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 done with you.
Now I suggest you go and learn how to count.
He [Romney] always opposed civil unions.
Then in post #270, we're supposed to believe that he was he showing his "always opposed" stalwart position by trying to pass civil unions' legislation in 2003 and 2004.
Curiosity concedes that in 2003: He was working to pass the only marriage amendment he could get through the legislature.
Question: Would this have legalized civil unions? Answer: Yes
He further concedes that in 2004: Romney was right that civil unions is a lesser evil than full-fledged gay marriage... Romney settled for a compromise amendment with civil unions only because he could not get his preferred amendment without civil unions through the legislature.
So, now Curiosity, who was defiant in post #190 ("I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.") shifts gears. He no longer argues from an absolute platform ("He ALWAYS opposed civil unions."). He no longer issues a defiant challenge. Instead, we get "Oh, he HAD to SUPPORT civil unions in more than a SINGLE instance because it was the lesser of two evils."
Curiosity. Fine. If you want to stand your political ground & argue a lesser-of-two-evils political expediency, I can respect you on that ground. What I can't respect is your shift-gears weasel tactics where you start off with absolute claims in a defiant challenge tone and then when you realize you were wrong, you fall back to a more defendable political expediency. And we're supposed believe what you have to say when you categorically tell us that Romney "ALWAYS opposed civil unions" and when corrected, you don't say, "I stand corrected?" (You just move off to another place to take your stand)
A truly mature person will admit he stands corrected when an overstatement is made. (I'm still waiting for you to say that re: post #190).
And I recognize His followers by their actions and their words, no matter what they call themseleves and others. And I recognize those who USE His name for their own agenda, hiding behind His robes to spew their bile and bigotry for self-gain. And I've learned first hand from FR that Christian does NOT equate to Christlike.
I didn't comment on the citation. I just cited it. It was written by a Mormon. (So a Mormon's citation is an anti-Mormon screed?) Where's the discernment there?
Re: Ann Romney's $150 gift to Planned Parenthood: So he's supposed to control his wife as if she were his daughter?
The $150 gift was meant to coincide with Mitt appearing at a June, 1994 Planned Parenthood event. (And of course Mitt was there). So it wasn't unrelated to Mitt's activities, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. [Note for the rest of you: We never did here an apology from Ann Romney for this amount equal to half an abortion in '94...did we?]
Planned parenthood does more than just provide abortions. They also do some good things, like provide pre-natal care for poor women.
(Yeah, I'm sure there were some KKK folks in the 50s & 60s who made have sold white sheets and Halloween masks on the side, too)
Best to go back to your own comments and tell me ... you know them best.
The quotes were not mine. BTW what church do you represent?
I belong to the Church of the Dead Tree. The Cross.
Which denomination, or are you ashamed to name it?
You point out that claiming to be a Christian and actually being one are two different things.
But, you must also realize that there is a distinction between those who live their lives based on faith, and those who live their lives based upon religion.
When a Mormon wants to sit down with someone and explain the tenets of Mormonism, they are explaining why they belong to Mormonism. They are not necessarily explaining why they have a deep personal conviction that Christ is the savior.
I can sit in one church or another and practice their religion... but, this does not make me a Christian. My Christian faith is based upon a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It doesn’t matter which denomination I belong to within Christ’s church.
This is an important distinction.
Non-denominational Christian. There are many such.
“the all-knowing who quoted and misquoted geezers from over 150 years ago”
Especially that windbag old-geezer Joseph Smith. My favorite line “God will strike me dead if you don’t marry me”, said by Smith to take another gullible wife.
“Because of bigots, we will lose in the fall, Romney was the only chance to win. “
Actually, Fred Thompson was the only chance to win, but Mitt foreclosed that option with big pockets and a weak national base.
So what was Mitt’s reaction when it was disclosed that his wife made a contribution to PP in 1994?
“Her positions are not terribly relevant to my campaign.”
Typical Mitt!
“So what was Mitt’s reaction when it was disclosed that his wife made a contribution to PP in 1994?”
What was Ann’s pro-life epiphany and when did she have it? or did the Bishop just tell her himself that she had changed her mind?
