Gay Patriot Header Image

Romney right to repudiate campaigning on Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright

On Facebook, a number of my conservative friends have expressed disappointment that Mitt Romney has repudiated the idea of campaigning on “Barack Obama’s 20-year association with Jeremiah Wright“.

I think the presumptive Republican nominee is right on this one; Ed Morrissey explains:

The best argument against Obama will be Obama’s record, and every moment spent by the Romney campaign or major outside PACs talking about anything other than the core issues of the 2012 campaign — jobs, economy, deficits, debt, and Iran — play into the distraction strategy that Team Obama is desperate to use.

Read the whole thing.  Morrissey also reports how the super-PAC that had considered running ads about that relationship dropped the idea.

In this video, Charles Krauthammer offers a similar view, but still managed, as reports Noah Glyn who embedded it on National Review’s The Corner, to eviscerate “President Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and the media“:

This is not to say that Romney shouldn’t attack Obama, but should focus his attacks on the Democrat’s record in office, particularly his failure to keep his promises about lower deficits and a booming economy.

Share

44 Comments

  1. I hope the Romney team is at least working hard to publicize the fact that Romney has disowned this idea. That would have two desirable effects – remind people about The One’s connection to Wright while at the same time making Romney look like he’s above it all.

    Comment by mnscorpio — May 18, 2012 @ 6:51 am - May 18, 2012

  2. Romney doesn’t need to touch the issue at all. Obama is already in trouble and others, like radio, will keep the issue simmering in the background.

    Comment by BigJ — May 18, 2012 @ 7:34 am - May 18, 2012

  3. Another Romney factor could possbily be he doesn’t want a war or at least a media inquiry over his relationships with spiritual leaders in his life. Or any one uncovering more about the Mormon leadership behind his campaign.

    Comment by rusty — May 18, 2012 @ 8:40 am - May 18, 2012

  4. Jeremiah Wright has essentially laid Obama bare with the tapes that he openly recorded with Ed Klein and which have been played by Hannity, Beck and are up on the Blaze.

    Wright is a “strange bedfellow” now and there is no reason to do anything other than “use” his charges.

    Romney can navigate cleanly between the charges that are flying from the books coming out and the movie that will be released in July.

    All Romney needs to do is respond to questions about Obama with an “its troubling” and “we need to restore America.”

    Comment by heliotrope — May 18, 2012 @ 8:42 am - May 18, 2012

  5. The higher the road Romney takes will make the road Obama takes seem much lower. Let Obama’s true colors show.

    Comment by TnnsNE1 — May 18, 2012 @ 9:22 am - May 18, 2012

  6. I like Romney’s attitude about this. He can’t force the superpacs to do anything. They will continue to attack, meanwhile he put out a very positive ad about what he will do. Going negative doesn’t win campaigns and he knows it.

    Comment by Leah — May 18, 2012 @ 11:17 am - May 18, 2012

  7. Obama´s relationship with Rev. Wright is ancient history. The fact that the MSM refused to vet Senator Obama and expose his membership in the racist Trinity UCCC should not be a pretext to attack the President for this now. However, it Governor Romney should not do a John McCain and play Mr. Nice. The lousy job the President has done has given him enough fodder to attack him. If the Democrats get vicious, like Mitt playing barber in prep school, he can respond with golf games, tv appearances, and if it gets down and dirty, pull out from Obama´s autobiography, his drug use, and speculate if he has been snorting in the Oval Office.

    Comment by Roberto — May 18, 2012 @ 12:55 pm - May 18, 2012

  8. Agreed. I am tired of the screaming neenies over issues that don’t actually affects us as a culture. Let Jeremiah write keep preaching into his echo chamber while the rest of us try to find the best path for a country to be run by a man who actually knows economics in practice…not high minded theory.

    Comment by Randy — May 18, 2012 @ 1:26 pm - May 18, 2012

  9. Hi Dan,
    I am happy that Romney repudiated the desire of some to link the President to Wright in May, after having raised it earlier in February in a radio interview. I am pleased he has had a change of heart.

    Comment by Cas — May 18, 2012 @ 1:28 pm - May 18, 2012

  10. What Cas said.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 18, 2012 @ 1:59 pm - May 18, 2012

  11. The good ship Jeremiah Wright has sailed. Bon voyage!
    On to new and more pressing business.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 2:03 pm - May 18, 2012

  12. Then again, maybe Mr. Wright will regale us with more sermons chock full of his soaring rhetoric, flush with references to “chickens coming home to roost” and “god damn America” so that the ‘well-informed’ voters who it slipped past these last 4 years can be properly inspired.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 18, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - May 18, 2012

  13. Conveniently for Obama (and with the media in the lead), most people are completely missing the point of the new Obama-Wright revelation.

