Posted on 02/14/2008 9:12:59 AM PST by JRochelle
Snip Let us not forget that Romney snapped his fingers before the election and decided to become a conservative by switching his positions on a litany of key issues, even though his past record was moderate. There were endless gaffes throughout the campaign in which he reinforced the well-earned perception that he would say anything to get elected--from describing himself as a lifelong hunter even though he had hunted only twice, for saying he watched his father march with MLK, for claiming an endorsement of the NRA he never received, etc.
He also failed to emotionally connect with voters. I would go to Romney speeches all year, and talk to audience members after who would tell me they agreed with what he said, but he was "too slick" and "too packaged." It never ceased to amaze me how emotionally tone deaf he was as a candidate, most notable was when he said his sons were serving their country by working to get him elected. I went to a townhall meeting just days before the New Hampshire primary in which a woman said her 26-year old cousin had been paralyzed in a rugby accident, and she asked Romney for his position on stem cell research. Romney responded, "Great, thank you for the question" and he went on with a textbook answer about pluripotent cells without offering any sympathy. Romney's checklist conservatism appealed to desperate conservatives on a cerebral level, but he never reached people emotionally as Huckabee and McCain did. If you want to know why McCain beat Romney, look no further than the final debate between them at the Reagan Library. When they were asked why Reagan would endorse them, Romney recited a laundry list of issues on which Reagan would have agreed with him, while McCain
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I’m voting for the real dem, not mccain.
He took three positions in 13 years on forcing business owners to hire alternative sexual minorities: For it in '94; against it in 2006; then in Dec '07 he decides he's for it again--only not the feds...he wants the states to implement it.
He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research: He was for it in a June, '02 speech. He supposedly "converted" to the entire pro-life cause over this issue in Nov of '04. By Dec of '07 he was telling Katie Couric that he was pro-choice on parents of such embryos exercising either the choice to give up their surplus embryo(s) for adoption, or to "donate" them to "research" (dissection).
In two back-to-back sentences, he uses the terms "parent" and "adoption" to apply to embryos; only in the next sentence to use the terms "parent" and "donate" and "research"--saying this was "acceptable."
He was pro-civil unions in 2002-2005...especially when he was trying to broker a late-ditch alternative to same-sex marriage...then he was anti-civil unions after that.
He first came to the side the Catholic adoption program re: being forced to adopt out kids to same-sex couples; then he backed away and told them he couldn't help them.
In back to back sentences in 1994 October debate with Ted Kennedy, he backed the right of the Boy Scouts of America to make their own policies, but then said they shouldn't discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation." (Yeah, that's what we want: Every flavor of every "sexual orientation" in each of these tents on overnight trips).
His abortion weaves were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001; back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002; pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions; back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart). By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
“Too bad he said he didn’t want to serve in Vietnam, and went on a missionary trip to France instead.”
He flipped on that and later longed to have served.
This is the latest, evidently he was prevented from enlisting by some outside force.
‘one of the two great regrets I have in life is I didn’t serve in the military. I’d love to have.’
(I guess if I mention Kucinich's "New Age" leanings I'll have half a dozen "bigot" comments float my way...)
The other thing that's happened with the "don't call" my cult "a cult" crowd is that they've forever lost the ability to call any aberrant Christian or Mormon group a "cult." If they call any New Age group a "cult," why that's "bigotry." If they call polygamous Mormon fundamentalists "cultists," why that's "bigotry."
So a completely "flat earth" of everybody's the same means that polygamous fundmentalist Mormons = Mormons = Christians = New Agers = Hindu.
(There. Now we're all equal Hindu-ites)
“The minor ones were the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy “
What is your source that he changed his view of don’t ask’, and what position did he go from and to, on the DADT policy?
+++
One of these days I will need to find out what an “ot” so I can find out if I am a big “ot”, or a little “ot”. ;>}
I know lots of Christians who supported Romney, and many whose lack of support never had anything to do with Mormonism.
Perhaps it’s the fact his record does not back up his rhetoric.
And I still prefer him to McCain or Huckabee.
I understand that the South has a long memory, and I understand why, but that can't explain this remarkable division, unless you wish to assert that the South's somewhat "adopted" brethren westward to Kansas and through Texas retain that same memory, with the same level of animosity.
Equally, I recognize that Huck's wins went right across the traditional Bible belt, so one could infer that the evangelical protestants were lifting him up (undoubtedly the case). Romney was relegated to 3rd place, behind McCain throughout the region. But the Mountain West is less "evangelical" by a matter of mere degrees, yet Romney won the West, and Huck was behind McCain there.
It is just such an odd and symmetric difference in a set of regions that largely and often speak with a united voice.
This was Romney’s 1994 position on don’t ask, he thought it was fine and that it worked, but Romney wanted to impose full open homosexuality on the military.
“One issue I want to clarify concerns 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.”
bookmark
What sank Romney was having the conservative vote split in too many different directions while the mods and libs allowed McCain to walk in through the back door and steal this thing.
I think Romneycare killed him.
touche
Actually, his record did match his rhetoric. So those who didn’t support him for that reason either never bothered to research his actual record themselves or it was something else.
Here is the sad truth about the guy.
Mitt never even played sports, I think that many men are simply disturbed by their instinctual feeling that he is a sissy.
“Despite the school’s rarefied air, it was still a high school, so the jocks tended to be the most popular. Mitt’s singular distinction as an athlete was an embarrassing one, classmates recall. He competed in a 2.5-mile race held during a football game, setting off with the rest of the runners at the start of halftime.
Everyone returned before the second half of the football game began, except Mitt. He didn’t resurface until about 10 minutes after the last runner. He staggered around the oval for the final lap, collapsing twice in the last 15 yards but drawing cheers from the crowd when he finally crossed the finish line. ‘’It had to be one of those moments that made you feel good, but inadequate,’’ Bailey says. ‘’But those kinds of things didn’t bother him.’’”
Boston Globe June 24 2007
You don’t understand bigotry if you think that the LDS non-vote for Huckabee is the result of bigotry. There is a huge difference between voting for someone who you think better represents yourself and refusing to vote for someone because you think they belong to a cult, hate their religion, or are convinced that they are bad people because of their beliefs.
To conflate these differences is to lie.
Mike Huckabee made statements in his campaign reflecting animosity towards mormons. According to the WSJ, his campaign encouraged churches to preach sermons on the evils of mormonism. This actions indicate a hatred for mormon people, and someone who hates you cannot represent you.
Mormons have voted for the conservative candidate for years regardless of his religious association, and have often been treated like blacks in the democratic party - someone who has to stay on the plantation because they can’t go anywhere else. For example, local republican meetings in Colorado have been held in churches that have actively campaigned against mormons. Additionally, these churches have distributed anti-mormon materials during the republican meetings.
Because they have no where else to go, mormons have dealt with this animosity in the Republican party for years.
Once again, voting for someone who better represents you is not bigotry.
You don’t understand bigotry if you think that the LDS non-vote for Huckabee is the result of bigotry.
LOLOLOL If you think 90% of LDS in Utah voted for MR because he was the better candidate and not bigotry against MH - there is no point in responding to anything you said after that.
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.