Romney's honesty problem (Mitt lied about his own mother's position on abortion?! 8/07)

Boston Globe ^ | August 9, 2007 | Joan Vennochi

[bw17]

Consider yourself pinged. Thanks for the clarification.

[Reaganesque]

The phrase takes one to know one leaps to mind.

[bw17]

I already refuted the allegations. Read post #7.

[ChurtleDawg]

So are you saying his father did march with Martin Luther King?

[ChurtleDawg]

So the Boston Globe is biased. It doesn’t make Romney’s tall tales true

[bw17]

“the revelations about him *AND HIS RELIGION* will reduce the turnout of Christian Conservative voters enough to sweep aside conservatism.”

---

Thank you for your honesty in admitting that religious bigotry is what drives the anti-Romney agenda.

(I’m Roman Catholic BTW...and fully support the man for the morals and values we share...not our conflicting interpretation of who Jesus Christ was).

[cinives]

Do you really think Huck is humble ?

No way, no how.

[Colofornian]

What a coincidence! Willard was once a pro-choice politician appreciated by NARAL.

You didn't finish the sentence: Willard was once a pro-choice politician appreciated by NARAL....who attended Planned Parenthood events funded by his wife & others...who a dozen years after that ensured that a Planned Parenthood rep would forever be on the oversight board for RomneyCare and who ensured that the uninsured could get $50 abortions...all because's "every action I undertook as a governor was pro-life!"

[Leisler]

It could be that lazy leftist journalists just find Mitt easy to write about.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

You should ping people when you attempt to malign them in an effort to support your pathetic phony candidate.

[ejonesie22]

Actaully I, like many others, could care less about the man’s religion.

It is his commitment to Conservative ideals I question....

[Leisler]

What, you don’t think taxpayers under Romneycare shouldn’t pay for transgendering? Provided the younger ones have permission of their parents. Or, are older than 16.

[Colofornian]

So the Boston Globe is biased. It doesn’t make Romney’s tall tales true

Good point.

I can't begin to tell you the hundreds & hundreds of times I've seen the tactic you responded to exercised in FReeper posts...since posters can't or won't take issue with the facts, they go after the source...

If it's a liberal media source, the tactic is to go after them by implying "Well consider the source...must be 100% untrustworthy...you need to ignore these sources while we deny them."

If it's a conservative Evangelical source, the tactic is "Oh, they're just 'anti-Mormons' or they're just 'bigots'...you need to ignore these sources while we 'ad-hominen' them."

[ejonesie22]

But then they would have to back it up...

That’s no fun...

[bw17]

Yes, Petronski has covered that with me already.

[steve86]

These are not very good Mormons.

[Colofornian]

I don't know. Sadly, he's not the only liar running for the most powerful position in the nation.

Well, based upon all the comments we'd see in threads who would discount his other-worldly commitments by saying, "I'm not voting for pastor-in-chief," I think these folks should just discount all these accusations about him lying about a civil rights march & this one & others by just saying, "I'm not voting for a liar-in-chief, just..."

[kevkrom]

You didn't finish the sentence: Willard was once a pro-choice politician appreciated by NARAL....who attended Planned Parenthood events funded by his wife & others...who a dozen years after that ensured that a Planned Parenthood rep would forever be on the oversight board for RomneyCare and who ensured that the uninsured could get $50 abortions...all because's "every action I undertook as a governor was pro-life!"

You forgot to add: who still believes that "unwanted" embryos should be used for medical experimentation.

[Leisler]

I’d love to send to Washington a 100 religious human sacrifice, eating-the-still-beating-hearts-of-their-opponents types.

(Just for a single term.)

(Maybe two terms, and one Senate session. Max)

[Servant of the Cross]

There's several threads today which are lamenting that "us conservatives" are acting like democrats and engaging in the 'politics of personal destruction' on the Republican candidates (Mitt and Huck mostly since Rudy has finally been pulled down some). A fair amount of this points at supporters of Fred (the FR 'chosen', as it were). I believe that this scrutiny and education is necessary and of value - it is what the primaries are about. The survivor needs to have been tested.

In 2008 especially, when a likely opponent is Hillary, our candidate has to be clearly "authentic" so as to have a marked contrast to the phoniness of the Dem nominee. IMO, this is why the highlighting of Mike and Mitt's weaker "authenticity" is extremely important and necessary. If we don't do it, Heaven knows that Hill or Barak would use it very effectively if either of these guys made it to the general. Her Rudy, Mitt or Mike game plans are already finalized. She doesn't have one for Fred (and doesn't need one for Duncan).