I just came across this today, and I was surprised no one had mentioned it here yet.
My feelings on Romney's actual position on medical marijuana aside, I can't believe he blew this kid off the way he did.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
It does seem like he was pretty arrogant. In a situation like that, faced with a textbook case, you would have to be pretty foolish to not question your opposition to medical marijuana use. For Romney to simply state his position and then rhetorically and physically dodge the consequences it pretty bad, especially when the kid asking the question can's pursue.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
For a minute, I thought the title meant that Romney was on marijuana for medical reasons. That would be an interesting twist in the race.
There are some contexts I can think of in which Romney's response wouldn't be rude or would at least be reasonable, but I agree that clip looks pretty bad when taken at face value.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Oh come on!
That guy was obviously just a pothead looking to get high.
I mean really, some people!
/sarcasm
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
The problem he faced is that there was no good answer.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It looks like he was a complete douchebag, but it also looks like he was flustered, crowded, and cameras were rolling. The kid asked a very aggressively phrased question. Romney's choice may seem poorly thought out, but it may have seemed like the best possible choice to him at the time compared to committing to an answer one way or the other.
At least he didn't say "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies."
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Note: My views on this issue are strongly influenced by the fact that my mom's physical well-being, including her ability to be the breadwinner for the family, is completely dependent on her access to a drug that is at great risk of being pulled from the market, and for which there is no substitute.
It certainly isn't a black and white issue, but when you are confronted with real people who will be harmed or are being harmed by the unavailability of a drug, it gets really hard to say no. Romney chose to dodge, when the right response is to say "we [the government] need to find a good way to make this drug available to you, without disastrous consequences for others."
In the case of marijuana, it is not at all clear that legal medical use would lead to a significant increase in illegal abuse, and it is even less certain that that increased abuse would result in significant societal harm. There are plenty of substances with great potential for harm that are still readily available to those who are permitted to use them (radiological materials, for instance, are well-controlled and still handy for undergraduate labs). It really seems like the biggest hurdle for making medical marijuana available is admitting that it isn't all bad.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
There really isn't any reason for Romney (or any other Conservative Republican) to answer any of these and other Liberal questions with any seriousness. Those who ask them wouldn't vote for him anyway. And yes, I find it hard to believe anyone who would vote for him would ask a question like this.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but that sounds an awful lot like saying a politician should only answer questions from those who are going to agree with him anyway.
edit: It was an honest question, and it was a good one because it it aggressively and directly challenged Romney's position. It deserved a better response.
Of course, Jon and eros make a good point. There was no good answer to that question, and it's understandable that he would be flustered by it. But that's kinda the point, isn't it?
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
I'm with rollainm on that one. It definitely sounds like Occasional supports a divisive two-party structure where all the issues are defined along partisan lines, and compromise is out of the picture. I don't want to live in that country. I'd rather live in a democracy.
Also, if issues like that don't matter to Conservative Republicans like Romney and his supporters, what's the harm in giving a polite answer?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*shrug*
I disagree with Romney, and he's pretty low on my list of people I could conceivably vote for, but I pretty much agree with JonHecht and Occasional. Those who are criticizing him are really criticizing his opinion, not his behavior. He spoke to the kid, and he was polite enough. When it became clear the kid wanted to engage in a debate, he moved on. He has a right not to engage every single person who wants to criticize his positions. The fact that the guy is in a wheelchair doesn't give him some special claim to Romney's time. There was no way to hold on to his opinion that would not have left him open to criticism--nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better. I really have no problem with his behavior here.
This was quite clearly an ambush, given that it seems to be the operator of the video camera we hear talking.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better."
In what way besides in the eyes of his current supporters? Ultimately, "changing his opinion" would have been my goal in asking that kind of question. The point is, according to Wheels ( ), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:I'm with rollainm on that one. It definitely sounds like Occasional supports a divisive two-party structure where all the issues are defined along partisan lines, and compromise is out of the picture. I don't want to live in that country. I'd rather live in a democracy.
It is no surprise that I support a "divisive two-party system" because I am very openly Conservative. However, even without that I think the United States is already defined along partisan lines with specific feelings toward politicized issues.
Edit: rollainm seems to prove my point, if correct on the questioner. It wasn't an honest question, but a partisan attack meant to prove an existing point.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: "nor would changing his opinion have allowed him to fare any better."
