The nattering class is discussing remarks GOP nominee Mitt Romney made during a private fundraiser in Boca Raton (Fla.) 4 months ago. The remarks surfaced via efforts of a Leftist magazine most Americans probably never heard of.
There's a legal question no one is addressing.
The May dateline on the remarks suggests media are desperate to take attention away from the meltdown in North Africa and the obvious disintegration of the foreign policy President Barack Obama is supposed to, like everything else, be such a genius at.
Romney noted that voters “dependent on government” would probably support Obama. Most probably will, except perhaps for savvy seniors who can count on that $700 billion or more coming out of Medicare because of the ObamaCare Tax Bill.
Obama’s whole campaign has been based on a theme of “Gimme.”
Romney made the remarks during the primary season, and he was talking about who would vote, not whom he would represent after taking office.
What’s interesting to me are legal implications related to the video. If it was taken at a private fundraiser (as opposed to a public venue), the owner of the video would’ve had to seek permission to film legally. That’s because in Florida, we have restrictive rules when it comes to what you can record by any means—in the interest of protecting the rapidly declining privacy we have nowadays.
Slate, a publication most consider left of center, had this to say about such laws:
What's surprising is how many states, in this age of Flip cams and camera phones and surveillance cameras and helmet cams,have "two-party consent" laws. In 12 states—California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington—all parties involved need to consent before one of them can record the conversation.
Slate did an article after James O’Keefe, an indie investigative journalist who runs Project Veritas, was heavily criticized by the Left for his various exposes revealing rampant corruption in various government and Democrat-allied quarters.
Bottom line: Did video man break the law? If not, who gave him permission to film, since this was a private event?
The New York Times did a writeup on the remarks, missing the mark when it came to the context of talking about people who would vote for Obama. The paper cut off comments—many were very supportive of what Romney said.
Personally, I’m more concerned about a president who trampled the First Amendment by asking Google to review an obscure video in the interest of giving radical Islamists control over what Americans can say about religion.
Candidates routinely message their base directly. For example, Democrats have said horrible things about people who seek government and spending reform, but media rarely take note of those remarks which are far more critical than what Romney said.
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/Sept. 18, 2012)
Please help share our articles. Every time you share an article like this, you help us build authority on the Internet.
Related at The US Report
Read interesting commentary at Florida Political Press: Media jumps on leaked video...