Posted on 12/22/2007 6:24:10 AM PST by Reaganesque
Ah, the ole' Romney supporter personal attack. The Romney campaign should really patent that tactic. Although, the liberals may have already done that.
Its not my place to tell you who to vote for. As I said previously, liberals need someone to tell them who to vote for. Conservatives can think for themselves (at least they should be able to if they are really conservatives).
If your question is which of the Republican candidates are conservatives, then my answer would be Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.
Thank you, O learned one. You don't say why.
Fred's only shot is SC, where he is tied for #3 with . . . Rudy. Fred is lower than Ron Paul in NH!! Come on. It's time to look soberly at the primaries.
The list of bedrock conservatives for Romney just continues to grow. Of course the drive-by Freepers will say it’s just another sellout. Interesting that he met w/ both Fred & Mitt & after having done so, decided to support Mitt. Fortunately, the drive-by Freepers are a small minority, but they do seem to have many MSM characteristics & tactics. Makes one wonder.
Personal attacks. Calling card of a weak mind I am told.
Why? Not sure what you are asking "why?" too since I told you that its not my place to tell you who to vote for. But if you are asking how I arrived at those two being the only two conservative candidates I would just point you to my previous posts on this thread. I said you can tell if a candidate is a liberal or a conservative by looking at their record. I would add, the whole record, not just pieces of it. In doing so you will find that the only two Republican candidates that have been consistently conservative, and notably so, are those two. Not to say 100% but consistently.
The records of the other Republican candidates contain mind-boggling liberal tendencies. The liberalism of Romney, Guiliani, McCain and Huckabee have been very well documented here on FR and elsewhere for anyone with the desire to do a critical analysis of their merits as candidates.
Rush pounds Huckabee. Ann Coulter pounds Huckabee. Pretty soon the voters will pound Huckabee.
Mitt Romney is so obviously the best choice for President out of this field or any currently possible field; the Democrats tremble with fear that Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate.
Its actually faith in conservatism. When you have core convictions you don't alter them based on polls. If so we'd all have jumped on McCain's bandwagon back in 2000 when the dinosaur media had him beating Bush. Same goes for the post-convention campaign. Would I switch to the liberal candidate offered by the Demoncrats if he or she were ahead in the polls?
If a liberal wins the presidency, whether is the former co-dependent or Mitt Romney (or McCain or Rudy), I will still be a conservative. I, for one, am just hopeful that we have a choice between a conservative and a liberal in November and not two liberals.
“SYNOPSIS:…at least four historical Books about MLK and 1960s politics state that King and Romney did March together...George Romney was a guest at King’s funeral along with RFK...as Governor and HUD Secretary Romney was a noted non-black Civil Rights leader of his day...George Romney was recognized along with King and RFK as one of four leaders popular among disadvantaged black youths in a 1967 survey...link below to photograph of MLK and Lenore Romney (Mitt’s mother)...link below to photo of Romney being heckled by racist protesters in 1960s for HUD efforts... and most important, George Romney himself, led a march of 10,000 people through Detroit to protest after Bloody Sunday occurred in Selma, Alabama...see below
David S. Bernstein did a shabby and extremely slanted job researching and writing his article Was it All a Dream? which questions Mitt Romney’s assertion that his father, Governor George Romney marched with Martin Luther King, Jr.
Dispensing with the issue of whether a teenage Romney ever actually saw his father marching arm-locked with King, Bernstein and the Phoenix have done an extremely one-sided job by insinuating that it is proven fact that the two never marched together and that Romney recently made up the story out of whole cloth. Either Bernstein failed to do basic research, or ignored the facts he found.
Bernstein’s headline reads: “Mitt Romney claims that his father marched with MLK, but the record says otherwise”.
I ask, what record Mr. Bernstein? Where does your article show us one “record” that says Romney and King never marched together? Not having after hours access to libraries or archives, and just using google I have found three books, here, here, and here that state that the two did march together (and that’s not counting David Broder’s book, written four decades ago which would be number four!)
Unlike Bernstein and the Phoenix, I am not going to make grandiose assertions that a King-Romney march has been scientifically proven to have occurred, and it is evident that some writers have Romney marching on July 23, 1963, whereas others say that he issued a proclamation but avoided that particular March because it was held on his Sabbath. My point is that the whole thrust of Bernstein’s piece is to insinuate that Romney recently made the story up. That is hogwash. Take this extremely biased line: “Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 — not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.” Basically, Bernstein is saying that if the story were true, then Romney would have bragged about it in the past. In other words, Bernstein is saying that Romney recently made the up the story to guild his “Faith in America” speech.
But the overwhelming weight of facts show that it is entirely reasonable for Romney to have believed his father did in fact march with King (and—barring proof otherwise, may have actually done so). Allow me to list just a few...I found today:
First, four published books by historians and reporters published long before 2007 say King and Romney marched together (see above). That would generally be good enough for a Presidential campaign to make a historical assertion without being accused of lying; second, Mitt’s older brother Scott Romney says he recalls his father saying he marched with King; third, George Romney himself led a Civil Rights march in Detroit to show solidarity with King after the defining Selma travesty (see here and here); fourth, Coretta Scott King’s biography and other books indicate that George Romney, along with RFK, were guests at Martin Luther King’s funeral (see here and here); fifth, I have not yet found a photo of George Romney and MLK together, but I did find this one of Mitt’s mother, Lenore Romney with MLK; sixth, as HUD Secretary, Romney was a prime mover in making housing affordable for poor blacks (see here). In fact, when Romney sought to open white neighborhoods to blacks, like King before him he was heckled by racist protestors (check out the lower right-hand picture in this article, here); seventh, Romney visited Watts in 1967 (see here); eighth, Romney declared two days of statewide mourning for death of Viola Liuzzo during which time King went on Meet the Press to protest Viola Liuzzo’s murder by the KKK (see here and here); ninth, Coleman Young writes that Michigan blacks reached a Zenith when Romney was governor (see here) and another writer describes George Romney as a Civil Rights Republican (see here). Yet another historian says that Romney “believed that Civil Rights of black Americans, deserved the unwavering support of the Republican party…” (see here); tenth, disadvantaged black youths in a 1967 survey cited Martin Luther King, Jr., Rev. Nicholas Hood, Robert Kennedy and you guessed it...George Romney as their most popular leaders (see here).
