Posted on 01/26/2012 7:38:27 AM PST by jmaroneps37
As Governor of Michigan original rino herd elder George Romney met with Saul Alinsky and found him to be someone the country “ought to listen to.”
The progressive Republican father of the liberal Republican Willard Romney actually acknowledged that Alinsky had a “Strong influence” on his son according to “Romney’s Way” a 1968 book by T. George Harris.
This certainly goes a long way toward explaining how a “conservative” Republican like the younger Romney could not only concoct Romney Care.
It sheds light on Willard Romney’s Alinsky-like deviousness in destroying all hard drive evidence that would expose the deliberations that went into Romney care’s completion.
By Harris’ account George Romney and Saul Alinsky were close enough for Alinsky to offer Romney advice on handling Detroit’s Black population after the Motor City riot of 1967.
It is an established fact that dutiful son Willard is devoted to living his life and governing in a manner his father would approve of.
This is why a new TV spot from a Gingrich supporting PAC shows a clip of Willard actually saying he is a progressive. He only switched to saying he is a conservative since he started running for president.
Willard Romney doesn’t just want America to have Obamacare he wants the whole world under its thumb. In a 2007 video shot at a town hall meeting while Willard Romney was campaigning in Iowa.
In response to a question about whether he would continue George Bush’s program of funding AIDS assistance programs in Africa, he gave this inexplicable answer, “ .. Did you notice in Lebanon, what Hezbollah did? Lebanon became a democracy some time ago and while their government was getting underway, Hezbollah went into southern Lebanon and provided health clinics…..
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Interesting. Bump
Ive been saying for a while that you have to look at the type of guy George Romney was. I know a son doesnt have to be besmirched by the sins of the father but Mitt has never said his father was necessarily wrong on anything (other than releasing 12 years of taxes at once). Anyway, George Romney was a liberal and a vocal opponent of Reagan. And his son must be stopped.
WOW!..that could be a zinger for Newt!..He’s brought up Alinsky before, knowing full well the average voter has never heard of him....Tell the voters who haven’t to “Google†Alinsky.. do your own due diligence..and then check out the Romney book from 1968 where Willard Romney actually acknowledged that Alinsky had a “Strong influence” on his son according to “RomneyÂ’s Way” a 1968 book by T. George Harris.....Let the electorate become involved in the race
bfl
This needs wider exposure. Please BTT til more people see this.
1) Cities were burning in the 1960s. "Community organization" looked like a positive alternative to violence. Or would more riots have been a better idea?
2) George Romney's generation did a lot to bulldoze America's cities. He may have felt guilty. The first effect of "community organization" was to stifle the urban renewal and highway building projects that displaced thousands of people. Was that a bad thing? Whatever else came along afterward -- ACORN style shakedowns, etc. -- was it really a bad thing that people couldn't simply be pushed around by arrogant government planners?
During the 1980s Romney would not even register Republican, he waited until Reagan was long gone.
Romneybots cannot defend the liberalism of the Romney family.
George was a liberal pro-abortion candidate for President, his wife was a liberal pro-abortion candidate for the Senate, Mitt is a liberal, pro-abortion candidate for President now.
Romney and George stormed off the convention floor to protest conservatism in 1964, Mitt has been fighting conservatism ever since.
We know that Lenore Romney, Mitt's mother came to favor more liberal abortion laws after a relative died in 1963 after an illegal abortion.
But it's not clear that she campaigned on the issue in her 1970 Senate race, and still less established that Mitt's father, George Romney, ran for President on a pro-abortion platform.
Remember that this was before Roe v. Wade nationalized and politicized the abortion issue. In those days when abortion was a matter for state governments, those days when Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law, Presidents and US Senators wouldn't have had a say in laws pertaining to abortion.
What we know romneybot, is that George Romney, Lenore Romney, and Mitt Romney were all pro-abortion politicians, they had been pro abortion since at least 1963 according to Mitt Romney.
We also know that Ann Romney is pro-abortion, and we can assume that the Romney’s brainwashed her into that view, since they took her over when she was a teen.
