Political Insider

By Craig

February 11, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Every single one of these people have proven they will use whoever that can be made over and re-imaged to run rather than someone who actually has a conservative record. Mitt’s record shows nothing but liberal to moderate actions in office. Somehow we are supposed to forgive someone’s liberal legislative record just because they’ve given a few opportunistic speeches that “sound good”? Extreme Makeover Mitt Edition is now being forced on the party by those who wish to give us who they think we need. Sorry but Mitt’s record tells me where his “values” are. If McCain is not acceptable based on his “record” then Mitt is far worse. Or is the problem with McCain that he just doesn’t coddle to your every whim?

By Wendy73

February 11, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

What is wrong with Mitt’s record? Site the record please and not opinion. Thank you

By Stephen B. Lambeth

February 11, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Yes… and as a conservative, I am glad to hear he dropped out. Whoever the GOP nominee is would face a daunting task of beating the Democratic nominee in this race. I believe Romney had the best shot; McCain will fail to mobilize the base and fall flat on his face. There will be a Democrat in the Whitehouse in 2008. I guess we’ll need to have a Carter before we can have a Reagan.

By Mitt's Record

February 11, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Jebb Bush endorsed him. He and Jebb Bush are friends.

Jebb Bush used Terry Shaivo as a political body puppet to gain points.

Mitt Romney has never condemned it.

Record enough for me.

By ajarizona

February 11, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

When Mitt was called upon to Govern (actually sign into law, legislation) He did indeed govern as a conservative.

People can evolve, and if some of you extremists are not willing to allow so called converts into your group, then ask yourself, where is your growth coming from?

Mitt is the real deal in philosophy and deed. He has an amzing resume. The most qualified candidiate in 30 years.

He’s had success at every level,he’s tried. Intellectually he has no equal. Dunderheads like McCain and Hucabee were thrahsed in the debates.

By afisher

February 11, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Compare the Romney Resume: Record of Success Education Family Voting record Working across the isle Temperament Ethics To McCain or Huckabee he is head and shoulders above. WHAT A LOSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By linda

February 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

Please work on changing the winner take all rule in GOP NJ, NY, CT election to make all the vote counted proportionally. How could Rudy manipulate our state election rule to benefit himself, and then benefit McCain after Rudy dropped out of the race.

JR Dieckmann Any and all conservative candidates were driven out of the race before the vast majority of Republicans even had a chance to vote for them.

To prevent this from happening again, all primaries, or at least the vast majority of them must be held on the same day, as the candidates campaign to the nation instead of individual states. This would prevent back room deals played by McCain and Huckabee in WV. No more open primaries. Only Registered Republicans should have a say in who is selected to represent their party. Primary voters should be pre-registered before a given deadline, not simply sign up on election day.

You just don’t let the stockholders of Ford vote for the CEO of General Motors, or the stockholder of Sylvania vote for the CEO of G.E. This current policy is simply ludicrous, and now we see the results.

By Michael

February 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Mitt can save the party and the nation. I agree with afisher. What a loss!! I feel like we’ve lost hope now that Mitt is out of the race for 2008. I hope he runs in 2012. We need his intelligence and ability to solve the many problems our country faces.

By Craig

February 11, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Wendy73 - He supported the Brady Bill, a large majority of his court appointments in MA were Democrats, he single-handedly made gay marriage a state policy in MA, he raised taxes and fees while governor, he opposed Bush tax cuts then lied about never opposing them, he endorsed and did an ad for Cindy Sheehan marching buddy Rocky Anderson, home prices and home starts plummted when he was governor, the tax burden increased while he was governor, he ran to the left of Ted Kennedy for Senate, he was staunchly pro-choice and suddenly says he is no longer with no record to prove this. Etc. Etc. Etc. Wendy. You see his record is VERY liberal to moderate but yet we’re supposed to believe his speeches over his record? Wow. The same people claiming this is the case are not applying the same standard to McCain. Supporting a guy for office who pushed abortion, Kyoto Protocol, and domestic partnership on his city? A amn who marched with Cindy Sheehan and demanded the impeachment of Bush? And Mitt’s giving into the gay marriage issue and single-handedly making gay marriage policy of MA with nothing forcing his hand? Wendy, I don’t know what spin you’re listening to but facts are facts. Mitt’s record as a conservative is non-existent. He may have done a handful of ‘conservative’ items as governor but the fact his overall record is vastly moderate to liberal, his token ‘right’ moves are dwarfed by those. These same critics of McCain are showing they are not about the record and solely about some opportunistic kiss-up who will grovel at their feet and beg for them to help him. Sorry Wendy but I’m not for kissing up. We have that enough in DC. And Mitt proclaims to be different. He is the embodiment of what is wrong there now. He’s changed his position to fit his office and audience. So much for pushing for someone who stands on principles.

