ROMNEY: Cautionary tale of card check

The Washington Times ^ | 03-25-09 | Mitt Romney

[GOP_Lady]

ROMNEY: Cautionary tale of card check Mitt Romney Wednesday, March 25, 2009

** FILE ** Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney submitted a column to The Washington Times as part of the Reinventing Conservatism series. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)

ANALYSIS/OPINION: (Part of our Reinventing Conservatism series)

In 2006, my last year as governor of Massachusetts, I vetoed a card-check bill that allowed public workers to organize if a majority signed union authorization cards as opposed to casting a traditional secret ballot. The veto was a gain for the rights of employees and employers to a fair election, but the victory was short-lived.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

Thank you for pulling all of that together and posting on this thread. It'll save me the trouble of having to do it tonight with my own copious bookmarks.

:)

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

P.S. Don’t forget all the Noonan, Lopez, Parker, and Brooks columns against Governor Palin as well.

[sitetest]

Dear GOP Poet,

I much prefer Govs. Palin and Jindal to Gov. Romney in 2012. I prefer folks who have been conservatives all along as opposed to folks whose conservatism is a recent innovation.

In 2008, Gov. Romney's serial conversions to various conservative causes were just too recent, too coincidentally-timed, and just plain old too much. He came across as a fraud to me. I'd have appreciated it if he'd have run for some lesser office than President of the United States of America for his virginal run as a conservative Republican.

However, by 2012, if he's stayed with conservative causes, I'd be ready to vote for him in the general election if he won the nomination. I'm appreciative of how he's going around the country supporting conservatives and conservative causes. But my preference is still for a candidate who actually governed as a conservative (even one who isn't perfectly conservative).

sitetest

[GoLightly]

Character matters. I’m sure you’ve heard that somewhere before. Switching positions, oft times trying to ride the fence to get elected, especially in matters of life and death (abortion) tell me that I’m dealing with someone who hasn’t the character to govern by principles that move the conservative cause forward. I don’t demand perfection in a candidate, but will not compromise on someone who’s positions are always up for grabs. Power over principles is an insurmountable character flaw.

[gondramB]

>>Character matters. I’m sure you’ve heard that somewhere before. Switching positions, oft times trying to ride the fence to get elected, especially in matters of life and death (abortion) tell me that I’m dealing with someone who hasn’t the character to govern by principles that move the conservative cause forward. I don’t demand perfection in a candidate, but will not compromise on someone who’s positions are always up for grabs. Power over principles is an insurmountable character flaw.<<

Are you saying that because he has flip flopped we shouldn’t work with him on any issue?

[GoLightly]

Depends on what you mean by “work with”. I say we need to support the issues that matter, not support the people who happen to be on our side, unless or until they demonstrate consistency on the position. While road to Damascus changes do happen, they’re rare, specially in politicians.

[mountainbunny]

And now I have to go as I have spent upwards of 12 hours not discussing political discourse but defending myself alone...

Seriously?

I've made 1950+ comments on FR. I would say that no more than 3-4 replies to me have even come close to bordering on 'hateful'. Needless to say, I have spent no more than a few minutes making a mental note not to engage that small number of people again. The vast majority of people, even those I disagree with vigorously, aren't hateful. They may be fierce in their convictions (as I am in my own) but that isn't hateful.

Discussing politics is a rough-and-tumble endeavor. The marketplace of ideas isn't a neat, tidy environment. Forceful comments don't equal hate. Name calling doesn't equal hate necessarily, either. People strenuously disagreeing with you philosophically, politically or religiously isn't inherently hateful.

[Diogenesis]

gondramB (RomneyBOT): "Are you saying that because Romney has flip flopped we shouldn’t work with him on any issue?"

It suggests that Romney has a duty cycle of only about ~15% on side of any issue.
Romney mutates, drifts and shifts. ... Sort of like the influenza virus.

[TAdams8591]

Mitt’s forte was taking companies out of the red. He could have done the same for our government. He would have been the right man for the job at exactly the right time.

[gondramB]

>>gondramB (RomneyBOT): “Are you saying that because Romney has flip flopped we shouldn’t work with him on any issue?”<<

So you attack me for even asking if we should work with Rhinos on certain issues Do you have any idea how self destructive that outlook would be for conservatism - how would you ever pass a single bill or even uphold a filibuster if you won’t cooperate at all with those who are not totally True?

Now for the next Presidential nomination we fight like heck to get a conservative but to reject support on issues like the card check from non-True believers is just begging to have no influence whatsoever.

[Diogenesis]

No one attacked you, making your post disingenuous,
just like the rest from the RomneyBOTs (and identifying you).

Too bad TeamROMNEY lies against conservatives
and especially GOP candidates and their little children.

[gondramB]

>>>No one attacked you, making your post disingenuous, just like the rest from the RomneyBOTs (and identifying you).

