I have always been of the opinion that whenever you can get two for the price of one, aka “TWO-FERS, you should do so because it just makes sense. As everyone knows, many happy hour establishments offer two-fers, i.e., “Buy one drink – get one drink free,” early in the evenings to attract a crowd in hopes they will stay beyond happy hour and spend even more money.
I also like the concept in grocery store retailing of, “BOGO”, or buy one get one free and when I purchase things I need I sometimes choose another brand that I do not usually buy if it is offering “buy one get one free.”
The same goes for politics.
I cannot remember any other time in recent history where we had a candidate who took one position yesterday and then take a completely opposite position today – something he does so frequently.
What a wonderful concept – as long as most people do not hear or see news reports showing how the candidate changed positions.
Mitt Romney, in 2007, described, in great detail, where he was when the World Trade Center was attacked in 2001.
Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, that detail was recorded and documented and when Mitt Romney, on Tuesday of this week, gave a new version of where he was when the World Trade Center was attacked, numerous fact checkers did due diligence to compare what he just said to compare what he might have said in the past about his actions on that dreadful day.
On Tuesday, September 11th 2012 at 2:15 PM, on http://www.DailyKos.com, the Kos staff quoted Mitt Romney from 2007 as to exactly where he was and how he first heard about the World Trade Center being attacked.
Some of his original description of his activities on 9/11, compared to what he said yesterday, remained the same – the ending of both accounts reflect where he turned on a small nearby television to see the towers in flames.
Unfortunately, the two televisions mentioned were in different offices – the city was the same and the office building was the same but who he was with and the actual office he was in changed between the 2007 version and the 2012 version.
In 2007, Romney places himself in Cindy Gillespie’s office in the Regan Building at 8:00 am to put the final touches on a 10:00 am meeting with House and Senate appropriators – which implies it was going to be some kind of joint session of Congress. (I am impressed).
Keep in mind that while Cindy and Romney were meeting, Romney also was doing a phone interview with a Salt Lake City interviewer when the interviewer interrupted to say there were reports that a plane had hit the World Trade Center at which time Romney hung up and turned on a small television in the room.
Yesterday, Romney said on 9/11 he and a colleague were in their office in the Regan Building when someone rushed into the office saying that an airplane crashed into the World Trace Center.
Some individuals might excuse Romney by saying that he at least got the city correct and the building correct but he appears to be inconsistent as to whether someone ran into his room or someone on the phone in Salt Lake City told him about the first plane.
According to BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, the Romney campaign did not respond to a request for clarification on how Romney learned of the attack.
In my personal opinion, his camp is going over both videos to somehow excuse the differences away – thankfully, the videos are there for everyone to view and cannot be excused away.
Here is the link to the Daily Kos article on Mitt Romney’s two versions of where he was on 9/11:
Maybe if there were phones in Massachusetts back when the “British were coming, the British were coming”, Romney might have told reporters that he was in Boston and saw the British Army organizing and to another group of reporters he might have said that his father called him from Faneuil Hall to where he was in Concord or maybe Lexington, at which time Mitt went outside to deliver the message to nearby residents that the British were coming and they should gather their muskets and meet in the town square to prepare for battle.
I am older than Mitt Romney and I can say unequivocally where I was when JFK was assassinated, where I was when the Challenger exploded, where I was when our astronauts took “One giant step for mankind” and where I was on 9/11 – and who I was with on each occasion. All of those events are burned in my memory and I surely do not have to embellish my actions on those days to make my comments more believable or interesting or impressionable – so why does Mitt have to do so?
Another interesting thing is how Mitt loads up each description of 9/11 with the following:
- His original plan to be in Battery Park.
- Instead he is in Washington, D.C.
- – either working on security concerns for the Olympics scheduled for Salt Lake City, or
- – or getting ready to release names of the Olympic Torchbearers on 9/11 at a scheduled press conference in Battery Park adjacent to the World Trade Center. (How fortunate for us he was not there during the attack of the Twin Towers.
- Instead he was doing a phone interview from the Regan Building to an interviewer in Salt Lake City or he was with Cindy.
If you count up all the detail, he covered as many bases one could hope for in one paragraph – catering to all the Special Interest groups such as Regan, the Olympics, Battery Park, Salt Lake City, Olympic Security, and Olympic Torchbearers.
Getting back to TWO-FERS and BOGO’s, we also have Romney who self admittedly can be in two places at the same time – so if he is elected President, he can fly to Europe on Air Force One to meet with key leaders while at the same time flying on the other Air Force One to South America to lead an economic summit with Presidents and Finance Ministers.
Plus, as an added bonus, Romney, I am sure, will decline a salary during his tenure as President, which would further help him balance the budget.
It is becoming clear to me that Mitt Romney is a compulsive liar – much like Casey Anthony and even John “that’s not my baby” Edwards – and Mitt does it all with a straight face – quite convincing I might add. The only problem is there are fact checkers out there who do the necessary research to bring up discrepancies.
Oh, also keep in mind that if Romney and Ryan are elected, we will have a Liar-in-Chief and a Vice-Liar-in-Chief. If that happens, I wonder – will they lie to each other on a frequent basis?
Does everyone remember Ryan’s lie about his incredible marathon time under 3 hours?
I know, the details regarding Mitt’s actions on 9/11 are not that much different – except for the fact that he feels he can embellish a story each time he tells it and not even worry about someone questioning the detail. He tweaks the detail to impress who he is talking to at a given point in time.
If Romney is giving a speech in Montana, he will tell the audience he enjoys a nice thick steak daily – but if he then gives a speech to PETA the next day he will tell them he became a vegetarian about 5 years ago.
Innocent lies? Yes, to some degree. But do you want someone in the White House who feels he can lie with such reckless abandon? I don’t.
If anyone wants to get a better understanding of why Romney lies so much, feel free to do the following Internet search – “lying for the Lord” and look at a few – especially if they mention the Mormon Church in the subject matter.