Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: fieldmarshaldj

THere is a vocal minority here that seems to “know” all about this mythic Mitt Romney, who has the power to do just about anything evil you can think of.

Most of us, including a sizeable minority of the conservatives that make up the Republican party, never saw Romney the way you did. We read all the posts, looked through the links, heard the arguments, but were not persuaded.

This includes not only a fair number of Freepers, who while not supporting Romney as their first choice, were ready to vote for him if necessary, and said so in Freeper polls. This includes Rush Limbaugh, who NEVER would have supported people voting for Romney if he saw Romney the way you did.

This includes public officials who are conservatives who supported Romney. While other people’s endorsements are not particularly persuasive to prove anything, they certainly would NOT have supported Romney if he was the devil incarnate that the few here at FR paint him to be.

This includes some heavy-hitting conservatives, some think tanks, some organizations that again, may have been mistaken, but would never have supported a candidate who was anything like what the few here painted Romney to be.

Now, every one of us could be dead wrong. Romney could in fact be the diabolical person described here. But there are simply too many people who reject the claims made by the few here for you to argue that it is US that are willfully ignorant of the truth.

The opponents of Romney have had to burn down a fair amount of the conservative support structure to keep up their mythos of the uber-evil genius; because in order to keep their facade that only fools couldn’t see this “truth”, they have had to label as fools many people who otherwise are solidly on the conservative side and have been persuasive advocates for our positions.

Interestingly, I have seen your group using selective amnesia now, because I think you all understand the insanity of burning down the village to save it. So Rush Limbaugh gets a pass, as do other well-known and popular conservative pundits. Elected officials running for office now who were Romney endorsers, active in his campaign, are now given a pass for their “indescretion”.

But you still need bogeymen, so the rediculous attacks continue on people who supported Romney but who otherwise have no real power or authority. Who knows how many good conservative workers have been turned off by the childish tactics — not me of course, because as I’ve said many times I won’t judge my values based on anonymous internet postings.

But I know strong conservatives who are sick of it, and have left. And I’ve seen the “glee” in the posts of the few here who celebrate the destruction of their own in the name of their ill-conceived purity.

Romney could be everything you claim him to be, but people who know him personally, and who I have spoken to personally, and who are seen as impeccable conservatives, disagree vehemently with your anonymous postings.

So forgive me if I give more credence to the people I see, who I can look into the eyes of, people of KNOWN character.

BTW, to illustrate the problems I have with the Romney stories here, it still amazes me that so many freepers give any credence to the absurd notion that Romney could have stopped Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. This concept, pushed by an organization but which has no legal or logical basis, demeans those who believe it, and weakens any arguments they may try to make about Romney, or really anything else.


109 posted on 09/02/2009 6:04:42 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
You are trying to spin history for Romney (again, again).

But for Mitt Romney, the Constitution would have played out.

But Romney is the pre-Obama.

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor/Dictator Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

So, in fact, you are incorrect.

111 posted on 09/03/2009 6:55:41 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Those who go below the surface do so at their peril" - Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT; Allegra; American Constitutionalist; CanadianMusherinMI; Clemenza; Diogenesis; ...
Forgive me, Charles, I will have to boldface my comments to distinguish them from your remarks, so please do try to contain your excitement...

"THere is a vocal minority here that seems to “know” all about this mythic Mitt Romney, who has the power to do just about anything evil you can think of."

Of course you are being cheeky here. A full majority of Free Republic recognizes him for what he is. :-)

"Most of us, including a sizeable minority of the conservatives that make up the Republican party, never saw Romney the way you did."

That's because they refused to see what was plain as day, or had the audacity and stunning stupidity to take a renowned pathological liar at his word. Too many just chose to look the other way because McCain was so bad and Huckster, too (although with only modest exceptions, Huckster and Slick Willard were like two peas in a pod).

"We read all the posts, looked through the links, heard the arguments, but were not persuaded."

Nonsense, Charles, nonsense. I will state with 100% certainty, speaking to the brigades on FR, that no posts were read, no links were looked at, and no arguments listened to. How so ? Because after these same individuals were informed as to the truth, they carried on with the same repeating of lies, propaganda, and filthy attacks - and those just on the people that dared speak the truth. I should know, I was at the forefront of the receiving end.