In what way besides in the eyes of his current supporters? Ultimately, "changing his opinion" would have been my goal in asking that kind of question. The point is, according to Wheels ( ), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
Okay. They guy has a right to an opinion you think is wrong. Let's stop pretending it was all about his behavior toward the kid, then, when any behavior short of, "Well, damn, I hadn't thought of that! You're right!" would have been wrong.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
My last point aside, there's a number of acceptable responses between "Well damn, I hadn't thought of that!" and "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies." that he could have gone with. Especially given the knowledge that he is under heavy scrutiny as a politician, specifically one that is running for President, it just seems to me he could have responded a bit more intelligently, if not more humanely.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Romney's first response was to try to assert that there were alternatives to medical marijuana. There are most certainly cases where that isn't true, and this kid is probably one of them. The kid then offered up his question, "would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?" Romney didn't answer that question. He simply stated the he doesn't support medical marijuana use, and ran off. He also gave no acknowledgment that his only stated justification might not be valid.
The encounter didn't even come close to being a debate. Romney started trying to blow off the kid before the kid could even finish introducing his situation, let alone actually asking a question. Romney made it clear that this was an issue that he wasn't willing to acknowledge was on the table.
If Romney wanted a politically correct, non-weasel response that didn't support medical marijuana, he could have said "I would have to talk to your doctors about why they say medical marijuana is your only option." But that would have acknowledged that the issue was on the table.
Once you acknowledge that there can be a situation where marijuana is the only effective treatment, you more or less have to try to legalize marijuana for limited medical use. Since Romney doesn't want to do this, his only option (other than obvious cruelty) is willful ignorance.
And politeness does require Romney to listen to the whole question, and answer that specific question with a real justification. Instead, he interrupted the kid long before he should have, and from that point on, he didn't respond directly to anything the kid said.
Also, the kid's status as being confined to a wheelchair doesn't give him any more right to Romney's time, but it makes it all the more despicable when Romney takes advantage of that to slip away.
Edit: Occasional: If you're not willing to confront issues that aren't part of your party's platform, you have no business running to be president of the whole country.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Having watched the "question" one more time, I think he had answered it just fine. Romney said, "I am against medical marijuana." I would say that pretty much is a "yes" to the question and any other related to the issue. He even said, I answered the question.
Besides, he wouldn't be the one making the arrests, it would be law enforcement. Now, I suppose he could have said that, but what is the point? It is clearly a set up from the start.
quote:If Romney wanted a politically correct, non-weasel response. . .
Can you say that with a straight face? Again, it isn't that he didn't answer the question (he did, just not the "gotcha" one), but that the critics don't like the answer he gave.
Romney cannot win no matter what. When he answers intelligently he is called "smooth." If he answers directly he is called "rude."
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Edit: rollainm seems to prove my point, if correct on the questioner. It wasn't an honest question, but a partisan attack meant to prove an existing point."
Substitute the biased use of "attack" with a more neutral term like "argument" or "position" and you will hopefully see the flaw in this reasoning, or at least in the dishonest label.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
If you consider what Romney said to be a satisfactory answer (a point which I'll concede is debatable), you still have Romney's unwillingness to confront the consequences of that stance or to offer detailed justification. Now, obviously Romney doesn't have to do either on the spot, but he owes it to that kid and the rest of the country to find the time to explain the basis for his opinion and to show that he is willing to accept the consequences of his resolute stance.
Edit: I see that rollainm understands that, like it or not, the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
Edit 2:
quote: Can you say that with a straight face?
Sure, if you'll look me in the eye while I'm speaking to you. The response I posted is more or less what I would expect from a reasonable politician: it is still a politician's response, but a diplomatic one and not the blatantly offensive response we actually saw.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Other than rollainm, the kid in the wheelchair, the cameraman and maybe a few interested bystanders, and some youtube watchers, I have a VERY hard time considering this worthy of "finding the time" to even answer the question. Frankly, if I was Romney I would have been MORE rude and point blank asked what he wanted because I didn't have the time for his ramblings.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't find his answer "blatantly offensive" in the least, unless you emotionally disagree with his position. It was direct and to the point. The only REAL point to be made.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
The Socratic method is a horrible teaching tool, unless the participants already accept you as a teacher.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Medical marijuana has been enough of an issue over the past several years (most notably in California) that it is obviously important enough to be part of the election process.
