Mitt Romney blew Newt Gingrich and the other Republican candidates for President out of the water in the Florida primary, with 46% of the vote, putting him way ahead in the delegate race.
Romney and major competitor Gingrich tore into each other during the CNN Republican Debate, trying to expose each other's weaknesses. While this put Gingrich on the defensive, Romney appeared unmoved, dodging criticisms left and right and re-routing the questions to take the spotlight off of him. This was called a "good debate tactic" by political commentators.
Well, it threw Newt off his game, but are Florida voters so easily manipulated?
Three issues came up that Romney took no responsibility for, avoiding the question by claiming ignorance.
- Was he involved in, and did he profit from, Medicare fraud?
- Did he air a political ad accusing Newt Gingrich of calling Spanish the "language of the ghetto?"
- Why does he have a Swiss bank account?
In all three scenarios, Romney excused himself by passing the blame on someone else.
A question was posed to Tampa Bay area voters: Mitt Romney has repeatedly dodged criticisms by claiming ignorance and passing the blame on someone else. What are your feelings on this? Is this an acceptable trait for a President? Or is it permissible as long as he gets the job done?
Here's what they have to say.
In favor of Romney's actions:
"Mitt is a business man. I do not agree with a lot of his views, but as far as a question of character of a president - he did what he needed to in order to get a company moving and making money. In business, does this sometimes walk lines and push them over? Yep. Every company does things wrong, some worse than others - does the person at the top know? - Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should they still be accountable? Yes. Long story short, while things often are done wrong in business, you cannot always play fair to win. We as a country don't have to play fair, so why hold this against them? If you want to elect someone that will always color inside the lines, you will not get the best job done. Do we really think sending in spies to a country to find a terrorist, then murder him, is something someone that colors in the lines would do? You have to play to win and be decent about it - that is it people. I want a president who is going to play to win for the people - period. Whatever means necessary." -- James Grant, Spring Hill
"Mitt Romney is a business man. No one ever wants to go around and say they make a bunch of mistakes. What leader goes around and says, "Well, I don't know." He needs to give off that impression that he is usally right. That is explaining his character. I personally do not see any wrong-doing." -- Steve Raeder, Tampa
Opposed to his actions:
"The comments about doing whatever it takes to win in business and wanting a president like that... Wow, that nauseates me. I think it's despicable that capitalism works that way. I have worked for corporate America for three different employers in the last ten years. I know this is the mindset and I've seen the corruption. CEOs who will do anything to get the clients' money even if it's immoral or possibly illegal, who will cut hours and paychecks and benefits from their employees when times get tough, but not their own salaries and expenses (yes I have seen the numbers personally). I would NEVER want that kind of person as a leader... Local or president. I feel Mitt Romney is that kind of person. Typical lying politician. Typical business man. They all pass the buck down to the expendable people to preserve their way of life. It's selfish" -- Amber Norris, Tampa
"Politics seem to thrive on a person being able to avoid personal faults in one's life from getting involved in one's job of making decisions that affect others. None of the presidents were perfect, not morally, nor physically, but they managed to do whatever they deemed correct in their term; good decision, or bad one, they still did it despite their own follies. Though, I personally believe that not admitting failure is a weak character trait for any human being, in "power" or not. It shows an ill amount of prideful arrogance that I would think no one would want to work with in any situation, thus losing my respect. If he was involved and knew, shame on him. If he really did not know, shame on him for acting like it is okay just because he 'didn't know.' As a director, he better know what is happening in that company, and having several is not an excuse. How can he use that as an excuse when he will be running an entire country? That will be more out of his hands if he cannot keep an eye on the company of which he is a director. Does he or does he not have people who work for him who he could ask to keep these things in check? He is not the common everyday share holder. He is a person who I assume has some sort of power because he is running for president." -- Sabina Lewis, Tampa
If you like what you see, please subscribe to my column. You can also follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
Comments