The Governor of her state, George Romney, personally handled converting her from Christianity, to prepare her for his son.
I get that you hate the whole family, but that doesn't make everything said about them automatically true and proven.
It does tiresome running into you promoting Romney every where.
I should not have to start all over as though we have not documented this over and over since 2006, for you die hard romneybots.
Romney has publically disclosed that his entire family committed to being pro-abortion in 1963.
George Romney personally handled the girl’s conversion from Christianity, and we all know what that means.
Ann and Mitt are both pro-abortion, and have stated so on video. Remember that the television video exists because these people promote evil to the general public and to our children.
Well...per Mitt...she did assume "that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate...":
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN and support it, and I SUSTAIN and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (Mitt Romney, October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
Furthermore...when an upstanding Mormon uses the term "sustain" he is using one of the most serious & solemn words in the Lds vocabulary.
Note this comment from a Mormon who actually took issue with Mitt's past commitment to abortion:
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..."
Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
Bottom-line: When Mitt claimed in 1994 that he sustained...
...Roe vs. Wade decision...
...pro-abortion law...
...and pro-abortion rights over the lives of pre-born...
...she was giving it the most unqualified, unreserved support any Mormon could ever grant it.
Coming from significant contact with the Mormon culture, I testify to you that there is no stronger word toward leaders and positions and policies held by those leaders than the word, sustained. And Mitt applied it to Roe, to the law undergirding abortion, and women's rights to dismember their offspring.
Maybe the Magic Mormon Underwear protected George Romney.
He ran for POTUS and he was born in Mexico!
The Mormon factor was never brought up.
Romney mischaracterized his mother’s position on abortion in the Senate race as letters and quotes have shown. He may have been right about her personal feelings or perhaps not, but she didn’t make it an issue in the campaign, at least according to people who were there and followed the campaign have said. What Mitt said may reflect badly on himself and his worthiness for the presidency, but it didn’t reflect what his mother was saying in 1970, nor did the comments about Mitt’s father necessarily reflect George Romney’s position in 1968.
Translation brief summary to the above conclusion:
Choice A: Mitt Romney is simply a pathological liar (a forthright "rendering" of your comment,What Mitt said may reflect badly on himself and his worthiness for the presidency...)
Choice B: Mitt Romney at least knew his mother's position on abortion better than your...
...100% anecdotal unnamed 3-5 generations removed (if not made up out of thin cloth) "there" people
and anecdotal unnamed 4-6 generations removed "campaign...follow[ers]."
...as letters and quotes have shown.
What letters? What quotes?
Now, I can believe Choice A-- that Mitt is a pathological liar -- But if you think you can convince people 'bout Choice B...hey, you're going to have to do better than quoting wandering phantasms who don't have a name or who have been whispering "quoted" things in unsourced places.
It looks like x’s support for Mitt is weakening.
See the May 1970 quotation from an Owosso newspaper where Lenore Romney spoke about her conflicted feelings about abortion:
“I think we need to reevaluate this, but do not feel it is simple as having an appendectomy. … I’m so tired of hearing the argument that a woman should have the final word on what happens to her own body. This is a life.”
Or the statement by Elly Peterson, Michigan Republican Party chairwoman at the time on whether Lenore Romney advocated abortion on demand in the 1970 campaign: "If it happened, I’d remember it,’ she said in a telephone interview. ‘It didn’t, and I don’t.’"
Families remember things differently than the newspapers may record. They connect the dots in their own way. There doesn't have to be anything criminal or "pathological" involved.
Mitt Romney remembered his mother's personal feelings about abortion and assumed that her views were more fixed and determined than they actually were at the time and that abortion was much more of an issue in her Senate race than it actually was.
You clowns have made the same mistake, and even applied it to Romney's father's Presidential race. So if there's "pathological lying" involved, you're not let off the hook, either.
No. Enlighten us. What exactly does it mean?
And if Ann Romney had converted to Protestantism or Catholicism or Judaism to marry the man of her choice, would you find something ominous about that?
Or would you recognize the bigotry involved in your comments?
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.