In the end, like in the beginning, Huckabee stood for nothing, as evidenced by his supporters continuing attack on Romney, who some say is out of the race lol.
Thanks. Wish you well in your church. I need not demean it because I have absolutely no desire to be part it.
“What was Ann’s pro-life epiphany and when did she have it? or did the Bishop just tell her himself that she had changed her mind?”
I thought that you were answering the question but I guess not.
I agree. Why don’t we go back to your own comments, shall we?
OK. Let’s go with a standard you have set. Here’s what you said in post #283: And I recognize His followers by their actions and their words, no matter what they call themseleves and others. And I recognize those who USE His name for their own agenda, hiding behind His robes to spew their bile and bigotry for self-gain. And I've learned first hand from FR that Christian does NOT equate to Christlike.
It sounds like what you’ve said is (and I’m here to also learn from my fellow FReepers)…
(1) …that we recognize Christ’s followers by their actions and their words (certainly lots of us recognize Christ’s words that we’ll know them by their fruits…so what you speak here is quite Biblical)
(2) …that you can recognize those who…spew their bile
(3) …”Christian” doesn’t = “Christlike” (certainly you won’t get folks who disagree with this generic statement—more just who might be the target of it)
I’d like to ask you honestly, EverOnward, how you’re doin’ not on my standard or anybody else’s, just on your standards mentioned above here?
How are you doing lately on #2—recognizing those who…spew their bile
On Feb. 11, 2008 you responded to a poster who said: Heard the whole interview. My personal favorite was Huck maintaining that neither he nor McCain ever atacked another candidate. The sad thing is he actually believes it.." by adding: Signs of a psychopath: "The most prominent symptoms of a Psychopath is ... having no conscience, being highly manipulative, being a fluent and convincing liar and being superficially charming. Psychopath's are thrill seekers who view others as fodder for exploitation. Among the first signs that someone is a Psychopath is cruelty to animals in childhood...." (Post #33, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968402/posts )
(So the actions of a child are the fault of the parent—a presidential candidate you say has significant evidence of being a “psychopath?”)
On Feb. 7, 2008 you called VP Cheney “arrogant and delusional.” (post #59, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966687/posts)
So, Huckabee’s a “psychopath” and Cheney’s “delusional?” Anybody else “delusional?”
The Mitt bashers will never be convinced that Romney is anything other than the devil; however, they mistakenly believe if they keep posting their contemptuous, delusional illogic… (Feb. 6, 2008 Post #128 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966101/posts )
Does the “bile” stop there? (Nope) According to you, Huckabee in an “intellectually inferior…commie…[who is] a master of deceit”:
I find Huckabee to be dishonest, crude and intellectually inferior. (Jan. 17, 2008, post #61 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1955486/posts )
And, in reference to Huckabee: And conservative to me is a lot more than just one issue. Prolife commies/socialists are NOT conservatives in my book. (Feb. 3, 2008, Post #29, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1964398/posts )
I’d like to know what “inside” info you have on Huckabee that makes him a “master of deceit?“ [Jan. 13, 2008, post #20 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953116/posts )
And you do think every single Huckabee voter out there would “fully appreciate” your following “descriptions” of them?
Huckabee supporters are supposed “disciples of deceit” (Jan. 13, 2008, post #150 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952850/posts )
I’m beginning to believe Huckabee appeals only to low class, white trash, hicks… (Jan. 20, 2008, post #43 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1956433/posts )
(Boy, that one was sure “enlightening”)
One would think from the news and from FR posters that evangelicals are nonthinking robots that will vote for anyone who claims to be “one of them.” (Jan. 9, 2008, post #55 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1951093/posts )
Wow, incredible flattery, there. Can’t decide if “nonthinking robots” was more or less edifying than your “borderline criminal” reference to Evangelicals to someone accusing Evangelicals of “destroying the conservative coalition”:
Not only irrelevant, but also borderline criminal. Are a large percentage of evangelicals socialists or sheep obeying a socialist clergy? (Feb. 5, 2008, post #511, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965450/posts)
EO, you seemed to do pretty good a few months back in holding in such “bile” even when you said you had similar thoughts as others in calling some of us “Nazis”:
ANOTHER POSTER HAD SAID: "Thank you for your post #50. This thread was starting to scare the bejeebers out of me. It’s like FreeRepublic has been taken over by Nazi’s or something. Thank God for some common sense and decency."
