Vanderbilt poll ...; Political scientist says anti-Mormon bias finds cover

Vanderbilt News Service ^ | 01/18/08 | Ann Marie Deer Owens

[Reaganesque]

Some of us just don’t want to support a liberal. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Because the majority of what you say is his "record" is a complete and total distortion of what his actual record is. The fact of the matter is, there is a long list of real, hard-core conservatives who have either outright endorsed Mitt Romney or who have been supportive of his candidacy (Rush, Hannity, Ingraham, Coulter, Bork, Buckley, etc.) but you and your friends dismiss all of these inarguably conservative leaders as "senile," "stupid," "bought off" or worse. The majority of Republican primary voters thus far have voted for Mitt Romney. And yet you say the same of them as well. There is a mountain of credible evidence that Mitt Romney is who he says he is and yet you dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant.

So, you tell me, how is it that you are right and all of these other people are wrong, stupid or dishonest? Just what are your credentials that make you a better judge of who is and who isn't a conservative than these acknowledged conservative leaders?

[restornu]

big’ol_freeper I am really trying to figure where you are coming from I know a lot of Catholics on the RF get a lot of nasty things said to them I think those who do that are bigots!

Yet for some reason you think it is a joke when it done to LDS. I was not even on this thread and got this “you better watch out post for what I believe!”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1956386/posts?page=60#60

[restornu]

I was on so many threads yesterday I forgot but my reply was to humor you elsewise I had nothing to say!

[MHGinTN]

Well, so far you get the hyperbole award. Doesn’t change the facts of Mitt’s liberal history, but you get the award for trying to dissemble it into obscurity.

[Reaganesque]

I answered the question put to me. How about you? Why are all these conservatives wrong, crazy, stupid or liars? Why are you more qualified than they are to determine who is and is not conservative?

[MHGinTN]

Repeating hyperbole doesn’t lend any credulity to it ... you don’t get to set the axioms like ‘stupid’ or ‘carzy’ or ‘liars’. You hyperbolic Morons have been getting away with your hyperbole for too many weeks now at FR, calling people bigots and haters if they oppose your demigod Mitt.

[Reaganesque]

So your not going to answer the question or are you unable to answer it?

[dmw]

I know that many of the big name republicans have spoke in fairly positive ways about Mitt. What other option do they have? Have they actually said that Mitt has been a solid, consistent conservative as governor of MA? No, they haven’t as far as I can tell. What they are basically saying is that of all the republicans in the race it is their opinion that Mitt has the best chance of winning the republican nomination. They say that if he walks the talk that he could be a good choice. But therein lies the problem with many of us conservatives, will Mitt actually be a reliable conservative for us? Many of us, including the owner of this forum, and a good 70% of the FReepers here don’t trust him. His record speaks for itself, his past statements speak for itself. I will post a few of these again, but if you are like a good number of fliparoos here, no amount of facts is going to change your mind. Furthermore, you guys keep bringing up Rush, Ann and all these other people’s names up as if that is supposed to mean something to conservatives. Most of us here are conservatives first and republicans second. We really don’t care who supports Flip, we care about conservatism and that is our number one priority. Flip says he’s a “life time conservative”. Not true, he’s a recent convert to conservatism. If you are convinced he will actually start acting like a conservative when he gets elected president, I got a bridge to sell you.

Here’s some recent posts from JR and others that I’m sure you will minimize or refute...

JR posted this recently:

Well, it’s not just that Romney was for abortion before he was against it, or that under his watch and nanny state socialist legislation that he pushed under Ted Kennedy’s approving tutelage, Massachusetts now has Planned Parenhood $50 abortions on demand and also, as I understand, is the only state in the union that has actually enacted gay marriage, he has RINO history. But the buck doesn’t stop with Slick Willard.

Selected quotes:

Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”
- Boston Globe, March 2, 2006

“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
-2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
Boston Globe, July 3, 2005

“Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”
- National Review Online, February 11, 2005

“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006

“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005

“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”
- Romney’s 2002 campaign website

“Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference”
- A flier handed out at “Gay Pride” by the Romney/Healey Campaign

“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…”
- Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004

“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website

In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.

