Mitt Romney Backer Accuses Fred Thompson of Bribing Pro-Life Group

LifeNews ^ | 11/14/2007 | Steven Ertelt

[Reaganesque]

I couldn’t agree more.

[GregH]

Fred is doing fine moneywise? Then why all this relentless whining from Fred’s supporters about Mitt’s financial advantage.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Excellent post.

“Sometimes the truth hurts. And sometimes it feels real good.”~~Henry Rollins

That felt good. Real good.

[Petronski]

Printing the word “zero” in huge text is very telling. You’re trying to convince yourself there’s zero evidence, and I don’t think it’s working.

That buzzing you feel is called cognitive dissonance.

[TAdams8591]

Bravo!!!!! Soooo well done! : )

[Reaganesque]

I asked you to present specific evidence of money offered by the Romney campaign that was explicitly intended to "buy", "bribe", "purchase", lease, rent, sublet or whatever you want to call (in this iteration of your excuse making), votes and the best you can manage is to quibble about my usage of font size. What's telling is your inability to answer a direct question.

Show me some direct, hard evidence that any of Mitt Romney's money was given with the explicit understanding that the recipient was to give his/her/their vote to Romney.

Until such time as you can present any such evidence, your charges are, to my mind, nothing but the politically motivated rantings of a petty political hack who knows little about promoting his candidate but quite a bit about tearing opponents down.

It's precisely this kind of attitude that is the reason why recent elections have been so close. Candidates have gotten used to presenting themselves as "I'm not my opponent." It's campaigning on the cheap. Promoting yourself is hard work, something that most politicians fear and loathe. Tearing down the other guy is the easy way out. It's intellectually lazy, but it is infinitely easier than actually presenting a case to vote for your candidate. Why should anyone run to the polls if all you have to vote for is "I'm not him" and "I'm not her"?

If we want to win, we need to stop tearing each other down and start building up our respective candidates so that when it comes time to face the Democrat nominee (a Party that is doctrinally and intellectually incapable at this time of providing any reason to vote for their candidate), we will have a strong case to present to the American people as to why our candidate should be in the White House as opposed to why their's shouldn't. That's a winning strategy.

[Petronski]

Slick Willard is too smart to leave a paper trail. But folks can still see what’s happening and use their common sense.

Your boy is Schwarzenegger writ large: playing at conservative just long enough to get elected. Don’t look at my massive record, check out my hair! Stay away from my words on YouTube, all that matters is what I’m saying now.

Willard is your candidate, he will not be mine.

[Reaganesque]

An admission that you have no evidence backed up by another assumption that wrongdoing occurred regardless. That’s one step forward and two backwards.