I think the problem is that Fredheads want to give Fred a pass on prior statements and always point to his actual record as being good enough, but Mitt gets no such breaks. A little fairness is all anyone wants (both candidates have damaging youtube videos out there).
I think it is the hypocrisy that gets some people angry and then they are unable to post as civilly as they should.
However, for the most part, the Romney posters are very civil and usually make very factual postings backed up with evidence. I am not sure why people have to call us Willard-ites and make other nasty comments.
The truth is many candidates made prior statements that do no match up with their actual record while in office. I think more weight should be given to the actual record.
While some may find Mitt's prior statements more objectionable than Fred's past statements -- I give him a break because he was running for office in Massachusetts and not Tennessee.
The truth is that both Fred and Mitt are better than Rudy on this issue.
The truth is that Duncan Hunter, however, has the strongest pro-life record of all the candidates supported by FReepers.
I wish we could all just stipulate to this and move on to other issues.
All conservatives should be immediately skeptical of any self-identified conservative who has won statewide office in Massachusetts.
People say that "Fredheads want to give Fred a pass on prior statements and always point to his actual record as being good enough, but Mitt gets no such breaks."
These are the people who want to equate a questionnaire that an aide filled out 13 years ago with Mitt Romney's lifetime of being pro-choice and subsequent conversion.
A little fairness is all anyone wants (both candidates have damaging youtube videos out there)
Fred Thompson has a video of him saying exactly the same things he's always said about abortion and people say it means he's pro-choice. Mitt Romney has a video excoriating his opponent in a governor's race because she dares to say he's less pro-choice than she is. Little bit of a difference, no?
for the most part, the Romney posters are very civil and usually make very factual postings backed up with evidence
Phony or incomplete or misleading information from dubious sources claiming outrageous things intended to bring the record of a conservative down to the level of a recent convert to conservatism are NOT 'factual postings backed up with evidence'.
I think it is the hypocrisy that gets some people angry and then they are unable to post as civilly as they should.
You bet your butt it does.
Here's the problem if you want to get through all the BS and down to the heart of it. We don't trust Mitt Romney. Mitt has changed his tunes too many times and in too many serious ways for people like me to support him.
He may well be telling the God's honest truth, but the fact is that it is too important an election for us to bet on a guy that was singing an opposite tune on many issues as late as 2002. And you can say that he wasn't all you want, we all know that he was.
And I've heard the mantra that we have to look past his words and forget about them and look to the record. If his words were meaningless then, they are just as meaningless now and you know that. And words are all we can get from the man at this point.
It's actually a shame, because Mitt Romney seems like a genuinely nice individual. If he were to take a lower position to prove his conservative bona fides in a more substantial way and over a longer period of time, I could see myself being a supporter. However, time is something we don't have prior to this election.