Some useful context for the scuffle Mitt Romney got into tonight over his abortion record, wherein he implied that his support of abortion rights was driven by an unwillingness to alter long-standing state law. This is an example of Romney speaking without thinking about the ramifications of his remarks; easily searchable videos from his political career, like this one, betray that claim simply and clearly. Had the challenge on his position reversals not come from Chris Wallace late in tonight’s debate, Mitt would’ve been a big winner tonight (and lucky, too boot — he was seldom criticized by his fellow candidates). As it stands now, there’s yet another clip of him being disingenuous about his record, and that’s precisely what he can’t afford any more of.
I’m a serious candidate for President of the United States and my facts are accurate.Michele Bachmann, offering a stern reply to Newt Gingrich’s claim that she was factually inaccurate in suggesting his positions as Speaker were soft on abortion opposition (or as she called it, infanticide). Her remark seemed to bristle with an edge that suggested it wasn’t exclusive to this moment; Bachmann has in the past been criticized/derided for making wildly false statements.
You know Neil, I’ve been accused of using aggressive language, so I’ve been standing here editing. I’m very concerned about not seeming zany.Newt Gingrich, warming up to a denunciation of the possibility of President Obama vetoing the payroll tax cut extension over the GOP attaching a fast-tracking of the Keystone XL oil pipeline to the bill.
All of them are good and all of them are bad.Ron Paul, when asked to name his favorite Supreme Court justice. Mitt Romney, conversely, named four — Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.