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 ...
KC_Conspirator: “Silly me, its all just my wild imagination.”
It’s opinion to claim anti-Mormon bigotry did in Romney. We probably both agree it was a factor, just like Huckabee’s Christianity. The part that’s opinion is where you claim it was enough to defeat Romney. While that may be true, anecdotal evidence isn’t enough to prove it. I mean no offense. I just haven’t seen any evidence the anti-Mormon vote was sufficient to cost Romney the election, to “do him in.”
Is it true that corporate welfare is in reality letting corporations keep some of what they would otherwise paid to the government in taxes?
Domandred: “I’m sorry but, yes it is. It is soft bigotry.”
No, I’m sorry, but that isn’t bigotry, even the soft kind.
Without getting into all of the Mormon doctrine here, let’s just say it has many symptoms of a cult. There are many, many links on the net that discuss these symptoms in great detail. While Mormonism isn’t a perfect fit, it’s pretty close in my opinion.
Now, here’s the definition of bigotry:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
I tolerate Mormons. I even like Mormons. I just think they are wrong on spiritual matters.
no. it’s not a broad based tax cut. it’s the govt picking winners and losers on its own and spending our money on failed companies.
broncobilly: “First, I challenge you to precisely define a “cult.””
There is no precise definition of cult, because a cult isn’t a precise thing. There are symptoms of cult-like behavior which are discussed in great detail on many web sites and in books. Feel free to explore.
As for my denomination, I’m a Christian. I don’t support or oppose any denomination that believes and follows the Bible (and does not try to add new revelations to it). I presently attend Anglican and Southern Baptist activities but have no special loyalty to either denomination. My loyalty is to my Lord, Jesus Christ.
Information from reputable sources can be twisted and misrepresented. That is exactly what the vast majority of of alleged flip-flops turn out to be.
You apparently do not wish to do the research.
I already did it.
There’s a reason they call it the “Bible Belt” and not the “Book of Mormon Belt”
Can you please cite a source where he's against state level anti-discrimination laws? My understanding is that he's consistently favored them.
He took three positions on embryonic stem cell research
Not true. On this issue, he's only had one. He's always opposed embryo farming, i.e. cloning embryos for research, and that is what sparked his conversion on abortion. However, he's always supported giving parents the choice donate "surplus" embryos for research. I wish he would flip on this, but he hasn't.
He was pro-civil unions in 2002-2005...
Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
especially when he was trying to broker a late-ditch alternative to same-sex marriage...then he was anti-civil unions after that.
No, he always opposed civil unions. He tried to push an amendment through the legislature defining marriage as between a man and a woman after the SJC forced gay marraige on the commonwealth. Unfortunately, the legislature refused to adopt the amendment unless it included a civil unions provision. Romney opposed the provision, but he supported the amendment after it came out of the legislature because it was better than no amendment at all.
That's called pragmatism.
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.
He backed away when he realized the law was against him. A governor cannot defy a the law.
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."
There's nothing inconsistent here. He believes the boy scouts have a right to exclude gay scoutmasters, but he doesn't think they should. Just because you think some organization should be allowed to do something doesn't mean you think they should actually do it. Why is this so hard for Romney haters to grasp?
His abortion weaves were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001;
This is semantics. He didn't like lables. So what? The substance of his position was pro-choice prior 2002, and it was made abundantly clear in his statements, if you bother to read them in their entirety rather than just a few soundbites ripped out of context.
back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002;
No change in substance from 2001. Maybe a change in word choice. Big deal.
pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions;
What pro-abortion committment?
back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006.
That's just false.
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).
This isn't hard. Prior to 2005, he was personally pro-life in that he thought abortion was immoral, but he did not want to make it illegal. That's why he didn't like the pro-choice label, because to some people in means that you approve of abortion as well as want keep it legal. Prior to 2005, he didnt' approve of abortion, but he still wanted to keep it legal. He has explicitly said this. You're taking a few of his poorly worded sentences and ignoring his very clear explanations of the substance of his positions.
By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
See above. He was never pro-choice in the sense that he approved of abortion, and he didn't like to be called pro-choice for this reason. However, he did not want to make abortion illegal prior to 2005.
If you would stop ripping words out of context and read the full context of his statements, you would see that his position on abortion, the change in it, and his reasons for it, are crystal clear. Yes, there was a flip here. One discrete change in 2005. One change in position and nothing more.
Romney kept quiet about the Bush tax cuts because they were a Federal issue, not a state issue. He was a governor, not a Sentaor or Congressman.
Why should he have taken a position on them? What good would it have done? At the time he just started his term and was focused on state issues, as he should have been.
It was never refuted or denied, simply buried after he decided to run for president.
Romney has denied he opposed the tax cuts. Frank claims he did, but since when are conservatives so willing to trust the word of Barney Frank?
Car registration fees are taxes by another name. Any fee that cannot be avoided is the same thing as a tax.
The car registration fee was one of the fees he did not raise. The only types of fees he raised were those that can be avoided; for government services that only a select few benefit from.
Those are very different from taxes, and he was right to raise them.
The intolerance and vitriol of some FR posters and Huckabee mormonphobes is self-evident and has been -- the cut and paste queens, the snarly victims who escaped the awful claws of the "cult", the all-knowing who quoted and misquoted geezers from over 150 years ago, the frenzied attack squad who with Christian "love" hacked away at Romney's faith in condescending meanness.
They're the ones who now claim with wide-eyed innocence that Romney's mormonism had nothing to do with losing votes to the preacher man and that well, gosh, we're all bigots.
Sadly, many decent people were only doing the "Lord's work" as they understood it to be -- they listened to their pastors and preachers and voted the way the preachers told them to. Huckabee and his fellow mormonphobes did their job well. Romney left McCain to lose in the general election. Huckabee's only role was to win away the evangelical vote from Romney. Huckabee's work is finished -- so is he.
That’s just it, he DID take a position on the Bush tax cuts.
I generally agree with the analysis offered in this piece.
I think this entire primary stinks. It’s too short — too front-loaded. Not enough time for people to get acquainted with the candidates.
Great stuff. Thanks for posting it!
Good insight indeed.
Next time I’ll be sure to ping you!
:)
Please don’t ever post to me again.
Your filth is beyond the pale.
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.