issues. It's personal integrity all the same." Then I trust that you agree with those of us who said something along these same lines with regard to Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky, right? It wasn't the sex, it was the lies, that made a lot of us uneasy. That's what you are saying here, but I wonder if you were singing the same tune a few years back.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Then I trust that you agree with those of us who said something along these same lines with regard to Clinton's lies about Monica Lewinsky, right? It wasn't the sex, it was the lies, that made a lot of us uneasy. That's what you are saying here, but I wonder if you were singing the same tune a few years back. >> I don't disagree at all. The personal behavior was reprehensible and not at all appropriate for a POTUS. If Clinton were running for President again, I would like to think that voters would take that situation into consideration along with the honesty of all the other candidates. However, I think you are missing my point here. I don't think there are any honest candidates out there. We've gotten to a point in history where we have to now clarify and categorize the degrees of dishonesty that make up the character of every person running for office. It doesn't seem like there is an option anymore for someone of high moral integrity. I'm sure when election day finally comes around, I'll get to decide between a dishonest Republican and a dishonest Democrat. That's the issue, plain and simple. Let's call a spade a spade and try not to debate whether white lies absolve someone of being a liar -- they're all liars, and we have the misfortune of having to elect one of them to be president.
Originally Posted By gadzuux "Why" would he lie about such an insignificant thing? My guess is that it's part of his so-called 'conversion' to the republican party. He likely feels that he now has to cast himself in the image of what republicans value. He's on shaky ground with the christians so he tries to appeal to the NRA'ers. So according to christians, romney isn't "really" christian, and now in the eyes of the gun nuts, he's a pretender wannabe. When in fact, he's really just a democrat - and lying about that too. Romney's toast.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "We've gotten to a point in history where we have to now clarify and categorize the degrees of dishonesty that make up the character of every person running for office. It doesn't seem like there is an option anymore for someone of high moral integrity." Sad, mrj, but probably true. And we wonder why kids cheat in school and sports and all sorts of other endeavors, then call it no big deal. Sigh. With no role models, we have nobody we can strive to emulate.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Kids cheat in school and sports because of the pressure imposed upon them by adults - moreso now than ever I think. This system doesn't have to be the way it is, but as it's set up now it's more about achieving benchmarks than actually learning or competing for the sake of honor. Don't blame the kids - it's our world they're entering.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj << Kids cheat in school and sports because of the pressure imposed upon them by adults - moreso now than ever I think. >> Adults who can't accept the fact that their kids might be "below average." There's nothing wrong with benchmarks or competition, but there's plenty wrong with a society that seems to believe that everyone can be a winner. It's simply not the case. There will always be losers, ditch diggers, and ne'er do wells. Unfortunately, we keep changing the rules to somehow try and get around that fact. Instead of cheating on standardized tests, we have parents who simply get their kids labeled as ADD, autistic, ADHD and every other thing under the sun so that their kids can still be "winners" and not have to compete with the real world. Whether kids cheat on the exams themselves, or their parents cheat to get them classified for a different breed of exams, it's all about avoiding the benchmarks and not being totally honest with ourselves.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I think there are candidates who are honest. However, the process of trying to please all of your constituency and donors and lobbyists, and begging for money simply to run again seems to change them. Subsequently, while "honest candidate" is possible, "honest politician" is an oxymoron. That is the major reason I support term limits.
Originally Posted By jonvn If you guys think no one ever lies about anything in their life, and that no politician in this country has not lied, then you're all missing the swiftboat. They all lie. All the time. About everything. This is nothing. But what they do lie about is interesting. That the guy would lie about hunting in order to impress some gun nuts is not the sort of person we need in office. I think people need to be a bit more realistic in judging people on lies. No one leads a blameless life. And to pick apart absolutely anything anyone says about anything at all does not help us get the most qualified people elected.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <That the guy would lie about hunting in order to impress some gun nuts is not the sort of person we need in office.> I guess you'll be voting against Senators Clinton and Obama then, since they've "lied" for even sillier reasons.
Originally Posted By mrichmondj Generally, I think we try to find candidates to vote "for" and not candidates to vote "against."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Good point. I'll rephrase my comment - "I guess you won't be voting for Senators Clinton and Obama then, since they've "lied" for even sillier reasons."
