Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

aint_no_life_nowhere

(21,925 posts)

22. It means he would have used even MORE INCENDIARY language

Reply to bigtree (Original post)

Sat Mar 3, 2012, 02:31 PM

Mar 2012

That's an interpretation Romney's statement has left him completely open to and one we should from now on assume. If he truly condemned Rush's words, then he should have made that clear and not wimped out.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Romney on Rush: Says it's "not the language I would of used." What does that mean? [View all] bigtree Mar 2012 OP

it means that he is trying to not comment on it Motown_Johnny Mar 2012 #1

pretty much Johonny Mar 2012 #19

It means he agreed with what the idiot said madokie Mar 2012 #2

that's the way I read it rurallib Mar 2012 #4

It means he would have put it in Victorian terms. MrSlayer Mar 2012 #3

Mittens regrets that he does not have the guts to speak frankly like his idol Rush. n/t SDjack Mar 2012 #5

It means that Romney has no balls Gruntled Old Man Mar 2012 #6

Ok Mittens, lets hear the language you would have used. DCBob Mar 2012 #7

I take it Mitt agrees with Rush. Life Long Dem Mar 2012 #8

Limbaugh was too reticent? Fumesucker Mar 2012 #9

It's his style. Trying to please everyone, but ends up pleasing no one. TheCowsCameHome Mar 2012 #10

Mitt : "I dare not alienate my lord and master!! Oops...sorry, Joe!" bullwinkle428 Mar 2012 #11

plain english translation: "I would have said it a different way" n/t quaker bill Mar 2012 #12

It Means The Obvious: Limbaugh Controls The Republican Party. (n/t) Paladin Mar 2012 #13

it means he would have called her a whore or a prostitute magical thyme Mar 2012 #14

Rmoney would have used "loose" and "hooker" instead. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #15

and Santorum would have used "harlot" or "strumpet" alterfurz Mar 2012 #16

Or he would just cut to the chase and use "librul". HopeHoops Mar 2012 #17

Means he hasn't decided which side is the flip and which is the flop. hobbit709 Mar 2012 #18

If that's the best he can do, he should recharge his magic undies. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2012 #20

it means slight slap on wrist wink wink... marlakay Mar 2012 #21

Bin-fucking-go. 2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #25

It means he would have used even MORE INCENDIARY language aint_no_life_nowhere Mar 2012 #22

He means that he would have used a Biblical term like "harlot" yellowcanine Mar 2012 #23

He knows damn well who runs the party cyglet Mar 2012 #24