Love the way Mitt keeps his poise as he faces a hostile question:
Another example of how calm the former Massachusetts governor is under fire, a quality which will serve him well should he become the Republican nominee and face an ever more hostility from the media and liberal activists than he currently faces.
Posting the vide, Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey (to whom I tip my hat for the video), observes that
Romney has struggled to connect with conservatives, but in this case he hits the nail on the head. The woman uses the common, historically- and politically-illiterate argument that “pursuit of happiness” means a right to delivery of happiness. Nowhere in the foundational documents of this nation does the right to achieved happiness exist — only that government will stay out of the way of citizens who seek it to the greatest degree possible.
In this case, the woman believes that free contraception will make her happy. That conflicts, however, with people of faith who think that not funding or facilitating contraception will make them happy, for whatever motives they have. The proper role of government in this case is to stay out of the way of both, allowing the woman to seek financial relationships with those who want to provide free contraception, and allow those who don’t want to fund it to make that choice for themselves. That is exactly the model that “pursuit of happiness” means.
Emphasis added. Read the whole thing.
Meh. The answer should have been to point at her and say, “This is why we have a $16 Trillion deficit.” Instead, Mittens reinforces the idea that Obama is going to give you free stuff, and that”free” stuff from the Government is really free.
And should we really be so impressed that a guy who has been running for president for six years can finally almost articulate a conservative principle in response to a heckler? (Who may have been a plant.)
My, my, V, aren’t we cynical today. 🙂
Just trying to be a counter to the unseemly Mittlust. 😉
I don’t know that the woman was a plant, but my BS detector is twitching. First off, leftists don’t blatantly come out an say “we want free contraception.” They couch it in euphemism. “We want access to contraception.” Her phrasing seems deliberate so that Mitt can echo her language in his response, which he delivers in an uncharacteristically definitive way. Mitt Romney is not a spontaneous person. When he’s caught off-guard, he fumbles.
Media stunts are part and parcel to the process, I get that. So, I am not faulting him. And, as I said, beyond my suspicions, I have no reason to believe this wasn’t a genuine moment. But my philosophy is to always be cynical with politicians. And so it shall remain.
Not a bad philosophy to have–being cynical with politicians! 🙂
OMG, 2 clips in a row of Willard maintaining pride in conservative moral premises, and so challenging the Left’s (bad) premises…………… what is the world coming to?!
I disagree. He spoke of “‘free’ stuff, stuff you don’t have to pay for” with a kind of contempt, drawing a bright line between him and Obama.
Well, yeah…. that, too.
Well, I certainly hope Romney can stand the heat, especially if he’s boneheaded enough to make statements like “corporations are people” while surrounded by hard working americans.
Out of three bad candidates Mitt is the least bad (this week), but I’ll be incredibly skeptical of everything he says until he’s elected and actually follows through.
Romeny is no John McLame who has a sudden twitch and goes off the reservation in all directions at once.
When Romney gets the nomination, we need to keep the pressure on him to focus on what he will do, not what he can do because of who he has been.