And Romney's response is very offensive to anybody who would be affected by his denial. They deserve a justification for why they can't have that treatment. Without that justification, Romney's denial is simply inhumane.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am finding it a very, very, very hard time understanding any reason Romney should have given that kid the time of day he did. As far as I am concerned the kid and the cameraman were the rude ones since they forced themselves on his time. For instance, you don't see anyone else asking him questions. He was on his way out. Perhaps they could have asked their "question" (i.e. I am sticking with attack) at a better and more convenient time. Perhaps there was a question and answer session. If not, then they were intruding on his business as to how he wanted to conduct things.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
In fact, I don't know why I am giving either of you two the time of day. Obviously you would never vote for Romney no matter what kind of answer he gave short of agreeing with you.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:the Socratic method is a very good teaching tool.
The Socratic method is a horrible teaching tool, unless the participants already accept you as a teacher.
A presidential candidate should have the humility to be willing to learn from the ones that he would govern.
In all the reasonably civilized cultures I've encountered, the ones considered the best leaders are the ones who are the servants of those they lead.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"Other than rollainm, the kid in the wheelchair, the cameraman and maybe a few interested bystanders, and some youtube watchers..."
You forgot NotMe.
But seriously, NotMe beat me to it. It is very much worthy of response, especially for a presidential candidate, because it is a nationally acknowledged issue.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
NotMe, can you point to ONE person (especially one you have disagreed with) that is that way in the United States government at this time? I have said it once, I will say it again. Such idealized democracy is already dead and I don't believe you believe your own words.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"because it is a nationally acknowledged issue." Then they should have asked in a nationally acknowledged venue.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: In fact, I don't know why I am giving either of you two the time of day. Obviously you would never vote for Romney no matter what kind of answer he gave short of agreeing with you.
Well, I would have said because you enjoy a spirited, intellectually stimulating discussion...
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
From this video, it seems pretty clear that Romney wasn't in a hurry to leave. He was wanting to smile and shake hands, but he was also willing to talk with the Harvard student for quite a while.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "because it is a nationally acknowledged issue." Then they should have asked in a nationally acknowledged venue.
Why?
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I think I side with how NotMe put it on this one. I imagine Romney was pretty flustered and he would go back and respond differently if he had the time to analyze his own face on camera like we're doing, but that's not really the point.
Absolutes can be very dangerous when forming principles, to the point where at times, the only way to maintain your position is to deliberately avoid the occasional dilemma that pops up.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
It's pretty hard to find humility in the upper echelons of our government, but I would start my search with public health.
Also, you can't throw away an ideal just because it is far from the status quo or unobtainable. If you did, it wouldn't be an ideal. Edit: It also has nothing to do with democracy.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: NotMe, can you point to ONE person (especially one you have disagreed with) that is that way in the United States government at this time? I have said it once, I will say it again. Such idealized democracy is already dead and I don't believe you believe your own words.
Such "idealized democracy" was never dead or alive. It's an ideal. One that I will venture to say most Americans believe is a goal worth pursuing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"Why?" Because of the context you are trying to force this with.
I agree that he spent more time with the Harvard group. However, I believe the question they asked was more open to an intelligent response and far less partisan bickering.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: "Why?" Because of the context you are trying to force this with.
I don't follow you.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
How is a public talk by a presidential candidate not a "nationally acknowledged venue"? The guy is running for president! Everything he says in public, especially at an event centered around him, is fair game. The whole point of a campaign stop is for people to judge you by what you say and do on that stop.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I didn't think you would.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why even bother having one country if we have two populations and two sets of candidates that refuse to address the issues that aren't those of THEIR half of the country?
Seriously, it's like saying half the country has to sit down and shut up for four years depending on who wins the election because their voices, issues and concerns have just stopped mattering. That's the dumbest thing I've heard in recent memory. Every candidate should have to have a position on every issue, they shouldn't be allowed to say "Well you aren't going to vote for me anyway so I won't speak to your issue." Once we've reached that point, I think our democracy is seriously damaged.
quote:Romney cannot win no matter what. When he answers intelligently he is called "smooth." If he answers directly he is called "rude."
Given how many Democrats have suffered similarly at the hands of Republicans, I find this highly amusing.
Posted by NotMe (Member # 10470) on :
Can anybody find a video that doesn't have the Harvard girl's question cut off? I'd like to hear how partisan it is compared to the marijuana question, and whether it was more conducive to intellectual discussion.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I didn't think you would.
Are you trying to get a rise out of me? If so, it's a wasted effort. I'm too tired. (edit: this was a joke. I really am making an effort in general, not just here, to engage in discussions without succumbing to emotional reactions)
Honestly, if you don't care enough to discuss this, then why even respond?
I would very much like to understand where you are coming from here.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
quote:Why even bother having one country if we have two populations and two sets of candidates that refuse to address the issues that aren't those of THEIR half of the country?