    The new-and-significant information, coming from Wright, is that Obama, in 2008 and through an intermediary, offered Wright a $150,000 bribe to keep his head low.

    Personally, I would think that credible allegations of bribery on the part of the President (then a candidate, of course) is a serious matter that people would want to talk about.

    Liberals may know, on some level, that they *should* want to talk about it… but it’s so inconvenient. So they play the Straw Man Denial game. “Oh, it’s those nasty conservatives just bringing up the same old crap about Obama being part of Wright’s congregation”. They PRETEND that there is nothing new or significant, hoping to mislead both themselves and others into believing there is nothing new or significant.

    Congratulations to them – sort of, I guess – because it seems to be working. (Gosh, imagine if Nixon had gotten away with that strategy during Watergate.)

    But to bring it back to Romney: The question for him is the classic question of political strategy: Do you “try everything” against your opponent and see what sticks, or do you purposefully focus the discussion on the things *you* really want to talk about – thus passing up some opportunities, i.e. some issues that could possibly nail your opponent?

    Romney seems to be doing the second. (No judgment on him there, just an observation.)

    But I have to say, how lovely and indeed amusing it is to see lefties – some of them with us, in this thread – now subtly praising Romney for *not* derailing the campaign into a discussion about Wright… when only weeks ago or even a few days ago, they were falling over themselves to derail the campaign into a discussion about John Lauber, Seamus the Dog, etc.

    It proves that even lefties can turn on a dime, when they need to. (Which is often.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 6:59 pm - May 18, 2012

  14. Just so people don’t miss it, the bribery allegation is available here: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/book-obama-team-tried-to-pay-rev-wright-150k-to-keep-quiet-until-after-2008-election/

    Hat tip to heliotrope (I got it off his link).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 7:17 pm - May 18, 2012

  15. ILC – isn’t that the heart of the case against John Edwards… that by paying hush money, the election was being influenced? Wouldn’t offering money to Wright be an attempt to influence the election?

    I’m OK with Romney taking the high road for now but we cannot stand to have Romney pull his punches and run a wimpy campaign. The GOP has to be willing to fight the Dems on their terms or it’s over (I’m not saying we need to lie but there’s no reason to withhold facts).

    Comment by SoCalRobert — May 18, 2012 @ 7:17 pm - May 18, 2012

  16. SCR, if the allegation is true: then yes.

    For now, I treat as just that: an allegation, albeit a potentially credible one. I don’t know who Ed Klein is, who had (and reported) the conversation with Wright. I have not yet seen any denial from Wright (i.e., denying he made the allegation as Klein presents it). If someone has a link to a denial from Wright, please post it. It’s possible that another reason Romney is ignoring the matter is that his staff looked at it and decided there wasn’t enough meat there.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 7:25 pm - May 18, 2012

  17. I’m OK with Romney taking the high road for now but we cannot… have Romney pull his punches and run a wimpy campaign.

    Well said. How I feel.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - May 18, 2012

  18. I loved this bit at the end of the Blaze link:

    Bill Clinton called excerpts from the book “totally and completely false” and said Klein was “a known liar.”

    Umm… isn’t Bill Clinton a known liar? pot, kettle, project much?, takes one to know one, etc.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - May 18, 2012

  19. When will someone realize this is Romney’s way of letting Obama know that if he and his minions decide to go after him for his religion-Mormonism-that they are prepared to rip him to shreds with the Wright disclosures? And good for Mitt.

    Comment by John in Dublin — May 18, 2012 @ 8:21 pm - May 18, 2012

  20. Good one John! You beat me to it. Yeah, this could all be Kabuki to… warn the Obama campaign that it had better cut the crap and re-focus on the issues.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 18, 2012 @ 8:33 pm - May 18, 2012

  21. J-in-D, really, there are even Socons that are fit to be tied over the whole Mormon thing. Did you not hear both Gingrinch and Santorum and even Mrs. B – throwing arms like a believer at a revival. puhlease.

    Romney took religion off the table early in hopes to defer anyone from asking about his faith, his connections, his contributions to the big house in LDS central.

    You know that not only his faith will be questioned so will his wealth. And family background.

    But it’s late Friday. Everyone enjoy your weekend.

    Comment by rusty — May 18, 2012 @ 9:11 pm - May 18, 2012

  22. Rusty, having been partnered for 30 years to a Mormon man, and having extensive exposure to his very Mormon family in very rural Idaho all those years, I can tell you its time to get over your bigotry. Yes, as a Catholic, I find their religion rather odd, but in practice, they are kind, charitable, warm and welcoming to all. They are very family oriented, but why does that seem to threaten you and so many others so much? I know Jews, Baptists and Catholics who are just as family oriented, and far less tolerant than the Mormons I’ve know for the better part of my adult life. And remember, I’m talking about really, really rural devout Mormons. They have far more respect for other people, and willingly tend to the needs of non-Mormons, than any urban liberal I’ve ever met (I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan so I know from whence I speak).

