Replies

My opposition to Romney is based on Romneycare and his support for things like raising the minimum wage.

I saw an article from a leftie, skimmed a sentence or two, thought it was about the opposite of what it was about, and jumped to a wrong conclusion.

I have read the article. I don't see what you are so incensed about regarding what I said relative to the article. The article is written by Dana Milbank. I think we are supposed to respect the man being talked about, but Dana Milbank calls the guy crazy.

And what am I to make of this from the article:

The gay rights group Pride in Utah has embraced him as a spokesman (“Mitt Romney’s Cousin Speaks Out”).

If I say I support park, am I going to get attacked for defending a gay spokesperson?

There are freepers here who have direct knowledge of the mormon faith, and I believe they are much better examples of the issues of that faith than this guy Dana Milbank drug out -- who the article says has never met Mitt Romney, and doesn't actually appear to be talking about anything specific that Mitt Romney did.

But I am simply not getting involved in the discussion of Mitt as a Bishop. I'm not attacking people for it, or discussing it, or saying anything about it. It's not something I want to get into in any way.

I just don't see how this left-wing article can become a rallying cry for anything. Here's a few more quotes from the article that I'm supposedly evil for not embracing:

There were Neil Bush’s S&L problems, Roger Clinton’s cocaine and Hugh Rodham’s pardons. ... As Meghan McCain can tell you, sharing a presidential candidate’s surname can be good for business. ... Richard Nixon’s brother Donald took a bailout from Howard Hughes

The article mentions a long list of various political personalities who had family members that were problems. In fact, Milbank mentions Obama's relatives, and then compares Park to them. Dana even noted that Romney brought up Obama's illegal uncle Omar. I couldn't tell if Dana was saying you shouldn't attack candidates for their family, or that you should, or was just being the typical crazy writer he always is.

Are you really going to rake me over the coals for not jumping to some conclusion about a column by DANA MILBANK? We regularly dismiss whatever Dana says, and even reading the entire article, I don't see it being a profound indictment of the cult of mormonism that you seem to think I'm not responding to strongly enough.

I defended Rick Perry when he was attacked because a pastor who introduced him had called Mormonism a cult. You should remember that, it was back when you were a Perry supporter, and people were getting on Perry for being associated with the pastor.