The “NOT” was meant to refer to the clarity which his staff was forced to bring to the issue and which he could not manage to get out on his first answer. Going back to an earlier discussion he must sound like the opinions are his and not the afterthought of his staff. This is very much like his encounter with John King on the marriage amendment and on OBL. “I don’t know enough” can’t be the standard response to questions on the stump–and this was one that was obviously going to come up. As for the politics, it raises a question as to what his niche or pitch is. He is trying to position himself to the right of Romney on social issues and amplify the notion that Romney is a flip flopper and untrustworthy to carry out the goals of social conservatives. However, it appears he’s really not to the right of Romney on a number of social issues. That’s fine but then the message is useless or just confusing and needs to be retooled.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.