    My point was, that I think you missed, that if Obama wants to make religion an issue, he’d better think of the old saying about glass houses and stone throwing.

    Comment by John in Dublin — May 18, 2012 @ 9:40 pm - May 18, 2012

  23. Romney was only partly correct in repudiating super PACs from delving into Rev. Wright. What he ought to have declared that that topic would be off limits only if Obama didn’t go for character assassination. Otherwise, all bets are off. Now if His Majesty attacks Romney based on religion, past choices, etc. Romney won’t be permitted to utilize Wright because he said he wouldn’t. And if he changes his mind, he will be nailed for flip flopping.

    Comment by davinci — May 18, 2012 @ 11:10 pm - May 18, 2012

  24. Isn’t this the same junk that McCain rejected 4 years ago? Probably because it has no validity or truth to it. For what whatever points I disagree with McCain on, at least he showed himself resistant to the non-sensical attacks on Obama. Maybe Romney is showing the same.

    Comment by Kevin — May 18, 2012 @ 11:56 pm - May 18, 2012

  25. My partner is Mormon also, many of my friends are Mormon. What I am saying John is that there are many Socons not dancing out in the streets with Romney placards. And again, the quiet whispers of the campaigns of the other three weren’t dissing Romney . . . Remember

    Puhlease

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 12:58 am - May 19, 2012

  26. The main difference between 2012 and 2008, as far as I can tell, aside from the different Republican cadidates, is that Obama has a record now, while he didn’t in 2008. That is Romney’s best weapon, and he would be foolish to distract from it, in my opinion. Having said that, the super PAC’s that support him are still free to pursue the issue of Wright’s church if Obama’s campaign gets too out of hand with their Mormon-bashing.

    Probably because it has no validity or truth to it.

    Please elaborate.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — May 19, 2012 @ 1:57 am - May 19, 2012

  27. Isn’t this the same junk that McCain rejected 4 years ago?

    Way ahead of you Kev. Waaayyyyy ahead. See comment #13.

    By the way, how’s life in Montana? You know, at that gay death camp which Bush built and locked you in, several years ago that you ranted about that time?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — May 19, 2012 @ 2:20 am - May 19, 2012

  28. My partner is Mormon also, many of my friends are Mormon.

    And you’re still an anti-Mormon bigot. What are the odds?

    What I am saying John is that there are many Socons not dancing out in the streets with Romney placards. And again, the quiet whispers of the campaigns of the other three weren’t dissing Romney . . . Remember

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 12:58 am – May 19, 2012

    Or in other words, you assume social conservatives are just as bigoted toward Mormons as you are, so you’re wishcasting.

    You’re a bigot, rusty. Everyone here has pretty well realized by now that you and your fellow bigots like Dan Savage are driven absolutely insane by other peoples’ religious beliefs; you just hide that fact behind your sexual orientation and insist that you must hate religion or you’re a bad gay.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 19, 2012 @ 2:30 am - May 19, 2012

  29. Miss Rita Beads,

    This was a comment awhile back. . .

    BF, I was raised catholic, attended catechism, was confirmed, attended the Jesuit institution, Gonzaga. . . .

    I have reached a point in my life to call myself a recovering Catholic, having been able to forgive the Church for it’s sins.

    I have many folk in my life who are very close to the Church who welcome me as a HOMOSEXUAL. They do not judge, but LOVE.

    I have many friends who are priests, some elders in their 80′s and some new folk who have found their spirituals paths, and they all honor me and love me. I do not hide who I am and share my life, including my partner with them.

    I also have many dear Sisters who absolutely adore me. I spent 1 year working with a Sister from Providence aiding homeless folk who were HIV positive in Seattle and spent 6 years volunteering in a hospice in Portland with the Sisters of Providence leading the program.

    And they all support me, and if they don’t agree with SSM, they still support me as a child of God and brother in Christ.

    Oh, and while living in Portland, I used to have afternoon tea with Archbishop Leveda. I even fixed a wonderful meal for him for Epiphany in 1993 and shared it with several others. I have been out of the closet since 1985.

    Comment by rusty — May 12, 2012 @ 4:15 am – May 12, 2012
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/11/where-real-marriages-find-their-support/

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 11:56 am - May 19, 2012

  30. Many not all Socons. Miss beads

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/290537/anti-romney-vote-thomas-sowell#

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - May 19, 2012

  31. I have reached a point in my life to call myself a recovering Catholic, having been able to forgive the Church for it’s sins.

