Posted on 03/25/2009 5:58:14 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
ROMNEY: Cautionary tale of card check Mitt Romney Wednesday, March 25, 2009
** FILE ** Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney submitted a column to The Washington Times as part of the Reinventing Conservatism series. (Astrid Riecken/The Washington Times)
ANALYSIS/OPINION: (Part of our Reinventing Conservatism series)
In 2006, my last year as governor of Massachusetts, I vetoed a card-check bill that allowed public workers to organize if a majority signed union authorization cards as opposed to casting a traditional secret ballot. The veto was a gain for the rights of employees and employers to a fair election, but the victory was short-lived.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ledge, gondramB? Veiled threats from you are as clear as the purpose of your reversed e-name
and your lengthy schitzy empty projecting prose.
You try to obfuscate, and change the subject.
Hmmmm. Where have we seen that before?
Furthermore, your lie about that "You also complain I have not attacked Romany’s religion."
That did not happen. I hope the Moderators and Mr. Robinson see this.
Bottom line is, like Romney, you say everything and thus nothing.
gondramB, furthermore, in this case, you obfuscated again but rebutted nothing.
You rebutted neither YOUR own lie which was caught (post #171 above),
nor your Master's bad behavior as Governor objectively describing him
when he was tested .. and failed.
Ping to #179
Mitt Romney would have been a hundred times better then that arrogant, mealy-mouthed lying POS that occupies the People’s House.
I hope you are happy with that arrogant, mealy-mouthed lying pos that occupies the People’s House
But what did and still does scream the loudest and should have had an impact on those few here who supported Mitt if they really were just backing him because he was a conservative, what should have given them pause and made them back off some of the must underhanded and derogatory attacks on other real conservative players was the silent MAJORITY of FR members who said "NO THANKS" to Mitt, at least until it was just McCain and Romney, and even then there was little to choose from.
So I ask again, as I have numerous times and expect to get no response, is if Mitt Romeny was all that for Conservatives, if he was the stalwart his supporters painted him to be, why did he never really gain traction with the rank and file, the core of the Conservative voters here on FreeRepublic.
And no, it had little to do with LDS, but there was an "L" in the word...
Your claims that the “silent majority” of FR members said “no” to Mitt is unfounded & not backed up by posts here other than the loons previously mentioned. He has gained a lot of traction here & among other conservative circles. You, on the other hand haven't answered why the leaders of the conservative movement haven't come around to your line of thinking. Even in the primaries, where one would think some of these folks might fall in line for the good of the party, folks like Rush, Ingraham, Coulter, etc., excoriated McCain. They never did so w/ Mitt.
Why do you think that was/is? Do you really feel you know more than they? Have you had more access to the man & his past & associations than they?
Again, I'm not trying to tear you down unnecessarily, just trying to have you see things as they seem to many of us conservatives. Your alignments w/ the libs & MSM in reference to Romney are alarming, as are the distancing yourself from the conservatives afore mentioned on this issue. You talk a good game on other conservative issues. That's what's mystifying. why not hold the same standard for Romney as you have for Reagan? Perhaps then, you may come across as more sincere rather than someone w/ an Ax to grind.
You're a bright mind, but this is befuddling. You're a conservative brother w/ this one exception, & maybe the religious one(not your acceptance of Mitt, but the hypocrisy & vitriol for which you state that difference)& I shall stand by you in your conservative beliefs. Perhaps someday you your attitude will change. My best to you & yours for a wonderful weekend.
Att'n: gondramB -- Above see a timely and shining example of what I was telling you in my post #179 above -- a Romney supporter displaying ugly pettiness in blaming those who reject Romney for Obama's presidency. It is an ideal illustraion of why Diogenesis and other Romney rejectors -- called "Romney haters" by Mitt supporters -- get so ticked off when we see well-meaning, gullible conservatives praise Mitt "Eddie Haskell" Romney when he whispers sweet nothings in their ears and tells them what they want to hear.