Too bad TeamROMNEY lies against conservatives and especially GOP candidates and their little children.<<

Given your great seniority here, I hate to have to go there .... but this latest post was not only another personal attack but appears deliberately dishonest.

Your zeal to call other Freepers names for if they don't act hateful enough to Romney is harmful. I'm never gonna support Romney for President but when he's on the right side of an important issue like the card check - that's a good thing. And using this to try to divide the Freepers and cause in-fighting is not helpful.

I was just talking about Romney and why it wasn't significant that he won the CPAC poll - because the 20% support he gets from conservatives is about his upper limit and he'll never be a good conservative candidate. But you are going further personally attacking Freepers who don't hate Romney enough - that's bad.

[gondramB]

FYI my previous comments on Romney

To: Norman Bates

>>Then it must be asked: what about those who got less than 20%? That does not an argument make.<<

First, I admit to not caring for Romney - McCain was about my fourth choice and still came in well above Romney/Guiliani

but I’d argue that those who got less than 20% either are not the guy or else they don’t have sufficient name recognition or organization yet.

135 posted on Saturday, February 28, 2009 10:38:01 PM by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies | Report Abuse]

>>Then it must be asked: what about those who got less than 20%? That does not an argument make.<<

First, I admit to not caring for Romney - McCain was about my fourth choice and still came in well above Romney/Guiliani

but I’d argue that those who got less than 20% either are not the guy or else they don’t have sufficient name recognition or organization yet.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Speaking as someone who supported Romney, I appreciate what you said.

Someone can disagree with him, but going over the top in hatred of the guy is ridiculous. And then to spew anger and hate to those who support him....not good.

Same thing happened with Bush. People began to throw out the BushBot label to everyone who defended him. Hm. Could someone maybe have agreed with Bush and defended him?

I voted for McCain, but that doesn’t make me a McCainbot. He was the best we had of the two miserable, sad, pathetic, disgusting choices. I still think he’d be a better Prez than Hussein.

But he’d suck compared to Romney, Thompson, Hunter, or Palin. Those four would be much truer to the conservative ideals that make America great.

Anyone, all this ramblin’ to say: when we rip each other apart, we aren’t focusing on the destruction of Hussein’s agenda.

[Diogenesis]

" Too bad TeamROMNEY lies against conservatives and especially GOP candidates and their little children."

gondramB: " .... but this latest post was not only another personal attack but appears deliberately dishonest."
Your zeal to call other Freepers names for if they don't act hateful enough to Romney is harmful.
I'm never gonna support Romney for President but when
he's on the right side of an important issue like the card check - that's a good thing.
And using this to try to divide the Freepers and cause in-fighting is not helpful.
But you are going further personally attacking Freepers who don't hate Romney enough - that's bad"

Look FRiend, first, it is observed that TeamROMNEY has lied about posters.
PROOF:
For example, it has been shown on thread after thread
that FRposters did not discuss Romney's religion
but only Romney's past behavior as a liberal RINO governor (an observable),
but the FReepers have each been smeared anyway.
(I could make a personal comment about this, but once again will not.)

As another example, specific examples of carpetbagger Romney's behavior
have been posted, and rather than (attempt to) rebut them, TeamROMNEY has disingenuously
smeared the posters (dare we say for whom and why?).
These TeamROMNEY attacks have been observed, noted, and are in the record.
They are legion in number.

In YOUR post, you falsely claim I "call(ed) Freepers names", was "deliberately dishonest".

Where? You never state, but twist in the wind about Romney and you.
You have lied, thrown a "brick" at a FReeper (like the rest), and skunked down.

Given that it is observed that you have been caught lying, yourself, for TeamROMNEY,
I could make a personal comment about this, but once again will not.

[gondramB]

You really should look in the mirror.

[Diogenesis]

Your response proves the vapidity of your position (once again).
My apology for presuming your intelligence.

[gondramB]

This conversation is really bizzare. I don’t like Romney. I’ve never supported Romney. But you are attacking and calling me a Romneybot because I am not sufficiently hateful. And then you are claiming you are not calliung anyone names.

You also complain I have not attacked Romany’s religion. Is that the root of this? I really don’t understand your pathology here. Are we all supposed to either hate Mormons or else get endless attacks from you?

Be that as it may... given your great seniority to me here, I’ll let you have any last words/attacks you wish.

And on other than this topic where you seem to be over some kind of ledge, I do actually wish you well.

[Finny]

If I may kick in here, gondramB, with a possible explanation for Diogenesis -- I won't presume to speak for him -- I can only say what I think is at work here.

