Just in case you were getting comfortable in the narrative...
So you thought the video of Romney was damning... I mean if you don't think about it too deeply, it sure sounds bad. Slam dunk, right? I mean, it's not like the Nixon tapes or anything where critical sections are missing.... right?... right?
By TOBY HARNDEN
PUBLISHED: 12:55 EST, 19 September 2012 | UPDATED: 16:14 EST, 19 September 2012
via The Daily Mail
Mother Jones admits that 'one to two minutes' of the Republican nominee's embarrassing fundraising video may be missing.
MORE:
by JOEL B. POLLAK 19 Sep 2012, 12:04 AM PDT
via Big Journalism
Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.
Strange... I seem to remember a guerilla-warfare style video kerfuffle during which the MSM was certain that the videos had been selectively edited. I wonder why the MSM isn't just all over this instance of "missing minutes"? Oh, right... how could I forget the double standard??
POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 BY ED MORRISSEY
The last 48 hours of media commentary has evinced an interesting, and entirely unsurprising, double standard, or perhaps triple standard.
Of course, there's always a conspiracy theory... I don't know that I completely believe this... but it certainly is convienent, and the animated gif at the end of this post is pretty damning. Note that the subtle changes look like they are due to changes in focal plane and depth of focus due to the two new foreground objects.
by KEVIN posted on SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
I think that I can prove that the Romney tape “1-2 minute gap” was not the result of a technical failure, but instead was done in post-production.
Then, of course, there's this hilarious tidbit... "self-fashioned Democratic opposition researcher"... HA!
By JOSH LEDERMAN | Associated Press – 8 hrs ago
Midway through a routine Internet search, James Carter IV stumbled upon a video that just didn't seem right. The grandson of former President Jimmy Carter and a self-fashioned Democratic opposition researcher...
Bottom line: I don't think it matters. Romney's point was simple, and already clear from the video that we have been shown: that there are a host of people who believe that the solution to the ills of society is for government to "do something" or "provide something"--this is what Romney calls a "government-centered" society--and that these people will vote against Romney no matter what.
For me, I look at it more fundamentally... it's the crux of so many exchanges I've been having recently, the idea that just because you think (or a majority of Americans think) that something is morally good, that does not mean that we should use government to force everyone to act according to your beliefs. I'd rather not re-hash. You can read the long presentation of this concept here, if you care to and haven't already.
Whatever the case, if you fundamentally believe that government should solve our problems, then you reject Romney's statements and are likely offended by them. But if you believe that it is not the proper role of government to enforce morality on your neighbors, then however "inelegant" Romney may claim his statement was, you likely want to say, "Well, yeah, exactly!" every time you hear it replayed.
So does it matter whether comments critical to the context of Romney's statement were excised? Probably not. But if you find yourself being swayed one way or another by this video... think carefully. Romney is right. Relying on and empowering government to dictate moral choices (e.g., "nobody should be without health insurance in a developed country, therefore we must all pay more to provide it to those who don't have it") is a path orthogonal to and away from freedom... and, like elections, choosing such paths has consequences.
Decide for yourself whether government should be used as a tool to force those you disagree with to behave the way you want them to. Decide for yourself whether you want the lazy ease of knowing that government is making you behave morally, instead of accepting the challenge and behaving morally of your own volition.
No comments:
Post a Comment