I just find it strange and funny that people think this isn't how it is already. As far as I have seen every candidate already has a position on every issue. Often times how they answer the "issue" says "Well you aren't going to vote for me anyway so I won't speak to your issue."
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
And if everyone thought that way, and was of the opinion that that's already what our democracy has become....how would that help?
Posted by krynn (Member # 524) on :
i think it's too easy to criticize someone over things like this that, IMO, don't reflect on how good a president he/she could be. i think no matter who the candidate is, thats a fishy question to answer. "are you going to arrest me;" phrasing it like that makes me think he wasn't really there trying to get help or to decide to vote for him.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think saying, "I'm sorry I don't have a better answer for you" would have been better than suddenly trying to pretend the guy wasn't there. I think "I cannot support the use of medical marijuna but I will support research to find an alternative for people in your situation" would have been even better.
I also think that it must be extremely hard to think on your feet in a crowded situation and having cameras following you around so that people can pick apart every blunder you make must be rather obnoxious. But it was a blunder.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Saying he's sorry he doesn't have a better answer does imply that he thinks what he said is lame.
I don't blame him for not saying that - he probably doesn't think that. He shouldn't have to apologize for his stance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
As a point, Romney's been asked and has answered this question several times from the group Granite Staters for Medical Marijuana (for which the young man was at the rally acting as a volunteer). If you check out the portion of their website dedicated to Romney you'll see that Romney has repeatedly stated that he opposes legalization of medicinal marijuana because of its potential to result in widespread abuse and overall increase in non-medical marijuana use. I imagine his failure to engage the young man had more to do with the fact that he'd been asked, and answered this question several times, and his recognition that they were simply using the situation to attempt to make him feel bad.
Personally, I think he should have broken down crying and told the young man how he wished there was someway to help him without having a terribly adverse effect on the rest of society. If he'd taken the opportunity to show his humanity rather than walk away from a difficult situation, even if he didn't change his opinion, he would have come off better.
As it was, they were hijacking him to score cheap political YouTube points. He played into it, and now the blogs are all a-twitter with Romney the Callous.
<edit>This was in response to the Lyrhawn, Occassional, Saephon subthread about candidates only answering questions from those who will/may vote for them. Romney has, in fact, addressed this question repeatedly and in some detail, specifically when delivered by those unlikely to vote for him.</edit>
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, he didn't give an answer to the second question -- that's the part I think he should have acknowledged. He either needed to say, "Yes, I would support your arrest," "No, I wouldn't," or acknowledge that he doens't have an answer as to what to do with people who are using marijuana with a prescription from their doctor.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As far as I am concerned the kid and the cameraman were the rude ones since they forced themselves on his time.
You know, this is the biggest problem I have with modern campaigning.
We have a citizen here with a personal question that strikes directly at the heart of one of Romney's policy decisions. And yet, in order to even get that question asked of a major candidate, this citizen had to ambush him and "force himself" on Romney's time.
It's just as bad over on the Democratic side, of course; good luck getting Clinton or Edwards to answer a straight-up question that hasn't been carefully screened.
That incenses me. If candidates don't have the time to answer honest questions, even the tough questions, they don't deserve to be president. It's really that simple.
Right now, my frontrunners are Obama, Paul, and Gravel, despite the fact that their positions are widely disparate, because they will by and large take the time to answer difficult questions honestly. Obama scored major points, for example, for being frank about not wearing the tie pin because he thought it was a cheap sop -- and then taking the press savaging he received for that squarely on the chin, without much dodging. (Similarly, I think Obama's lowest point was shortly after he announced his candidacy, when -- after being anointed a "major candidate" -- he played it way too safe in a few debates. Sadly, after he started being frank again, his numbers tanked. Apparently we like our candidates to mouth mealy platitudes.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
dkw-
I'm not sure I see why the second question really matters. Romney said he would not make it legal; isn't that the relevant political issue?
The reason the question was phrased the way it was, was so that if Romney said "no" they could spin it as inconsistent with his stance on keeping marijuana illegal, if he said "yes" they could spin it as Romney wanting to put doctors and cripples in prison, and if he said "I don't know" they could spin it as thoughtless and uninformed. And if he walked away they could spin it as him avoiding the question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, this is the biggest problem I have with modern campaigning.
We have a citizen here with a personal question that strikes directly at the heart of one of Romney's policy decisions. And yet, in order to even get that question asked of a major candidate, this citizen had to ambush him and "force himself" on Romney's time.
Agreed.
quote:It's just as bad over on the Democratic side, of course; good luck getting Clinton or Edwards to answer a straight-up question that hasn't been carefully screened.
