Nov 28, 2007

Opinion: If Mitt WereTwo-Faced He’d Wear the Other One

by Cyndy Hardy

Updated Jan. 13, 2008

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney bombed at CNN’s Nov. 28 YouTube debate. The meltdown started when he bashed Rudy Giuliani for his sanctuary policies as mayor of New York City.

Giuliani said his policies complied with federal mandates to provide healthcare and education regardless of immigration status. Like it or not, those are rights protected by the U. S. Constitution. Maybe Romney does not defend the Constitution.

Giuliani said his policies allowed illegal immigrants who were victims of crimes to report those crimes without fear of deportation. Romney’s criticism implies that he supports no such protection for undocumented crime victims.

Giuliani fired back, accusing Romney of having a “sanctuary mansion,” referring to allegations that illegal immigrants performed work on his home. “You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion,” Giuliani said.

“No I did not,” Romney said. From the other side of his mouth, Romney said it wasn’t his fault if the contractor who worked on his house employed illegal immigrants. Homeowners shouldn’t have to ask for documentation if someone looks different or has a “funny accent,” Romney said.

Romney bashed candidate Mike Huckabee for supporting a bill that would have given collage funding for children of illegal immigrants. Huckabee said the funds would go to students who excelled and who had been in the school system for a long time.

Huckabee said Americans are above punishing children for crimes committed by their parents. “We’re not that kind of country,” he said. We don’t do it for any other crime so why should we do it for illegal immigration, he said.

Romney said no public money should ever be used for anyone “who stays in this country illegally.” Apparently he believes children of illegal immigrants should do ‘the right thing’ and leave the country.

Huckabee defended his record well. He said college funding rewards good students and invests in their momentum to become contributing taxpayers.

When one ‘YouTuber’ asked if candidates absolutely believe every word in the Bible, Romney puffed his chest and declared his faith. Moderator Anderson Cooper said the question was “every word.”

Romney pursed his lips and hemmed and hawed while the moral majority, millions of Mormons and their critics held their breath. “Yeah, the Bible is the word of God,” Romney said, firmly between a rock and a hard place!

Romney was asked if he would allow the interrogation technique of water boarding to continue under his administration. Waterboarding simulates drowning in a controlled environment.

Romney said he is against torture but believes it is not for candidates to determine whether waterboarding is torture. “I’d seek [McCain’s] counsel,” he said.

McCain – a former prisoner of war – was “astonished” that Romney still didn’t know that waterboarding is torture. So, Romney has McCain’s counsel and still would not take a stand against the practice.

Updated on Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008: Appearing on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Romney said he won't utter the words 'waterboarding is torture' because it sets a precedence that he may be held to if elected president. He reiterated that the U.S. does not condone torture, but said an event, such as a direct nuclear threat on a city, might warrant extreme interrogation measures.

Romney completely welched on his prior support for “a day when gays and lesbians could serve openly in the military.” He stumbled over himself saying this is not that time, as if the issue is not as important as it once was. Trying again, he said that this is a time of war, so it is not the time to defend homosexuals’ service.

Grasping for a life line, Romney finally said he changed his position because “I didn’t think ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ would work” and that the past 15 years proves to him it does work.

Romney was also called on his flip-flop on abortion. Once a pro-choice advocate, he said he changed his mind in 2004 during debates on stem-cell research. “On abortion, I was wrong,” he said.

After the debate, a studio of undecided Republican voters agreed that Romney did not do well. CNN analysts agreed.

“If people are looking for somebody in this country who has never made a mistake … they ought to find somebody else,” Romney said. Perhaps that came from his other face – the one he would see later in the mirror.

1 comment:

  1. Former owners of Sedona Choppers seek $1.2 million in lawsuit against Remax Sedona and related party
    Sedona, AZ - A recent lawsuit filed by Robert Wasserman and his partner Clarisse Heller on 12/04/2007 in the Coconino County Superior Court demonstrates how the recently completed Uptown construction project and a new competitor next door possibly had serious human and business consequences; and also the potential pitfalls of a dual broker real estate relationship.
    In 2005, Robert Wasserman, a software developer for 20 years in downtown New York City, and his partner Clarisse Heller, decided to move West after the terrible events at the World Trade Center complex on 9/11.  According to Mr. Wasserman, the "move was very significant for both of us leaving family and children, and what followed was nothing short of a nightmare."
    In 2005, Mr. Wasserman purchased Sedona Choppers at 252 N. Hwy 89A that, according to its website, specialized in supplying Northern Arizona’s Red Rock Country with the finest in motorcycle clothing, leathers, gifts and accessories.
    Said Mr. Wasserman, "On January 5, [2005], only five days after our closing, construction fences began to appear across the street on 89A. From April 1st until October 15th there were construction fences, no parking or sidewalks and the constant sound of construction equipment in front of Sedona Choppers. Needless to say this had a catastrophic affect on our business, our relationship and our mental well-being."
    While the construction alone could have put them out of business (see Red Rock News article entitled: Uptown Woes by Chelsea DeWeese), Mr. Wasserman is claiming that not only did the previous owner of Sedona Choppers (not a named party in this lawsuit) and his dual broker from Remax Sedona know about the construction, but that they also knew that a Harley-Davidson competitor shop would be opening in Sedona.  (The shop ended up being the Harley-Davidson MotorClothes® and Accessories Shop in Sinagua Plaza at 320 N. Highway 89A.)  The prior owner is not named in the lawsuit because, according to Mr. Wasserman, the prior owner settled the matter without admitting to any wrongdoing.
    As for Remax and the broker, the heart of the lawsuit focuses on the conflict of interest that can potentially arise from a dual broker relationship.  A dual broker relationship occurs when one broker individually, or two salespeople within the same brokerage firm, represent both the buyer and the seller in a real estate transaction. Dual representation is lawful in Arizona with prior written consent, and so long as dual brokers exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of their duties.  However, Mr. Wasserman contends that the dual broker relationship created a conflict of interest that erred on the side of the seller since that's who paid the broker.
    Mr. Wasserman says that he put his faith and trust in his dual broker and the prior owner to fully disclose their knowledge, if any, of the Uptown construction project and that Harley-Davidson might be opening a store in Sedona.  
    It is Mr. Wasserman's and Ms. Heller's contention that Remax Sedona and the dual broker withheld this information, and they are seeking to have their original purchase/sale contract of Sedona Chopper nullified. 
    Mr. Wasserman goes on to say, "We are challenging the unethical dual broker conflict of interest and how consumers like myself are at risk by trusting someone being paid by the other side."
    Mr. Wasserman says he is seeking $1.2 million in damages.
    It is now up to the Coconino County Superior Court to decide the case.

    ReplyDelete