Your response: I've had your thoughts, but come to the conclusion that it's best to allow people to express their views whether hateful, bigoted or not. Otherwise, we are left ignorant. (Jan. 12, 2008, post #85, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952695/posts
Even as of early this month, you seemed to recognize some boundaries of decency when you told somebody: It's so nice to know you have no tolerance for personal attacks.... Namecalling always illuminates the discussion, don't you think? (Feb. 2, 2008, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963733/posts )
It seems like you were being properly sarcastic here (trying to elevate the discussion). So I need to ask you: How is it that somebody else is failing to illuminate the discussion via namecalling, but this same standard evidenced by the above comments has been of late escaping you? (Again, I’m not coming from my standard or anybody else’s standard—Just your own) Since you seem to hold a high value to a tolerance for…attacks why have you been going on the offense so much?
You didn’t like various candidate’s “attitudes” and felt free to comment on their attitudes…so does that mean that somebody holding up a mirror to your own attitudes is OK?
You said:
Saw Thompson on TV last night. He looked and acted plain nasty. (Jan. 16, 2008, post #54 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954763/posts )
McCain is a Clinton/Kerry liberal with a nasty attitude and contempt for conservative values. (Feb. 2, 2008, post #194, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963762/posts )
All coming from someone who says: I’m not a Republican, I’m a conservative (Feb. 7, 2008, post #317 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966556/posts )
I’ll be voting for Obama (Feb. 8, 2008, post #216 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1967002/posts )
So, since you say that Christlike behavior is often missing from these threads, and that: we recognize Christ’s followers by their actions and their words, what are we to make then of your recent constant descriptions of “Mormonphobes” and “the gullible bible thumping crowd” and “jackles?”
McCain, like the organ grinder, used his favorite little pet monkey, the Huckabee Mormonphobe to sway the gullible bible thumping crowd right where he wanted them. (Feb. 9, 2008, post #607 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966526/posts )
Where did the jackals go? I haven’t seen their frothing at the mouth rants lately. Guess they got what they wanted so they slithered back to their holes. I learned a lot from these supporters of Huckabee and McCain: how hate twists logic. (Feb. 6, 208, post #86, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1966149/posts )
Maybe we can get the old “civil” you back. (That’d be nice). Because the above doesn’t compare well to the standards you mentioned to AmericaUnited and Ghost of Nixon back on Jan. 8, 2008:
To AmericaUnited: So, your religion teaches you to disrespect people who don't believe exactly like you or you decided that on your own? And how far does your disrespect go. Would you hold the door open only for someone you "respected." If you are a teacher, does that mean you treat your Mormon students with disrespect? If you are a doctor, does that mean you treat your patients with disrespect? If you are an employer, does that mean you'd refuse to hire a Mormon? How far does your disrespect go? (Jan. 8, 2008, post #98, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950410/posts)
Do you think any of the above targets of yours as highlighted here feel “respected?” Does this own question you asked apply to yourself, or only others?
Do you have a problem with everyone who doesn't beileve the way you do? (Jan. 8, 2008 post #93, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950410/posts )
You seem to have a deep-rooted anti-Arkansas spirit, including as many anti-Huckabee comments as other posters have done so re: Romney. So how is it that these folks can’t be anti-Romney but you can call Huck all kinds of ad-hominen names not even mentioned here. Is that what you would call “Christlike” behavior? (Again, your standards; not mine) . You said:
Had an aunt (one of the sweetest nonjudgmental people I've known) that went to Arkansas to live for a "little" while. She couldn't wait to leave and called it a third world country. She was shocked at the prevailing mentality. (Nov. 20, 2007, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1928529/posts ).
Your sermonizing will be better spent on someone else. I’m not interested in learning religion from you. Wishing you well in your journey.
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.