"This includes not only a fair number of Freepers, who while not supporting Romney as their first choice, were ready to vote for him if necessary, and said so in Freeper polls."

See above, that had to do with the unfounded fear that McCain was worse than he. He wasn't (but, yes, McCain was still bad -- the last 3 primary leaders were all very bad).

"This includes Rush Limbaugh, who NEVER would have supported people voting for Romney if he saw Romney the way you did."

Charles, Charles, Charles. You should know better than to repeat that lie. You're reading right off the talking points page of the Slick Willardbot manual. That ranks almost right up there with the "you hate/oppose Slick Willard because he's a Mormon."

"This includes public officials who are conservatives who supported Romney."

Every time one of those "endorsements" came out, we personally reviewed them. Virtually all were suspicious.

"While other people’s endorsements are not particularly persuasive to prove anything, they certainly would NOT have supported Romney if he was the devil incarnate that the few here at FR paint him to be."

I always said, "follow the money." It always leads to the truth.

"This includes some heavy-hitting conservatives, some think tanks, some organizations that again, may have been mistaken, but would never have supported a candidate who was anything like what the few here painted Romney to be."

Again, Charles, follow the money. We were here all the time going over those one by one, every day, picking them apart. Where were you ?

"Now, every one of us could be dead wrong. Romney could in fact be the diabolical person described here. But there are simply too many people who reject the claims made by the few here for you to argue that it is US that are willfully ignorant of the truth."

Again, these aren't "claims" made by "few." This is the stated belief and knowledge that this man was attempting to purchase through fraud and deception, the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination. Majority belief, Charles. The belief of the owner of this website, Charles, who made his position clear. This was based upon a close scrutiny of the individual in question. So, yes, Charles, every one of you were dead wrong. People of good conscience could not merely sit by and allow this to happen, and thank heavens we raised enough awareness to put a stop to it. After-the-fact statements of "Oh, I guess you were right after all" are absolutely worthless after the damage was done. I was just as adamant 6 years ago stopping Ah-nold from becoming Governor of California, and everything I said about him before he won the office came true - and worse.

"The opponents of Romney have had to burn down a fair amount of the conservative support structure to keep up their mythos of the uber-evil genius; because in order to keep their facade that only fools couldn’t see this “truth”, they have had to label as fools many people who otherwise are solidly on the conservative side and have been persuasive advocates for our positions."

See, Charles, when you use these ridiculous phrases like "evil", "uber-evil genius", etc, it really doesn't reflect well on you. You use them to dismiss any well-founded accusations and examples of his public conduct while in office and actions while campaigning. There are bad people in politics that seek personal gain at the expense of others, the community, their states, or their country, and they don't care what they do in order to get it and keep it. Most of those people are in the Democrat party, but there's a minority of them in the GOP, and we must endeavor to expose them and run them out (or stop them before they reach a position of power). I am only sorry I didn't speak forcefully against him before he became Governor of MA, because I was fool enough to take him at his word, even though there was already enough evidence he had no intention of fulfilling his promises. But yes, Charles, those that would take this liar at his word are either fools or are accomplices. Fortunately, most politicians get only one opportunity with me. They either keep their word and do what they say, or they will never enjoy my support again. It's that simple, Charles.

"Interestingly, I have seen your group using selective amnesia now, because I think you all understand the insanity of burning down the village to save it. So Rush Limbaugh gets a pass, as do other well-known and popular conservative pundits. Elected officials running for office now who were Romney endorsers, active in his campaign, are now given a pass for their “indescretion”."

And you repeat this lie again, Charles. A debunked talking point. When you continue to repeat it, it makes it hard to take anything you say seriously. You continuously state your fervent belief that Slick Willard was remotely acceptable, let alone a believable, accomplished Conservative when everything in his record and behavior is to the contrary. You aid his cause of fraud when you repeat the lies and accuse those of documenting his conduct, behavior, and lies as somehow a fringe element. I'm sorry, Charles, but I say to damnation with those that consider speaking the truth on politicians is to be mocked or scorned.

