Originally Posted by BR
Oh, right. I forgot. If the old video helps your cause, it's relevant. If it hurts your cause, well, you have plenty of practice at ignoring evidence or coming up with excuses as to why your fantasy trumps reality.
No, it's relevant depending on what it actually is.
Judging that requires knowing the context, intent, etc. If you have some specific Romney videos you'd like to examine, we can do that. In the meantime, here's an example of a Santorum video where I think he was taken out of context and misinterpreted:
Santorum "equates homosexuality with incest, adultery."
"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything." and "Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, whether it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family."
So what's the problem? Context. He was speaking about the legal implications of a decision. And legally, he may have been right. Now, it's obvious Santorum is anti-gay. He also never should have said such thing...not being someone in public life. But that's another issue entirely. Based on your standard, all previous statements--regardless of context--are irrefutable evidence of a candidate (pardon me, a GOP
candidate) being a flopper, nut job, liar, etc.