I could go on, but my point is that Bernstein is insinuating that Romney is lying and is ignoring a huge amount of information that is easily obtainable on the internet or in a university library. If being a reporter were MY FULL TIME JOB, I would have already flown out to Lansing to see MSU’s collection of 50,000 photographs, where (I have a hunch) the Mitt Romney campaign might find a lot more things to brag about. So the fact that Bernstein failed to even check those historical records readily available on the internet beats me! And then to basically lie so that Romney would look foolish is unprofessional—were I an editor I would discipline Bernstein. Were I a publisher, I would discipline his editor.
That a 60 year old Romney (between the ages of 15-21 during King’s marching years), familiar with all of the above background information, believes that his dad marched with MLK, is highly understandable. The record shows that his dad MARCHED FOR KING. I think Romney may get the last laugh on this one...
Basically, George Romney was one of the most progressive white leaders of his day. He probably belongs in the ranks of the Kennedy brothers, Everett Dirksen, LBJ and others.
In Sum: If in fact thorough research (which will take some time) shows that either 1) Romney and King did march together or 2)These historians and reporters were citing each other on a mistaken fact as to the July 23, 1963 march, the fact remains that George Romney did indeed lead a march for Civil Rights (whether or not King was with him at the time) and that George Romney was a Civil Rights leader in general and that he marched in solidarity with King in immediate response to Selma—the most defining Civil Rights episode of the era.”
http://occidentalvalues.blogspot.com/2007/12/george-romney-and-martin-luther-king.html
progressive = liberal
big’ol_freeper answered you pretty well, but I wish to comment on this:
“Fred’s only shot is SC, where he is tied for #3 with . . . Rudy. Fred is lower than Ron Paul in NH!! Come on. It’s time to look soberly at the primaries.”
LOL! The primaries haven’t HAPPENED yet! Everything to this point is polling—which we all know is 100% accurate! (/sarcasm) And even if polling WERE 100% accurate, people can and do change their minds with new information. Basing the outcome of the primary process on preliminary polls ignores the interactions that occur as more information comes to light on the candidates and as various candidates fall out. Here is my current scenario:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1934281/posts
I did guess Tancredo would drop out first, but was surprised he recommended Romney. He must have thought he had a better chance. Romney is my backup recommendation if Fred doesn’t make it. My current ranking of the candidates, in my preference order is:
Hunter
Thompson
Romney
Huckabee
McCain
Rudy
I’m pretty sure the bottom three will lose to the Demo candidate, whomever that may be. I’m pretty certain Rudy and McCain have no chance at getting the nomination—they don’t have the base behind them. Huckabee is a wild card; he’s taking votes from Fred and Romney, but can he last?
Where will the McCain voters go when he drops out? He’ll probably drop out after S. Carolina.
We’ll see.
Seems to be well practiced here in FR. Other than Ron Paul supporters, Romney supporters seem to think its a form of argument.
It wasn’t a “personal” attack. It was attack on your simplistic equation. You do get it, don’t you? :^)
Yes, I get it. Since you could not intellectually make a point counter to mine you simply called me stupid. Which, frankly, says much more about you than you’ll ever know.
I agree with you. I think Romney would be good getting the woman’s vote. I don’t see any of the other Republican Candidates having the same appeal that Romney has. And it is because he has been a devoted father and husband his entire life, not just because he is very attractive.
If it makes you feel good to compare a Marxist traitor to a good guy like Romney, go right on ahead, keep on deluding yourself.
People like you are just having a temper tantrum because you have over-rated Fred Thompson. He is not that great. He was in the Senate during the Clinton years, I never heard him taking any stands during that time. Also, he waited until he was a Senior Citizen to settle down. I hardly doubt he was living a conservative life style during his bachalor days. Maybe thats why I never heard him take any stands during the Clinton Days, he probably knew he couldn’t. You just give him way too much credit to the point where you are willing to slander anyone who opposes him. I think it’s ridiculas.
I tend to agree with your ideological ranking, at least in part.
The problem with Hunter is that he hasn’t manage to mount an effective campaign and so is unlikely to win any primary.
I would like to root for Thompson, but I’m not seeing where he’s demostrated the energy and intelligence to be President. I’m just afraid he’s going to be a slow moving target. Of course no one has really attacked him yet, so it’s hard to tell. Reagan was “old” when he first ran for President, but you could see the spark in him right off.
That brings us to Mitt. He is well spoken, energetic and attractive. I got the impression right from the beginning that here was someone who could be President. The only real negative for me was his position on guns, but the bill in Massachusetts that he signed was backed by the NRA. Having lived in Massachusetts on two different occasions I know how bad their gun laws are. Mitt did the best that could be expected. Giuliani, on the other hand went out of his way to pass onerous gun laws and even to sue outside his jurisdiction in order to advance an anti-gun agenda.
All in all I think Mitt Romney will make a fine President.
Tell your father that this WOMAN is voting for ROMNEY and it is NOT because of looks, but BRAINS. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.