"But you still need bogeymen, so the rediculous attacks continue on people who supported Romney but who otherwise have no real power or authority. Who knows how many good conservative workers have been turned off by the childish tactics — not me of course, because as I’ve said many times I won’t judge my values based on anonymous internet postings."

Nor apparently will you judge based on the truth, either. That speaks more to flaws in yourself than anything else. See, Charles, one reason why I appreciate this website is that, for the most part, people are honest around here. Because not one individual can keep up with everything in the political realm (heavens knows I try, but tracking thousands of elected officials is beyond a single human being's capacity), we have many on here who do. We tend to value each other's opinions and judgments, because they're usually based on a generally shared goal (with a modest level of differences), so that basically when one respected FReeper makes a statement regarding an elected official, you can generally take it to the bank. But when some FReepers of a more malevolent nature, those that do not share our goals and values, come here to spread mistruths and slander against Conservatives and Conservatism, these trolls bring dishonor to this website.

As I've told the diehards, if you truly believe this man is wonderful, and so incredibly accomplished and successful - in your opinion - well, you're entitled to your opinion. You're entitled to believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, and Santa Claus. You're entitled to believe the sun rises in the west. You're entitled to believe you're more well-endowed than John Holmes or richer than Midas. You're entitled to believe you poop Skittles and whiz Merlot. But what you are not entitled to, sir, is your own set of facts. So again, your opinion of what he is is whatever you wish it to be, but please stop insulting the rest of us, insulting our intelligence by telling us with all "sincerity" how great he is when it flies in the face of the truth. You all end up sounding no different than the supporters of Zero, who really do believe he is the Messiah. Remember, Charles, these people are politicians. While you may not be the worst example of his delusional apologists on this board (I won't dignify the loons by mentioning their names, but we know who they are), you personally should know better than that. I think some small part of you does, but you just have this real aversion to acknowledging that I and the bulk of the members of this website, are actually right.

"But I know strong conservatives who are sick of it, and have left. And I’ve seen the “glee” in the posts of the few here who celebrate the destruction of their own in the name of their ill-conceived purity."

Charles, if they left this board because people were rightly exposing Slick Willard's record, they weren't strong Conservatives, let alone Conservatives at all. They are misguided fools, easily impressed with a slick, attractive outer package. No one expects to agree with a pol 100% of the time because FReepers don't agree with other FReepers 100% of the time, but we agree enough to know what is Conservative and what isn't. We expect our elected officials to stand for those values and to push for that agenda once in office, not tell us one thing (talk Conservative) and go and do another (vote liberal). In which case, they deserve to be toppled. They represent us, not their own personal egos, agendas and vanity. But if you expect I and the rest of us to quietly sit by and support those pols that spit in our face and mock our values and agenda, you're sadly mistaken, Charles.

"Romney could be everything you claim him to be, but people who know him personally, and who I have spoken to personally, and who are seen as impeccable conservatives, disagree vehemently with your anonymous postings."

And I submit, again, that they are either fooled by him (as I once was), or they support his destructive behavior (or are employees who are in no position to speak ill of him, lest they lose their paycheck or job). We've been over the examples ad infinitum. If these individuals "disagree" with my "anonymous postings" (yeah, real anonymous, I've been on this website almost 11 years, registered for 8 1/2), they can step up and speak. Methinks they are afraid to because they know the Emperor has no clothes.

"So forgive me if I give more credence to the people I see, who I can look into the eyes of, people of KNOWN character."

Some people are excellent at lying straight to your face. Slick Willard is one of those people. The question is whether he does it deliberately, or whether he can't even help himself.

"BTW, to illustrate the problems I have with the Romney stories here, it still amazes me that so many freepers give any credence to the absurd notion that Romney could have stopped Gay Marriage in Massachusetts. This concept, pushed by an organization but which has no legal or logical basis, demeans those who believe it, and weakens any arguments they may try to make about Romney, or really anything else."

He had no intention of even trying to stop it, and perpetuated the myth that he stood like a stone wall against it. He aided its cause, and that's been documented many times. I don't know what this shadowy organization is you allude to, but like his supporters, you tend to howl any time the facts come out about him. Truly a shame, because the one thing I know about real Conservatives, they don't believe in lies and Myths. Liberals do.

113 posted on 09/03/2009 7:20:34 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson