Bitter pointed out that he had previously claimed to have passed an AWB when he didn't (only made it permanent) and now he changes his story saying he doesn't support AWB's. The lie? On "Meet the Press, he claimed to have the NRA endorsement for his 2002 run for governor. He didn't.
Romney also told Russert he had "the support of the NRA" and "received the endorsement of the NRA" as governor, but the gun-rights group did not endorse him during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. Romney received a "Grade B" from the group, but his opponent, Democrat Shannon O'Brien, received an "A."
Update:
His spokesman is now attempting damage control ("I voted for it before I voted against it") over at WaPo:
"The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign," said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney's comments. "Mitt Romney as a candidate received a respectable B grade rating from the NRA, and when he was governor he had the support of the NRA and the Gun Owners Action League in relaxing some of the state's burdensome licensing regulations."
What Madden didn't say was that Romney's Democratic opponent in the governor's race, Shannon O'Brien, was given a more than respectable "A" grade by the NRA, according to its website.
5 comments:
What's interesting is that he told the state group at the time that he wouldn't even complete their questionnaire because he doesn't sign his name to things like that. Yet, he demanded an endorsement anyway.
I don't know how he treated NRA, but I wouldn't be shocked if there was an interesting back story prior to the realization that Shannon O'Brien was A-rated.
I just noticed this: Bitter pointed out that he had previously claimed to have passed an AWB when he didn't (only made it permanent)
Actually, I didn't say he made it permanent, either. In fact, if you look at the actual language of the law before he signed the bill with the nasty title, you would see that the MA ban never had an expiration date.
I still believe that his previous comments should damn him, but I'm also about the facts.
The part in parenthesis was going off of the modified statements made by Romney and the various media accounts. It said it along the way of " would remain no matter what the federal law did" IIRC.
As someone who was actually fighting this battle in Massachusetts, 99% of the media accounts were wrong.
The press didn't stop to read the language of the law as it existed. I did.
The press is lazy. Why would they want to go reference boring legal language and consider case law when it comes to writing a sensational headline?
99% of the media accounts were wrong.
Next up: Scientists discover water is wet. :)
Post a Comment