Posted on 02/02/2010 11:40:49 AM PST by yongin
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: For those reading 2012 implications out of Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s monthly PAC newsletter provides some insights.
Brown, R-Mass., is featured in two pictures in the newsletter, and Romney takes full ownership of his victory:
“As supporters of the PAC, you deserve a thank you,” the newsletter from Romney’s Free Strong America PAC reads. “Your support made it possible for Governor Romney to get behind Senator Brown from the very beginning, when polls showed him a 30-point underdog and everyone assumed the outcome was pre-ordained in favor of the Democrats.”
“Governor Romney asked his entire political team to help the then-unknown Brown, and he raised early money for him at a time when very few people would give him a second look.”
Indeed, several key figures in Brown’s victory -- notably Eric Fehrnstrom, Beth Myers, and Peter Flaherty -- were and continue to be Romney people.
Brown’s campaign manager, Beth Lindstrom, was a member of Romney’s Cabinet; his press secretary, Felix Browne, was a deputy press secretary under Gov. Romney; Brown finance director Priscilla Ruzzo held that same post in Romney’s 1994 Senate race; and Will Ritter was a key advance staffer for Romney before he worked for Brown’s campaign.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Odd that...
I'm always happy to contribute to your education, Charles.
Theocracy in America What Gentile life in Mormon Utah can teach us about church and state
For a first-hand report on life for a non-mormon in Utah.
As one who is occasionally the target of CharlesWayne's lectures, I absolutely LOVE this.
So is Utah the only “LDS” state?
Like heck, a very good judge of a man is whether he adheres to his principles when he runs for office, or whether those are discarded for political expediency. In Mitt's case, they were.
There is a lot you can do to change your status.
That you choose not to is where the issue lies...
As far as specifics, I already alluded to them. Anyone touting Romney, defending him or his other supporters or attacking conservatives who opposed him is a good start...
I was hoping you’d find that funny. But not sure enough that it would be funny to post it publicly. :-)
Swiss Ninja’s ain't what they used to be.
Right Charles?
Hmmm...three minutes from my post time to your reply....are you a speed reader? Did you read the article?
Well you what they say about fools and angels. :-)
I’m guessing the Admin Mods are getting either pretty used to, or pretty tired of, my “abuse” reports. I presume if it was “tired of”, they’d send me mail, but I can’t be sure.
MR is truly a jackass, if believes this. Check that, he is a jackass.
Why do you file so many abuse reports?
That seems oddly self absorbed...
Beautiful strawman you are building here...has it escaped your notice that Mitt was running for POTUS? I, for one, would be all for Mitt running for Senate in MA again, as he was defeated by Kennedy the first time he ran.
Maybe a centerfold might have helped him out the first time around. I doubt Teddy was in condition to compete on that level.
What I am saying is that I can’t prove he was NOT behind it, because it is impossible to prove that negative. (It is not always impossible to prove a negative, if for example Romney had died before the attacks, that would be a pretty good “proof” that he wasn’t responsible for them).
As to wht I have an idea about, you could put ANY name in the phrase “X was responsible for the attacks on Sarah Palin”, and I would equally be unable to prove that “X” was not responsible.
However, in the absense of any evidence that “X” was responsible, I would feel comfortable saying “X wasn’t responsible”, even though it would be more accurate to say “There is no evidence that X was responsible”.
To illustrate: I would say that you are not a cold-blooded killer. But if you pressed me, I would only really be able to say that I have no EVIDENCE that you are a cold-blooded killer. I have no “idea” whether you are or are not a cold-blooded killer.
In general, when it comes to assigning responsibility to people, I feel comfortable requiring that those who want to assign the responsibility have the burden of proof, because there are 6 billion people in the world, and a vast majority of them are NOT responsible for a particular event, and it would be rather hard to show that each of them was not.
I will say that there is a lot more evidence that Romney bears some responsibility for Scott Brown’s win than that Romney bears responsibility for McCain losing the election.
Really?
As far as specifics, I already alluded to them. Anyone touting Romney, defending him or his other supporters or attacking conservatives who opposed him is a good start...
But just a minute ago, you said:
You> Indeed deceit and “slight of hand” is one of the hallmarks of a Romneybot. The old “I am not really a Romney fan" or "he is not on my list” after posting support of Mitt, other Romneybots or against conservatives and being called on it is one of the oldest ones in the book.
So, which is it? Apparently, anyone who used to support Romney, but has grown disenchanted and no longer supports him for POTUS, is just being deceptive.
What else do you recommend? Does it require joining your "I Hate Mitt" wolf pack to rid myself of the dreaded "Romneybot" label?
Gosh. You said the definition should be "obvious", but even you can't seem to make sense of it.
I really want to know, because your approval is deeply important to me.
Is everyone who ever supported Romney now a "Romneybot"? You clearly don't trust those who have changed their minds, so I'd like to know.
How much time must expire after deciding to no longer support Romney for POTUS? Is there some sort of probationary period?
Since the definition is clear-cut and not arbitrary, as I have claimed, you should be able to spell out the definitive attributes of a "Romneybot" for us.
After all, NOBODY wants to be a "Romneybot". That would be horrible, wouldn't it?
One might be sneered at, or even spammed!
Especially with a MR supporter.
And Romney never posed naked for a centerfold.
_________________________________________________
Of course not...
The idea is to sell magazines...
You don't know that at all, only the pro abort since 1970, Mitt Romney and the women involved know what transpired in their particular, secret sessions, plus those were Mormon women anyway. Pro abortion, Mormon Bishop, Mitt Romney might even have one voice for women on the inside, while as a political leader he pushes abortion for everyone else. Actually Mitt says that you do not have to be prolife anyway to be a Mormon religious leader, and he says that many were not, including himself, so really you are arguing against his own claims.
You ignore that Mitt Romney very convincingly tells us that he and his family became pro abortion in 1970, which undermines your claim that he did it for Massachusetts politics, also remember that for a period of time that he only gave money to pro abortion Democrat candidates before he joined the GOP in 1993, and never forget his quiet fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
ROMNEY ADMITS THAT HE WAS PRO ABORTION, SO WHAT IS YOUR ARGUMENT?
I would ask why you are so easily offended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.