The behavior of Romney supporters speaks volumes about Mitt Romney. They are poor losers, bad sports, whiny finger-pointing bitter people who blame Romney's loss on everybody and everything but Romney and Romney's political record. If Romney's record of expanded government interference in free markets and personal morality wasn't enough to reject him flat out -- and it is -- the behavior of his supporters WOULD be enough. And it is. Thanks to Jim Robinson, Free Republic is able to reveal, in post after post after post authored by Romney supporters, ample evidence that Romney is bad for the GOP and his supporters are a liability to whoever embraces them.
Fish in a barrel my friend, fish in a barrel.
The question of the “MSM” bit has been answered tirelessly by me and others. It has become trite to
Facts is facts, if you cannot argue for the conservative stance of Romneycare, his weakness on guns,numerous DIRECT quotes from Mitt and hiss staff etc. on abortion, his own statements about not wanting to follow Reagan Bush many years ago, the whole “Reagan was adamantly pro choice” fiasco, etc. etc. etc. and want to blame it on the MSM that is just fine, but expect to be called on it. The man's history goes back much further than this election cycle and even that has had its moments.
As far as the silent majority, it is VERY WELL DOCUMENTED, and has been posted here time and time again. Wanting to cover it yet again almost smacks of masochism. Numerous polls were done here on FR during the primary hunt and Mitt never reached 15% support while real conservatives were in the race.
It also seems we have picked a few new “haters” along the way, so your “he has gained support on FR” is questionable at best. How about getting a new poll going, I am sure TBTB will be happy to set it up.
I love our Conservative pundits but they have to play on a field than I and many others here do not, they have to cheer lead, We don't. I do find it funny that again, if he was the be all and end all of Conservative stalwarts, “Reagan's heir apparent” as he was present by his faithful followers, his support was so tepid for the most part. There were occasional fits ans swoons but no real advocacy for his effort for the most part.
As far as McCain vs Romney, no contest, Mitt was much better overall, that is why I would have voted for Mitt over McCain given the chance, which I wasn't. However I also prefer to fall only two stories off a building instead of 20, but really prefer neither.
I will not answer your “align with libs” tripe, since it should be nominated along with the “you guys elected Obama” meme in the Non Sequitir hall of fame. Nor will I even discuss Reagan beyond a mere mention in the same post as Romney any more, the constant comparing of the two by Romneyphiles made me ill...
Hey I voted for McCain in the election. However Mitt Romney was my first schoice
Go away Mitt. He’s a phony politician.
Fair enough. I expected this to be your answer as it has been in the past. Your tactics are similar to what you have used on the religious threads & on these threads before. What you consider tripe, many others consider salient points. Many of your points are indefensible & I understand that. The only way to deal w/ it is to not deal w/ it, or to call it tripe.
Now again, who’s tactics do those most resemble, conservatives, or liberals? No harm. Have a great weekend.
>>If I may kick in here, gondramB, with a possible explanation for Diogenesis — I won’t presume to speak for him — I can only say what I think is at work here.
Dio and I and many other FReepers frequent Romney threads because we are deeply convinced that Romney is a Trojan Horse to conservatives. We don’t trust him as far as we can throw him. His words are Eddie Haskell’s when he says, “You certainly look nice today, Mrs. Cleaver!” <<
I am sympathetic to everything you said and to the concerns about Romney - I don’t really understand how he got elevated from “better than you might expect for an ultra-liberal state) to getting 20% support at CPAC.
That just doesn’t extent to supporting anti-Romney attack on people who don’t actually support Romney.
>>Att’n: gondramB — Above see a timely and shining example of what I was telling you in my post #179 above — a Romney supporter displaying ugly pettiness in blaming those who reject Romney for Obama’s presidency. It is an ideal illustraion of why Diogenesis and other Romney rejectors — called “Romney haters” by Mitt supporters — get so ticked off when we see well-meaning, gullible conservatives praise Mitt “Eddie Haskell” Romney when he whispers sweet nothings in their ears and tells them what they want to hear.<<
I believe you that were legit problems. I believe that response was appropriate. My comments went merely to the ethics of how we treat each other.
