I am so down with you on that statement!
I consider myself a strong, ideological conservative. But I have always been willing to give Gov. Romney a hearing. I look at his life and I see an honorable and capable man who has lived by conservative values. I also admire his intelligence and business experience. I have hardly been able to get to the point of looking at whether he has been sufficiently conservative or is an opportunistic RINO, as his enemies claim. (I can't stand John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and other such RINOs.)
But I always find myself defending Romney without ever getting around to giving his record a hard look. And that is because those against him are so nasty and hysterical.
Perhaps some despise him for purely legitimate ideological reasons. But most conservatives who are fiercely against him are motivated, I'm afraid, by religious bigotry. I have no patience with it.
Excellent point.
I really don't think Romney would make a good president. Generally speaking CEOs and technicians don't, because they don't think politically. That goes for Romney as well: he doesn't have what it takes to prevail in politics.
But so many people jump from not agreeing with Romney on all the issues or not wanting to vote for him to extremes of abuse and vilification that it's hard not to defend someone who's been a capable administator and a decent family man.
Nowadays, people don't look at the good and bad points of public figures and come to a balanced assessment of their character and value. They shoot first and ask questions later. If one assumes that the two sides of the political aisle are at total war, the next step is to attack those in one's own party one isn't 100% in agreement with.
Welcome to freerepublic, maybe you should read a little more of what the conservatives here have to say about Romney, before you call freerepublic bigoted.
Do you have any idea how many people with your viewpoint have come and gone here on Free Republic? And not gone willingly in many instances? It's not unique and it doesn't add anything positive to the Conservative movement at all.
Your attribution of bigoted motives to Romney opposition is bullshit. Pure and simple.
Argue the facts or leave. I believe I speak for a majority of FReepers when I say that there is no place for this kind of narrow-minded, ad hominem paranoia around here.
We have no patience for it.
You've admitted to not knowing much about Romney, yet defend him.
ROFLOL!!
Fair enough, but speaking as a Mass. resident, I can tell you that Romney is a political "bull in a china shop". His lack of real support for Kerry Healey's gubernatorial bid helped give us what I refer to as David Axelrod's Beta test - AKA Deval Patrick.
And then there is of course "Romneycare". Another Massachusetts Beta test. Geez, why do I even still live here?.. Anyway, my point was supposed to be that however well intentioned Mitt's support is, I would feel more comfortable without it.
I see by your sign-up date that you may be a newbie. I have often thanked Jim Robinson for his practice of allowing posts from Romney supporters on Free Republic, and I say it because I know that the behavior of those supporters speaks volumes about Romney.
If you have lurked or read in-depth over the years and if you have done independent checking and research on your own in tandem from sources not related to Free Republic -- you will see that Romney supporters:
1. LIE outright often and brazenly about Rush Limbaugh's take on Romney. Again and again and again, they claim that Limbaugh "endorsed" and/or "supported" him, when the solid, bottom line is that Rush has utterly DECLINED to do any such thing. Worth noting: during the primary campaign, Romney's own website clipped a quote from Michael Reagan praising Romney with the obvious purpose of leading readers to believe that Romney had won the endorsement of Michael Reagan. Guess what I did? I looked up the full text of Michael Reagan's piece from which the quote was taken. The very next line in the piece was "The same can be said of Rudy Giuliani." In other words, Reagan himself had made it very clear in the piece that he was NOT intending it as an endorsement of Romney. Romney's ethical bar is so very low that he DELIBERATELY MISLEAD those visiting his website.
2. LIE outright about Ronald Reagan, describing his take on abortion as "adamantly pro choice," which is a falsehood on its face.
3. Claim that items indicting Romney are "forgeries," and utterly failing to provide any evidence, let alone proof, when asked.
4. Frequently attribute to "hate" and "religious bigotry" the solid, well-thought, documented reasons that many FReepers have for rejecting Romney and encouraging other Replicans to do the same. These Romney supporters refuse to argue facts -- instead they choose to sidestep reason and emotionally manipulate the discussion the way a child does its parent: "Mommy, you won't let me eat ice cream for dinner because you hate me!" Hate, dear, has nothing to do with MY solid and aggressive rejection of Romney -- except in that I hate big government nanny state politicians, and Romney is one.
For you to accuse Romney opponents on Free Republic of being "nasty and hysterical" indicates that you are very poorly read on the history of Romney supporters' arguments and behavior on Free Republic over the past three years.
If you WERE well read on the subject, and if you actually put your money where your mouth is and did your own online research (independent of Free Republic) on what Romney says in his speeches and in the articles he writes, you would see that indeed, there is considerable REASON (as opposed to "instinct") to reject Romney on the grounds that his political philosophy of bigger, more intrusive government is part of the problem. Please, dear, READ/LISTEN TO HIS COMPLETE SPEECHES/WRITINGS, not just the platitudes and soundbites, and you will discover in the details that his every proposed solution for perceived problems entails bigger government and more government intrusion. Please start investigating for yourself instead of just going by instinct when forming your opinion of Romney.
Conversely, while political debates were super-heated on Free Republic during the primaries and the election, ZERO OTHER CANDIDATES' SUPPORTERS, not those of Giuliani, not McCain, not Thompson, not Huckabee, not Palin -- NONE OF THEM, in all the years I've been reading Free Republic, have ever held a candle to Romney supporters in terms of deliberate distortion of the truth, downright lying, getting dirty and emotional and nasty with those who disagree, and using the Romney signature claim of "hate" (in other words, irrational emotion) being the reason thinking conservatives reject Romney.
Sadly, you are representative of many Republicans and conservatives who buy Romney's schtick -- the reason you buy the schtick is becuase YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO YOUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE in investigating Romney for yourself. It's so much easier to take him at his word, isn't it?
Here's a suggestion: if you're not going to do your own due diligence in investigating fully the candidates, then PLEASE DON'T VOTE because you won't know what you're voting for.
Them's the ONLY reasons we get to choose from?
Since it only took 60 posts to bring it up; perhaps YOU can expand on your MINDREADING ability shown here.
Explain to us just why MUSLIMs do not like him...
Say something decent about Gov. Romney and get banned. So much for liberty for all. I think the nastiness against him is actually winning supporters for him, or at least inviting an honest look.