Agreed again.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It looks like he was a complete douchebag, but it also looks like he was flustered, crowded, and cameras were rolling. The kid asked a very aggressively phrased question. Romney's choice may seem poorly thought out, but it may have seemed like the best possible choice to him at the time compared to committing to an answer one way or the other.
At least he didn't say "I don't support medical marijuana...for cripples and hippies."
I agree. The phrasing of the question smelled like the set-up it was. If the man asking the question had simply stated his case and asked for a response, I think Romney might have been able to make a reasoned argument. As it is, it's clear he's dealing with someone who is setting him up to look like a jerk. He's taken a hard line that is tenuous in the face of such a case, so I don't see why the guy had to go in with guns blazing. The camera guy was also jerky: "Are you going to ignore someone in a wheelchair?" That's insulting.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: dkw-
I'm not sure I see why the second question really matters. Romney said he would not make it legal; isn't that the relevant political issue?
The reason the question was phrased the way it was, was so that if Romney said "no" they could spin it as inconsistent with his stance on keeping marijuana illegal, if he said "yes" they could spin it as Romney wanting to put doctors and cripples in prison, and if he said "I don't know" they could spin it as thoughtless and uninformed. And if he walked away they could spin it as him avoiding the question.
"They" don't need to spin it, he did avoid the question. And not only that, he was having a conversation with the man and he abruptly turned away and starting talking to the next person as if the guy wasn't even there.
It doesn't matter to me one bit whether it was a set up -- the question was asked, either answer it or acknowledge that you're not going to answer. If the answer is yes, then have the guts to say so.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I think "I cannot support the use of medical marijuna but I will support research to find an alternative for people in your situation" would have been even better.
That would have been a fantastic answer.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "They" don't need to spin it, he did avoid the question. And not only that, he was having a conversation with the man and he abruptly turned away and starting talking to the next person as if the guy wasn't even there.
It doesn't matter to me one bit whether it was a set up -- the question was asked, either answer it or acknowledge that you're not going to answer. If the answer is yes, then have the guts to say so.
I don't think it unacceptable to decline to answer set-up questions akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think it unacceptable to decline to answer set-up questions akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
I don't know. I think that would be a legitimate question to ask were a candidate made "I support efforts to beat my wife and, if elected, I will beat my wife." a part of his platform.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That is a very poor and inaccurate analogy for Romney's stance.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
But that is not the type of question this was. He wants to keep marijuna illegal in all instances, so either he supports arresting people who use it on the advice of a physician or not. Possibly he wants to keep the law on the books but not prosecute. Some people do consider that an acceptable compromise (sort of a "don't ask, don't tell policy), perhaps he is one of them. If not, then maintaining his hard-line stance without acknowledging the consequences is weaselly, IMO. I could respect a firm "Yes, if you break the laws regarding drug use I would have you arrested." I do not respect holding a "no exceptions" stance and then pretending that the people negatively affected by it don't exist.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think the statements Romney has already made make his position and his intended course of action clear. If you dislike his positions (as I do) then don't vote for him (like I won't). But everyone knows the answer to "Would you have me arrested?" They just want to make use of the political capital of making him say this, or of him avoid answering the question. There is no legitimate desire for an answer to a question here, only a desire to embarrass a candidate for a view.
I know what his answer to the question is. I will judge him based on his policies in general, including this one. This video doesn't provide me with new information or change my view of Romney.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't like criticizing politicians for providing dumb answers when caught off guard, but I wonder why Romney was caught off guard here. Medical marijuana is not a major issue, but it's prominent enough that I can't believe he's never given it enough thought to have a more reasonable response. He's obviously at least somewhat familiar with the issue, given his reference to "synthetic marijuana", so why did he play this so poorly?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: But that is not the type of question this was. He wants to keep marijuna illegal in all instances, so either he supports arresting people who use it on the advice of a physician or not. Possibly he wants to keep the law on the books but not prosecute. Some people do consider that an acceptable compromise (sort of a "don't ask, don't tell policy), perhaps he is one of them. If not, then maintaining his hard-line stance without acknowledging the consequences is weaselly, IMO. I could respect a firm "Yes, if you break the laws regarding drug use I would have you arrested." I do not respect holding a "no exceptions" stance and then pretending that the people negatively affected by it don't exist.
*nods
The young man's vulnerability to prosecution is an inevitable but unfortunate result that would stem from Romney's policy, unless Romney supported a DADT version (and whether he does is something I don't think he has addressed, although I'd like to see him directly address it).
Mind you, I don't think the young guy was polite or non-confrontational about how he asked the question. I'm not sure how he could have been, though, and still gotten an answer (see Tom's post above). The way he did it did not seem like it was likely to get a direct answer from Romney, but the lack of a direct answer is also an answer of sorts.
It makes me uncomfortable to see such confrontation, but I suspect the general avoidance of hard questions and necessary fallout makes me even more uncomfortable overall.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What if it were a different issue?
What if someone was, say, holding a picture or, heaven forbid, a model of a six-months along fetus and confronted Obama in the same manner.
And the final question was the person waving the model of the baby in his face and asking, "Would you kill this child yourself?"
I kind of doubt that those who think that moving on was a churlish thing to do be as forgiving of the questioner and as condemning of the candidate in that scenario.
---
ETA: It is nice that the questioner wasn't tasered.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I think that waving anything is someone's face changes the situation a bit. If the questioner was just holding the picture and asked the question, then yes, I would feel exactly the same way about the candidate (whoever he or she was) ducking it.
And kat, at least in as far as your question is in response to my posts, you seem to be assuming things about where I stand on the issues of medical marijuna and late-term abortion that are not accurate.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: What if it were a different issue?
What if someone was, say, holding a picture or, heaven forbid, a model of a six-months along fetus and confronted Obama in the same manner.
And the final question was the person waving the model of the baby in his face and asking, "Would you kill this child yourself?"
I kind of doubt that those who think that moving on was a churlish thing to do be as forgiving of the questioner and as condemning of the candidate in that scenario.
---
ETA: It is nice that the questioner wasn't tasered.
I would expect (or at least hope for) Obama or whoever to respond directly. If he rudely avoided the question, I'd be just as critical.
edit: dkw makes a good point as well. There is a difference between waving a provocative picture in front of the politician and being the provocative epitome of the questioner's point.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The key difference is how close the questioner was to the candidate?
You said earlier that it seemed rude to walk away from the conversation - as if they were in a tete-a-tete instead of in a crowd with scores of other people and questions.
Not a picture - that's less effective than a physical presence. The questioner here did use the wheelchair as a sympathy ploy. For the equivalent, it would have to be a realistic looking model.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't think Obama performing a voluntary abortion procedure himself is a tenable option, although holding a "don't ask, don't tell"/disenforcement policy is a tenable option for Romney.
Obama isn't a medical provider; Romney is a politician who will make policy.
(I suspect that the analogy could be made stronger, though, if the analogy wasn't to Obama performing voluntary abortions but rather to holding certain positions. I also suspect the most appropriate response for Obama in that situation would be similar to those suggested for Romney here, such as dkw's example.
But if Obama's position on voluntary abortion procedures at that stage of gestation were clear, the same justification would not hold in this case. I don't think Romney has clarified if he would actually support prosecution as vs. DADT/disenforcement, but maybe he has. (?))
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:"Would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?"
Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is Barak Obama a abortion performing medical provider? Or is his position that non-qualified people should be performing abortions?
If neither of these, how is that an equivilent situation?
---
edit:
quote:Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
I haven't actually watched the video. Does the questioner say something like "Would you personally arrest me?" I thought it was "Would you have me arrested?", which would be Mitt Romney acting in the role he is seeking, as opposed to playing unlicensed police officer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think, perhaps, a more analagous question re Obama and abortion might be, "would you let the person who did this go free?"
edit to clarify: because we are talking about the stance of politician's on the legality of certain actions.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:"Would you arrest me and my doctors if I used marijuana?"
Romney isn't a police officer any more than Obama is a doctor. Their positions might legalize and sanction both actions, but neither would be doing it themselves.
I agree. I don't think this is a distinction significant enough to bother discussing, though. It's just not important.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think, perhaps, a more analagous question re Obama and abortion might be, "would you let the person who did this go free?"
edit to clarify: because we are talking about the stance of politician's on the legality of certain actions.
That works for me. And again, I would hope that Obama would respond appropriately. If he didn't, he would be just as subject to criticism as Romney is here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Kat, Romney had stopped and was having a conversation with the guy. It wasn’t a question shouted from the sidelines, and he wasn’t waving his wheelchair in Romney’s face. If you want to make it equivalent, have the questioner be a mother holding a 3 month premature baby and ask if he would have supported killing her the day before she was born. It’s a legitimate question for those who support late-term abortion, and yes, I think it would be rude for a candidate to stop and talk to that mother and then walk away without acknowledgment if she asked that question.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Of course, in many situations, he and most other politicians won't respond appropriately to the tough questions. But that doesn't make it acceptable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think the question of "Would you kill this baby yourself?" merits a response. The person is clearly ranting. Asking a candidate to face the negative side of their stances, i.e. condemning people in wheelchairs to either pain or jail (and then pain) or having it so that people can legally kill the fetus/baby, seems perfectly legitimate to me.
---
Of course, it is also pertinent that Mitt Romney was, of his own choice, engaged in talking to this person and then broke it off by pretending that they didn't exist once they asked a tough question.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I don't think the question of "Would you kill this baby yourself?" merits a response.
That's just it. I think it is a good question as to what he thinks about the consequences of leaving all marijuana use as criminal.
However, "Would you arrest me yourself?" is too dumb and manipulative of a question to deserve a response.
When someone is trying to set you up, walking away is perfectly acceptable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it is dishonest to pretend that the question was intended to ask "Will you personally, yourself, arrest me?" as opposed to, "Will you have me arrested?"
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Whatever. That's baloney. Speaking of manipulative.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
How so?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Mr. Squicky, would you please consider stepping out of this one so that I can contiue my conversation with kat, which I am finding interesting, without the two of your long running issues de-railing it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sure, no problem.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Who's kat?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Javert Hugo/katarina
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama took a huge hit with me when he had his name taken off the Michigan primary ballot. He caved to Howard Dean, which loses some respect points with me. I guess it doesn't matter if I like him or not though, I couldn't vote for him if I wanted to.
Edit to add: Okay, this looks like a non-sequitor now, because I posted before looking at the second page, but it's in response to what Tom said on the last page about Obama and not ducking hard questions.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Why'd he do that?
edit: nevermind. I forgot about the issue with the early primaries.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Thanks rollainm.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Michigan (and I think Florida) moved its primary up and the central Democratic party doesn't like it, so they're saying that they won't count their delegates' votes and many of the major candidates pulled out of the race.
---
Myself, if PA moved up their primary and whichever party disallowed my primary vote, I'd likely not vote in the general either, or vote for the opposite candidate.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Yeah, I remembered that after I posted. I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole thing.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Myself, if PA moved up their primary and whichever party disallowed my primary vote, I'd likely not vote in the general either, or vote for the opposite candidate.
That doesn't sound very practical to me. More spiteful, really.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How is it not practical? If they lost PA (or Michigan, etc.) as a consequence of their actions, I think it would have many practical effects - to wit, either coming to some accomodation with the states that are unhappy with the current primary scheduling or the death of the party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They all also took a pledge not to campaign in any state that has a primary before February 5th, unless that state is South Carolina, Nevada, Iowa or New Hampshire.
Every major Democratic candidate except for Hillary has had their name taken off the ballot. And of course soon after that happened, Republicans came in and had a debate in Dearborn. Republicans will only dock the state half its votes, which still makes it worthwhile to campaign here, and don't think Michiganders will forget that when it comes time for the general election. I'm half tempted to vote Republican just to spite the Democrats. Why Democrats think they can piss on Florida and Michigan and still win the general election is beyond me. Democrats had a MAJOR chance to come in here and win votes after the Republicans had their debate. They kept talking about our "one-state recession," and blamed Gov. Granholm (which is beyond stupid for anyone who knows what she's done here) for most of it. Democrats could have set the facts straight and won a lot of votes to their side, and individual Democrats could have picked up some ground here.
And now that this has been announced, many of the major candidates have taken to bashing Michigan, or at least Detroit, pretty soundly in the news. I guess now that our votes don't matter, we can be national cannon fodder, hooray for democracy, where if you try to change the system, they take your voice and your vote away.
The whole situation disgusts me.
Edit to add: I agree with Squick. It IS practical. Why should we continue voting for a party that can easily sideline us without even having to discuss the issue we have? This is a hugely important election, but I refuse to be taken for granted, first of all, and I refuse to be ignored, even more. It's either that, or sit there and take it.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Let me make sure I understand you. Are you saying that if Obama was your primary vote, but he pulled out of PA, you wouldn't vote for him in the general election either, but for the opposite candidate as in like Guliani?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Acutally, I'm a Republican, but most likely, yes, that would be my response.
edit: If I found that I couldn't, in good conscience, vote for the opposing candidate, I would stay home.
Oh, and I'd try to convince other people to do the same.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I know you are. That's one reason I said "if". I say it's not practical because this one issue seems rather minor compared to every other issue that divides along party lines. Not to mention that this quite possibly might guarantee Clinton's win in the primaries - Clinton, who did the right thing in your eyes. Flip the scenario. Would you vote for her over another Republican (not your first choice that removed his nomination) because of this?