    Blah, blah, blah. The Church doesn’t particularly need you to forgive it for it’s alleged “sins.” Individuals within the church, perhaps.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — May 19, 2012 @ 1:10 pm - May 19, 2012

  32. thanks for the update BF, looks like the weather is fair to sunny, may I suggest a day trip into the Gorge. . . a walk in nature. Rooster Rock

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 1:19 pm - May 19, 2012

  33. Comment by rusty — May 12, 2012 @ 4:15 am – May 12, 2012
    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/05/11/where-real-marriages-find-their-support/

    Comment by rusty — May 19, 2012 @ 11:56 am – May 19, 2012

    And isn’t that amazing, rusty?

    Despite the fact of all you and your fellow gay-sex liberals like Dan Savage and your Barack Obama Party do, including screaming “bigot”, “hater,” and “pedophile” at them, they STILL are loving.

    Meanwhile, despite all that they and Mormons have done for you, you and your fellow gay-sex liberals like Dan Savage and your Barack Obama Party scream “bigot”, “hater,” and “pedophile” at them.

    It merely demonstrates how they are adults, and how gay-sex liberals like yourself, Dan Savage, and your Barack Obama Party are immature, bigoted little children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 21, 2012 @ 11:53 am - May 21, 2012

  34. What does it matter? Thanks to the supreme court (in one of their worst decisions in history), this opens the door to let anyone say anything they want about anyone, as long as they have the money to say it.

    I can only hope that this or another issue will make someone think carefully about it. If undecided voters feel they’re being assaulted by an unpleasant or distasteful issue, they’ll get turned off by Romney, whether he approves of it or not.

    Comment by Kevin — May 21, 2012 @ 10:04 pm - May 21, 2012

  35. What does it matter? Thanks to the supreme court (in one of their worst decisions in history), this opens the door to let anyone say anything they want about anyone, as long as they have the money to say it.

    Yes, curse those justices for actually allowing people to exercise their first amendment rights!

    Comment by The_Livewire — May 22, 2012 @ 9:32 am - May 22, 2012

  36. I know it’s off-subject, but this thread seems to be pretty much over. And I’ve been waiting to say this nonsense since I saw the picture of him on GP: The Kraut has always creeped me out. Not sure where that feeling is rooted; he’s probably a really nice guy. Okay, carry on.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 11:09 am - May 22, 2012

  37. I know it’s off-subject, but this thread seems to be pretty much over. And I’ve been waiting to say this nonsense since I saw the picture of him on GP: The Kraut has always creeped me out. Not sure where that feeling is rooted; he’s probably a really nice guy. Okay, carry on.
    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 11:09 am – May 22, 2012

    So your concern for the handicapped is selective. Who ever would have guessed?

    Leftist fraud.

    Okay, carry on.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 11:58 am - May 22, 2012

  38. ^ The Kraut has an MD and is Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. He’s not handicapped. And, if he is, I doubt he ever rode a “short bus.”

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 12:32 pm - May 22, 2012

  39. He’s not handicapped

    Really?
    Why has he been in a wheelchair since the 1960s?
    Tired feet?

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 12:40 pm - May 22, 2012

  40. ^ I didn’t know he was in a wheelchair. Always saw him sitting down at a news desk.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 1:14 pm - May 22, 2012

  41. It was during his freshmen year in medical school that he had the accident that changed his life. He dove off the diving board at a swimming pool and hit his head on the bottom. Since then, he’s been confined to a wheelchair, something few people know unless they’ve seen him in person or on television. While he was forced to make certain lifestyle changes, Krauthammer did not let the accident affect his ambition.

    He completed medical school and did a three year residency in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital, serving as chief resident the last year. During that time he wrote a paper about a condition he called “secondary mania.” Almost twenty years later, one of Krauthammer’s friends at the AMA sent him a newsletter discussing the identification and treatment of secondary mania. “I had said there was disease no one recognized and gave it a name. I left the field before the paper was even published. I sent it in and then left. I discovered that an entire field of study had grown up around the paper. It’s kind of like being a bastard child in another country and discovering you have a whole other family.”

    Comment by rusty — May 22, 2012 @ 1:17 pm - May 22, 2012

  42. I didn’t know he was in a wheelchair. Always saw him sitting down at a news desk.
    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 1:14 pm – May 22, 2012

    Vince, he’s been confined to a wheelchair (qudraplegic) since having a diving accident while he was a psychology student at Harvard (I think it was Harvard).

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - May 22, 2012

  43. Sorry!

    Rusty gave a much more detailed account. I should have read through before I added mine.

    Comment by Jman1961 — May 22, 2012 @ 1:37 pm - May 22, 2012

  44. Thanks for the info, guys. It’s funny how quickly the creepy factor weakened upon hearing this.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — May 22, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - May 22, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.