According to the RomneyBots around this forum, everyone should simply forget about Willard's lifelong support for liberal issues and liberal causes. His past isn't important anymore. If it ever was.
Lets all just ignore Romney's first two runs for public office in 1994 and 2002. After all, that was so long ago. Lets just ignore Romney's past actions and embrace his recent rhetoric. As if white-washing every public and political facet of his entire adult life is somehow the right thing thing to do. Forget about his opposition to Reaganism and the Contract With America. Forget about his 35 years of support for Roe v Wade and abortion rights, and his support for gay rights, gun control and amnesty.
RomneyBots aren't the least bit concerned with the fact that Willard's morphing from a liberal to a conservative came on the eve of his decision to enter the GOP nomination process for president. Come on! Giving Romney the benefit of the doubt on an issue or two, is one thing. Setting aside Romney's entire life and locking away those memories is not the right. Period. Ignoring his entire political record is downright foolish.
This adulation some people have for Romney rivals the adulation Obama's minions have for him.
As usual you ignore the fact that I did deal with the heart of the matter just not your portrayal of their source as a point of invalidation of these already established facts.
You are a credit to your training. However the written word is a cruel task master and vivid testimony to the legitimacy of any argument.
See how illogical that is?
“However the written word is a cruel task master and vivid testimony to the legitimacy of any argument.”
Indeed my FRiend, indeed.
We have our reasons for sniping even at those who don't support Romney but "like what he says" -- it's a warning we want to relay: praise Romney at your own risk not because it offends us, but because of what Romney sychophants will do with it. We have seen it demonstrated right here on FR literally hundreds of times that Romney supporters are unique in that they possess profoundly negligable ethics in how they treat fellow Republicans with regard to their candidate.
If you utter even the faintest praise for Romney, believe me ... it's like feeding a pest Blue Jay or getting into a discussion with a door-to-door Jehovah's Witness team. One opens a can of worms. Example: Toward the end of the primaries, Rush Limbaugh gave Romney a faint and walking-on-eggshell carefully-worded summary (I wouldn't even call it praise) of Romney being "probably" the only candidate to "embody" the three legs of the stool of conservatism, in a monologue that was NOT about Romney, but about what the other candidates were ignoring. Another time, Rush praised him warmly for a speech he gave on Religion in America; during that second speech, he did NOT praise Romney's politics, but his eloquence in defending religion, and he made a careful point of saying twice that he was not endorsing anybody.
Yet Romney supporters to this day post on FR the blatant falsehood that Rush "endorsed" their guy. One has even gone so far as to write, repeatedly, that Rush "said on his show" that he voted for Romney in the primary!!!! And Rush is far from the only one. Romney people distort and misrepresent eagerly and happily to suit their own fantasies. Even praising Romney faintly is inviting bad mischief, distortions, and outright lies from Romney people, and because we know it so well here on FR, we tend to come down pretty heavy even on those who dislike Romney but think he "deserves due credit." We not only think he deserves ZERO credit, we think he deserves to be treated with extreme skepticism and prejudice.
I don't know for how long or how regularly you frequent Romney threads. I have been reading them faithfully ever since a "conservative" talk show host I respected very much and listened to for years, Hugh Hewitt, began promoting Romney. I thought if Hugh liked Romney, then Romney might be pretty good!
The more I read of Romney's own words and learned about his governing record, the more I saw a pure apple-shiner Eddie Haskell big government Daddy's Home Republican of the type I will battle and fight to keep out of office ALWAYS. I couldn't believe Hugh could be so gullible. But there is a certain very large segment of Evangelicals (Hugh is one) who do not know that they put appearance and style over substance, frequently.
When I see Romney pitched and promoted to the GOP, I regard it as a call to arms. I hope you understand that Romney is NEVER deserving of praise. He's like the apple-shiner little suck-up we all knew in school who says beautiful words that schmooze all the grown-ups and when they praised him, we rolled our eyes. The stakes are a lot higher now, but still -- anytime you see Romney praised, understand that it's bad news. Romney is bad news all around.
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.