(edited to clarify)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Err...I'm probably not voting Republican this Presidential election. From what I know right now, I'd likely vote Barak Obama (although, honestly, I may not with him going along with the disenfranchisement of millions of people) if he gets the nomination and 3rd party if not.
It seems minor to you that the central parties are disenfranchising people? That isn't a minor issue to me. Voting is supposed to be one of the major duties/priviledges of a citizen of a democracy. Taking that away because people aren't letting you force them into your unjust primary schedule doesn't seem like a minor thing to me.
---
edit: To me, when the central party gets too big for its britches, you slap them down. You don't roll over and take it.
If enough people actually viewed things this way, I think we'd have a very different and better political landscape.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Okay, just saw your edit. I can understand that.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
It's not that disenfranchising millions of voting citizens is minor in itself to me. It's just not as important as every other issue, collectively, that I could never bring myself to vote opposite my position. But I understand and respect your position.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I understand your position as well. I think it might be different for us because much of my central concerns are more with meta-issues rather than the issues themselves.
I'm pro-honesty, transparency, accountability, and a host of other things the lie pretty much outside the normal range of the political parties. These are more important to me than particular issues. I think this is even more true as the two parties are largely merging into one and that one doesn't seem to care much about what is good for the average person or what the average person wants.
Disenfranchizing voters, though to me a serious issue in and of itself, is really just the tip of the iceberg. The larger issue is that people need to get across to the parties that the parties are supposed to be there to serve the people, not the other way around.
It is also something that can be fixed in one election cycle, if people follow through. Heck, it could be fixed in this election if the people were clear and mostly unified in saying, "If you don't let us vote in the primaries, we will not vote in the general."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do any of you know the reasons that the primaries are set the way they are?
I'm happy to take this to a different thread if that makes sense.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
"I'm happy to take this to a different thread if that makes sense."
I don't think that's necessary. We've already got a few conversations going on that are not directly related to my initial post.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The actual schedule or the separation of dates?
I don't know about the actual schedule (i.e. why certain states are always first, etc.) I know that the primary is spread out because the scheduling dates from a time when travel between the different states was much more difficult and time consuming than it is now.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From what I can tell, it looks like the actual schedule is based on state law and tradition. NH, it seems, has a state law that their primary must be the first one. This seems pretty goofy to me. What if another state passed as state law. Civil war? Just goofy.
Another bizarre result of the difference between a group of states all jealous of their rights and powers and a nation.
It seems that the best solution for the nation as a whole that still respects the little states would be to hold primaries of the smaller states earlier and the larger states later.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not entirely sure why we have to respect the little states.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
What do you mean by "respect"?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
By "respect" I mean, "don't make them entirely irrelevant". I think as long as we have the electoral college and most states are "winner take all" with their electoral votes, having the states with fewer electoral votes go early means that it is a bit more balanced. Otherwise, we would just hold the California, Texas, New York, and Florida primaries first and the people in those states would pick the president for all of us.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm Canadian, so I don't particularly get this primary thing. As I understand it (and I could be wrong), is a primary the equivalent of a Canadian leadership convention where members of the party pick a leader for the party, except that ordinary citizens of a state are also allowed to vote for the leader?
If so, is there any particular reason why they couldn't just hold one vote in all states at the same time rather than drawing it out and having different votes in different states and having each state bicker about who can go first?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Well, yeah. That would make sense. It's certainly not a new idea. But it's apparently difficult to actually bring about change when everyone distrusts everyone else.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The parties are resistant to a one-day primary because campaigning is so expensive and it would be more expensive to campaign in the whole country at the same time. Also, people couldn't be in more than one place at a time. Again, this would lead to politicians spending all their time and money on the "big" states.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Would not those reasons equally apply to "regular" elections which are held on one day?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In the general election the field is already narrowed down to (usually) two candidates who have all the party money and resources.
Also, the general election is covered by the US Constitution and party primaries are not.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wouldn't be opposed to five or six elections, defined by region, where one state from each region gets to have their primary first, and that seat moves from year to year.
That might not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than the status quo.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wouldn't be opposed to five or six elections, defined by region, where one state from each region gets to have their primary first, and that seat moves from year to year.
That might not be perfect, but it sure as hell is better than the status quo.
Indeed that might not be perfect, but the system that is in place is embarrassingly bad.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), that Romney's current opinion is wrong.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)