Posted on 08/09/2007 8:09:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Your post falls apart in the light of the facts. I’ve been quite critical of most of the candidates, in detail, including our host’s favorite.
As to your obvious inference, why don’t you have the guts to spell it out?
Of course I don't. Lip service given for the purpose of political expediency has no currency with me.
I didn’t mean that you have no strong convictions. You said you were undecided. I was just telling you what kind of person might like to choose him. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
I look for the best person for the job of President. To date, I’ve never in my life (I’m 49 end of this month) found a Democrat thats met my personal standard.
I use four criteria in my ‘decision matrix’ if you want to call it that. IN no particular order: National Defense, taxation, judicial nominations, and 2nd Amendment.
The only thing I know for sure at this point is I won’t be supporting the Democrat nominee under any circumstances
Likewise, I can’t vote for Guiliani, McCain, Paul, or Tancredo. The first three I simply don’t trust, the last one is a bull in a china shop.
Like most, I’ve got concerns about Romney, but abortion isn’t the reason. I can’t help but wonder what he will ‘believe’ a year after being elected. I suspect thats where a lot of voters are with him, with some legitimate reasons.
Conversely, I don’t take anyone seriously thats posting about the man’s religion. Its irrelevant to me, and its supposed to be irrelevant to EVERYONE. This country was built in large part because of religious persecution, and was founded on the notion that ‘freedom of religion’ was important. I think its very important myself.
That said, I don’t care if you wear a coffee filter for headgear on Saturdays (jewish) or go to confess on Saturday’s (catholics). Or if you want to handle snakes while praising Jesus on Tuesday nights. None of my business, as long as you don’t force it upon me.
I don’t know who I’ll vote for, in summation. What I do know is I don’t take the Boston Globe seriously on ANY TOPIC, because of their known political stance, and its problems with plagerism and flat out lying by its current and former reporters and columnists.
Hoe this clears things up.
1) Liberals always end up going squishy on defense issues, and Mitt Romney is a liberal. They also always end up picking squishes to run the defense and foreign policy establishment. Want more RINOs like Colin Powell? Pick Romney, then.
2) Mitt Romney has made it clear already that he doesn't even understand fundamental tax reform, much less support it.
3) Mitt Romney picked more Dems and Independents than Republicans [of any stripe] for the bench as Governor, including radical gay activists.
4) As I showed upthread, Mitt Romney signed a permanent assault weapons ban into law in MA.
“I knew it would take less than a half-dozen posts before someone would attack the piece because it comes from a Globe columnist.”
Yeah, the fact it’s written by a liberal shrill in one of the most leftists rags in the country doesn’t make a difference.
Mitt stated that he supported it.
If you believe that Mitt did not actually support it, then to be consistent you must think that Mitt lied.
And that's what this article is about: Mitt has a (dis)honesty problem.
The very "leftist rag" that was Mitt Romney's primary outlet for convincing the public of his hard Left bonafides for many years.
The article is about honesty or lack thereof.
Do you not consider honesty an important thing when evaluating a politician's stated positions and campaign promises?
You have!? I missed it I guess, my apologies.
EV has spread the criticism around generously, including to candidates I support, in areas where he thinks each falls short of conservatism.
It should not be surprising that Rudy McRomney get a bigger helping of criticism on a conservative website.
Yes, EV, I figured out a couple of hours ago you don’t like Romney, and won’t vote for him.
‘The article is about honesty or lack thereof.’
Yep.
“Do you not consider honesty an important thing when evaluating a politician’s stated positions and campaign promises?”
Yes, I do. But what I won’t do is use the Boston Globe, a leftwing publication as any available, to determine such things about a Republican candidate.
Perhaps
Reagan supported abortion at one time.
I like Romney, and the more the MSM goes after him, (like Mary Ann Akers from the WP online speaking on MSNBC (she’s a total idiot, btw with bad hair) the more I like him!
The basis for the article is Mitt Romney quotes, all of which have been published widely.
Do you think the Globe is falsifying the quotes that everyone has published, some of which are on video and some are written records?
I would hope you would not accept anything you read at face value, but do you really just refuse to consider anything published in the Globe, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or any of dozens of other media outlets....
... oh well, you're just being stubborn and argumentative.
‘The basis for the article is Mitt Romney quotes, all of which have been published widely.’
Thats exactly where you and I disagree. I know what the ‘basis’ is, and it has far more to do with ensuring a Democrat gets elected than it does anything ‘real’ about Romney.
They did the exact same thing in 2000 with Bush. They talked up McCain during the primaries for the same ‘end result’ trying to weaken a GOP candidate before the general election cycle.
The Boston Globe wants a Democrat for President. If Romney wasn’t the leader in most polls, they wouldn’t have bothered. They know he’s looking pretty good to Independents, they know the GOP base will rally around him if he wins...or at least thats what they think.
You might notice my posts aren’t really about Romney either way, its the Boston Globe I have issues with here.
The thing is, they're the ones with the most information on him, and they're the ones who spend the most time on him.
//
Quotes are quotes, and the ones in the article are factual.
Romney's statement:
"Probably from a political standpoint and a personal standpoint, the greatest mistake was when I first ran for office, being deeply opposed to abortion but saying, 'I support the current law,' which was pro-choice and effectively a pro-choice position."
is demonstratively false.
From what I can tell, those raising hell about a Romney nomination are doing so based on one issue, abortion.
No problem. I think its counterproductive and totally irrelevant for one simple reason. The President can’t change it, the Congress won’t change it, and the American people seem to believe it should be available by a significant margin (significant compared to the past few presidential election cycle margins of victory).
I do appreciate you expressing your view on this without resorting to attacking the guy’s church. Thats refreshing from what I’ve seen the past couple of months here in the forum.
Abortion gets the headline, but immigration, taxes, health care, gay rights, and of course the second amendment have all been major bones of contention with the Romney candidacy -- of course, as you've pointed out, a lot of that has to do with debate over his honesty and consistency, or lack thereof, like the senseless fibs about being a lifelong hunter and owning a gun.
Hmmmm.
I figure the best thing to do is just to listen to what he has to say in the debates, and go from there.
I’m not sold on him as ‘the’ man for the job.
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.