Replies

I see you're still refusing to post hard facts pertaining to those listed members of the VRWC (tounge in cheek sarcasm) who have actually called Willard a conservative. The one link you gave to Laura Ingraham offered nothing of substance. Its not so difficult.

I found three "so-called" examples on this thread alone, but NONE actually called Romney a conservative and for good reason. Romney is a liberal, aka. a Rockefeller Republican. [Ref:#87] And no amount of obfuscation on your part will ever cover up that fact.

>>>>>I hold no ill will towards you ...

And I hold no ill will towards you either. Neither am I ticked off or angry. LOL Btw, I answered your questions in post #149. Ref:#172. Post #184 was just a repeat of #149.

So far, your posts have been pathetic. I gave you every opportunity to defend Romney. Instead of accepting my challlenge, you attempted to change the subject by trampling on the legacy of a conservative icon. You remain unresponsive, unfocused and continue to obfuscate matters. So be it.

The link to Laura Ingraham offered nothing of substance? Was it the part where she pleaded with her listeners to make a statement and rescue “conservatism” by voting for Romney?, or was it the part where she directly addressed Mike Huckabee, asking him to drop out of the race and endorse Romney so that we can have “forward-thinking” conservatism, that wasn't of substance for you?

Thanks for the perfect example of why I didn't feel it worth my while to do the research on your behalf. No matter what is brought up, no matter how compelling, it won't matter to you.

BTW, the reason why I repeated in post 184, was b/c you never answered all the questions in your post 172, & still haven't! Not surprising frankly, but disappointing.

As far as trampling the legacy of a conservative icon, have I not brought up the same issues about Reagan that you bring up against Romney? Is it nonconservative to bring up similarities about their Governance? We as conservatives, are the ones that champion free expression of ideas to come to conclusions for the common good. The liberals are the ones that always want to quash any adverse perspective on their icons like Clinton.

Anyways, we seem to be at an impasse. As I said in an earlier post, I was on your side about Romney until I actually did the research, research that isn't just relegated to the web but one that includes discussions w/ a client of mine that has been/still is part of the body politic in Mass. for decades. It also includes discussions w/ the former Pres. of the Lincoln Club. That research coupled w/ other extensive research led me to change my mind. I'm glad I did, b/c after all, truth is what I'm after, not just sound bites from the Boston Globe.

Undoubtedly, both these men have much more familiarity w/ Romney than you do. You can play your games. I'll go to the more definitive sources. No offense, but I'll trust them more than you. I trust the VRWC, as you call them, as well. I think they have done more research than you, & their sources are undoubtedly better as well. If you have better sources, share them, I'm still open to learn. But, if your sources are relegated to a simple search on the web, discounting the the words from our conservative leadership, I'll defer to the better source.

I think we're done here. I wish the very best to you & yours.