Dio and I and many other FReepers frequent Romney threads because we are deeply convinced that Romney is a Trojan Horse to conservatives. We don't trust him as far as we can throw him. His words are Eddie Haskell's when he says, "You certainly look nice today, Mrs. Cleaver!" When Romney utters turns of phrase that sound like music to conservatives' ears and then conservatives start praising him, it bothers us quite a lot because WE have excellent, researched, documented reason to know that he is saying these things because he understands it's what conservatives want to hear, and that conservatives who are by nature good-hearted and generous, even those who didn't support him in the primary, will "give him his due" and hear what they want to hear because it is easier and the path of least resistance.

ALSO, on Free Republic, on Romney threads, Romney supporters distinguish themselves greatly from supporters of ALL other conservative candidates -- Huck, Giulani, Thompson, McCain, even Ron Paul -- in extremely profound ways that make thoughtful FReepers wince:

-- Frequently -- to the point of it being laughable -- use the word "hate" to sum up the motivation for people who object to Rommey for clearly stated, sourced, and cited reasons having to do with his tendency to Big Government solutions and interference via government in everything from gay "rights" to gun rights.

-- Repeatedly, month after month, falsely claim that Romney was "endorsed" by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Michael Reagan (two that I've researched personally, leaving me in doubt of all the OTHER claimed "endorsements" as well). Even after it is proved beyond shadow of doubt that no "endorsement" exists or was intended. I even had one ardent Romney supporter, lady lawyer, imply that when Rush said "I stress again here: I am not endorsing anybody" after praising Romney for his Religion in America speech, that Rush's way of saying he endorsed the guy!

-- Even though Romney's Mormonism is absent from opponents such as mine's arguments against Romney, Romney supporters typically insist that those of us who call on the GOP to reject Romney because of his big government mentality, reject him mainly on the grounds that he is a Mormon. They pull the "Mormon bigotry" card the same way and with the same frequency as liberal blacks pull the racist card.

-- Romney supporters frequently blame the fact that Obama is in the White House, on those of us who rejected Romney, even going so far as to call us "Obamabots."

In short, typical Romney supporters, as opposed to the supporters of all the other candidates -- are unique in their ugly tendencies to being poor losers with very low standards regarding truth and repeated willingness to lie to fellow Republicans about their candidate in order to get support.

THAT is why it bothers me to see anyone in the GOP praising Romney, even when Romney says what we want to hear. It's the same as praising Obama for saying "We must exercise personal responsiblity!" Thoughtful people understand a dangerous fraud when they see one, and understand that that fraud is made even more dangerous when he is praised by those who should be rejecting him in their own interest!!!!

[Reno232]

You talk about Mitt & his “sycophants”. Hmmm. What about the minority, but yet very vocal anti-Mitt sycophants. I've always found it very interesting that the Mitt haters qoute such conservative Bastian's as the Boston Globe, et al /sarc, but yet never qoute conservatives such as Rush, Coulter, Ingraham, Bork, Hewitt, Levin, etc..... when bashing Mitt. Could it be that there's no ammo there from the leaders of the conservative movement?

And you talk about sycophants? Many of us conservatives simply see areas where Mitt has been ravaged by liberals in the same way they do all conservatives. Has Romney been perfect? NO! Was Reagan? NO! Did both do very nonconservative things as Governor's? Yes!

Reagan understood the necessity of compromise to get things done, just as Romney. Can you imagine how Reagan would be vilified here today after his stint as Governor & after other rather nonconservative things he did afterwords? After raising taxes by over a billion, signing into law Calif.’s abortion law, no-fault divorce, amnesty for illegal aliens, his vocal support for the Brady bill, etc.?

But yet, Romney, even after all the conservative principles he is setting forth for the conservative agenda, is still get burned at the stake by folks like you. I appreciate your misgivings about Mitt's past. I think it is somewhat hypocritical however for you to forgive Reagan after his misdeeds & yet not extend the same for Romney who is sending out a very conservative message now, not withstanding what he may have done in the past.

I find it fascinating that you claim to be conservative (and I consider you to be)yet align yourself w/ the views of the libs in regards to Mitt. You certainly don't align yourself w/ leaders of the conservative movement. The vitriol you express on the Mormon threads may be a clue as to your motivation, your claims to the contrary not withstanding. There seems to be a common thread there.

Many LDS back Mitt, not b/c he's LDS, but b/c they see him as a great, not only, option. Most LDS are embarrassed by Harry Reid & would not vote for him even though he is, gasp, LDS. I, for one, will be vigorously campaigning against Reid this coming year even though he is LDS. I feel he is wrong for America. All conservative leaders agree w/ me on that. Most agree w/ me on Romney as well. Not that their endorsement is my motivation, or that that brings me to my conclusion, but it is nice to know I'm in good company w/ some of the brighter minds around.

And who's your company? The Globe, N.Y. Times, Diogenesis, etc.? I would rather have my company than yours. Just my opinion.