“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.

At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007

Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, August 1, 1994

In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.

“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”

Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”

Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007

“Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax ‘loophole’ closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders.”
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.

Governor Romney has changed his position on key campaign finance reform issues several times during public life. During his 1994 Senate campaign, he held far left positions that advocated for abolishing PACs and creating strict campaign spending limits.

- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s position on political free speech has undergone a radical evolution. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney took an outrageous position on campaign finance reform that put him to the left of the current McCain-Feingold legislation, arguing for campaign spending limits-unconstitutional even under Buckley v. Valeo-and the abolition of PACs:

“I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending...and to get that kind of money you’ve gotta cozy up as an incumbent to all of the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of relationship has an influence over the way you’re going to vote...And for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we’re not going to spend more than this in certain campaigns...I also would abolish PACS. You probably have one. I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money-whether it’s business, labor, or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence...”

In his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney proposed a radical new campaign finance system, in which privately-funded campaigns would be taxed 10% in order to fund publicly-funded campaigns as part of Massachusetts’ Clean Election Law in order to “spare taxpayers the burden of shouldering the entire expense of this program.” In 2003, he allowed a repeal of the Clean Elections Law to stand.

- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney

394 posted on 01/09/2008 10:22:38 PM PST by Jim Robinson

Sorry, to say Romney is a conservative you’d have to overlook his support for Roe v Wade and the thousands and thousands of innocent babes his support allowed to be ruthlessly murdered, on his watch, as he stood by and did nothing. Worse than nothing. He led the murderous charge. The man has no morals, no bedrock principles, no convictions, and no conscience. Conviently saying he’s changed his mind just in time to run for the presidency doesn’t cut it. The man should fall to his knees and beg forgiveness. And if he had any conscience at all, he’d resign from public life.
You’d also have to overlook his support for gay rights, shamnesty, the “assault rifle” ban, his big government we’ll solve all your problems nanny-statism, and his love affair with Ted Kennedy.
BTW, conservatives should just say no to RomneyCare. It’s not the free-market, private enterprise solution he proudly claims it to be. It’s unconstitutional government coercion, force, intrusion, socialism, fascism, totalitarianism and abortionism all rolled into one big government nanny-state boondoggle. He singlehandedly won the war for universal healthcare and government subsidized abortion FOR the DEMOCRATS. He’s Clinton, Schumer, Kennedy & Co.’s best friend. A useful idiot.
Thanks a lot, Mitt. Our Founders would’ve rebelled over such tyranny. In fact, they did.
Elephant? More like a big donkey in the room.
Thanks, but no thanks.
105 posted on 01/16/2008 3:38:35 PM PST by Jim Robinson

My post on another thread:

ROMNEYCARE AT A GLANCE
This is Romney’s health care plan of which he claims authorship and credit.
The plan guarantees Planned Parenthood a seat at the decision-making table.
The plan provides taxpayer-funded abortions for a copay of $50.
The plan penalizes individuals not buying health insurance coverage and small businesses not offering health insurance to their employees.
Romney Is Quick To Take Credit For Massachusetts’ Health Care Plan

“I love it. It’s a fabulous program.” (GOP Primary Debate, Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, MSNBC, 5/3/2007)
“But I helped write it and I knew it well...” (GOP Primary Debate, Reagan Library, Simi Valley, CA, MSNBC, 5/3/2007)
KEY ASPECTS OF ROMNEY’S MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE PLAN...

(1) Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney’s legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney’s plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm )

(2) Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions . Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: http://www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf )

Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood’s guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. (”Romney’s Health Care Vetoes,” Associated Press, 4/12/06)
(3) Punitive Toward Small Businesses. Small Businesses are fined $295-per-employee if they do not provide health insurance coverage to employees. (Steve LeBlanc, “Mass Lawmakers Ok Mandatory Health Bill,” Associated Press, 4/5/06)

(4) Punitive Toward Individuals. Individuals not obtaining health insurance coverage lose their personal state tax exemption in 2007, which will cost them an estimated $219 in higher taxes. In 2008, uncovered individuals are assessed a fine equal to 50-percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy, which could be as much as $2,000. (Michael Tanner, “No Miracle In Massachusetts,” Cato Institute, 6/6/06; Steve LeBlanc, “Timing Of Health Care Law’s Penalties Could Pose Risk For Romney, MA,” Associated Press, 11/9/07; William C. Symonds, “In Massachusetts, Health Care for All?” Business Week, 4/4/06 )

http://romneyfacts.com/redblue.php

The real Romney on abortion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

You asked me, “Just what are your credentials that make you a better judge of who is and who isn’t a conservative than these acknowledged conservative leaders?”

My credentials are the same as JR and the majority of the members on this forums. We look at the candidate’s past record and past statements and come to our conclusions based on that. We don’t believe Flip will all of the sudden become something he hasn’t been. You can call us cynics...we call you gullible.

[MHGinTN]

You don't deserve an answer what with your mocking tone so childishly spittled here at FR. But a more charitable Freeper has given you an excellent one in post #88.

[ BTW smartaleck, 'you are' is made into a contraction thusly: 'you're' ]

[xzins]

It sounds like there aren’t any words for “I think he’s a flip-flopper.”

I think it was Reagan, when he was in his first campaign against Carter, who was promoting welfare reform and had to deal with something similar to this.

Carter said that what Reagan was doing was actually using a code word....that the code word “welfare reform” actually meant something racist and anti-black.

Reagan asked something like “Could someone please tell me what the code word is for “welfare reform?”

[NeoCaveman]

He’s always said “I’m against it personally,
No, he has not.

Actually he has. Which is why Ted Kennedy in 1994 called him "multiple choice Mitt". As in "he's not pro-choice he's multiple choice".

[Elsie]

So your not going to answer the question or are you unable to answer it?

---

 

Click me!

[Reaganesque]

So, Free Republic and Jim Robinson ar the one and only sources of conservative opinion. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Reaganesque]

And here we get at the real reason so many are claiming Mitt Romney can’t be trusted! ALL MORMONS ARE LIARS. DECIEVERS! IT’S WHO THEY ARE. Precisely the attitude the above article talks about.

[ajay_kumar]

My point was, and is, that religion should be a private business. I am disappointed when people post virulent objections against a certain candidate but those backing that certain candidate are much more civil. How can hatred flow only one way?

[MHGinTN]

Um, you can stop with the irrational hyperbole now ... there isn’t another prize once you win for ‘hyperbole of the day’. Insulting fellow freepers isn’t the same as discussion, binks.

[dmw]

“So, Free Republic and Jim Robinson ar the one and only sources of conservative opinion. Thanks for clearing that up.”

I will take Jim Robinson’s and Free Republic’s brand of conservatism over yours any day! You never refuted anything that I posted. Much of what was posted was Flip’s own words. Embarrassing isn’t it, especially when you can’t refute or defend it. Why don’t you just be honest and admit you are supporting a liberal candidate for the republican nomination? I notice you have been here since 1999. Have you always been a liberal since signing up here or did you recently become one?

[TAdams8591]

Big Deal. I’ve had people come to my door to proselytize their religion, usually Jehovah’s Witnesses who are always neatly dressed and very polite. I nicely tell them I’m a Catholic and satisfied with my religion. They say goodbye and that’s the end of it.

[Reaganesque]

Your "facts" have been refuted more than once here on FR and elsewhere. Limbaugh, Coulter, Bork, Buckley and so on have all seen your "facts" and still find Romney acceptable. So to have most of the voters in these primary states and yet Romney has the most total votes cast for him and more delegates to his name than all of the other candidates combined. Now either they are all crazy, stupid or bribed or your "facts" are not as "factual" as you claim them to be.

[Elsie]

How can hatred flow only one way?

 

 

Not to worry...

 

...it doesn't.

 

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”