By Michael

February 11, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Craig, I think you should really check your facts before you start spewing half-truths and your own opinion about Mitt Romney.

By Michael

February 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

What is amazing to me is that Mitt dropped out of the race last week, and people still want to read news about him and comment on it, either for good or for bad. People really feel the loss of this candidate in the campaign.

By Michael

February 11, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

It’s kind of obvious that this is what Mitt was doing. Don’t really need this article to point it out. He was the favorite at the CPAC convention for good reason. Conservatives feel that he is the voice of our party.

By Craig

February 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Not all conservatives feel that way. There are still conservatives who have no problem looking at the full record and seeing Mitt for what he is - opportunistic fraud. Sorry but we don’t need some backroom collective group telling us who our leader will be. Backroom deals - another example of Mitt not being any different than DC itself. Afisher - please back your statement up. What record are you referring to? On education, surely you don’t mean Mitt’s support of that Kennedy-Bush No Child Left Behind?

By Craig

February 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

Michael, I have facts on all of these. Before you acuse me of “half-truths” tell me where I am wrong. His record is backed up by everything I’ve said. Please correct me before making your own opinion.

By Raul Gzz

February 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

To bad our Country was not ready to have a decent man like Romney as a President. Hate and Bigotry is still alive a well, and maybe both of these things will be defeated when Hilary or Obama wins this election.

By ageofpaper

February 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Any thing that has Georgia’s Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition involved with it smells to high heaven. This is the same guy that took casino money from the Indians to fight gambling in Alabama so that the Indians would not have competition. He went around to the churches preaching on how god is against gambling, laugh laugh. Now that Obama is making great strides its funny to see that according to Rush and Sean, Hillary don’t look so bad now.

By SpinDizzy

February 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

Yep. Craig is right. The record does speak for itself. Romney does support NCLB. He has flipped on several major issues leading one to believe even Romney doesn’t know what he believes. He’s flipped on abortion, gun control, education, Bush tax cuts, civil unions, etc. As far as gay marriage in MA goes, read the facts. The court told the legislature to do something and they didn’t. No one told Romney to do ANYTHING. But Mitt took the initiative and changed the forms for marriage and allowed same sex partners to begin getting married and then ordered justices of the peace, etc. to abide by those state forms. Why did Romney act on his own? He was never told or forced to act but did so on his own initiative. The record IS clear. When protection of marriage counted on Romney he cowled down to liberals. Half truth on Rocky Anderson? Nope. Mitt’s face is on a Anderson campaign ad still on his website. All you have to do is look at Anderson’s record and see what Romney’s assessment on Anderson is. Look at Romney’s record in MA. Yes, he did raise taxes and fees and then had the audacity to say he raised them because they were ‘due’ to be raised. What conservative says taxes need to be raised because of a ‘due date’? Look at his history of appointing judges in MA. A majority were Democrats with a sprinling of ‘independents’ in there. If he excuses being in a Democrat controlled state, what wouldd stop him from doing the same in a Democrat controlled Congress? Romney does support NCLB. His current website says he even wants to build on it. I guess we’d see Romney-Kennedy NCLB II if he were elected. Sorry Romney fans. His record is abysmal. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Not only is his record leaning left, but the fact he’s flipped on so many crucial ones right before running for President makes me question his motives and sincerity.

By Conservative Voter

February 11, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

Face of conservatism? Really? I have never understood why some considered Romney appealing. Many seemed to catch “Fred fever” (the idea of a candidate rather than actuality) about him being a conservative savior.

If Romney becomes the face of conservatism, then I need to find a different label for myself.

HAS ANYONE looked at his record? For those who have, can you say with a straight face that he is a conservative?

By ageofpaper

February 11, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

If you watched the debate with McCain and Romney when they discussed hiding in the weeds it should have become apparent that McCain cannot be corrected even when the truth is put before him. He acted like a little kid or some one with the onset of dementia. His smirks and the ‘see see I told you he said weeds’ comment to some one on the sidelines, it was scary. This nut job would have us in another 20 year war with every boogie man real or imagined. Mitt would be much better; perhaps a flip flop is better than a war. If McCain has been involved with every intelligence matter for the last 20 years as he bragged then how he could he have missed the oncoming 911 attacks?

By cprince

February 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Maybe its time for a third party, the “conservative” party. I wonder if anyone has done the math to see if there would be enough of a base to play the spoiler.

The problem with the “new” GOP is that it tries to cut too wide a swath, and gets embroiled in internal conflicts in the process.

I wonder if there are enough supporters of the “three-legged stool” to turn the US into a tripartisan, rather than a bipartisan system?

By GOPinSadShape

February 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

If Mitt Romney is the future face of conservativism in America then there is no longer any such thing. To say he has “evolved” is really putting lipstick on the pig. This man has been on every side of almost every issue, who knows what he would do if elected? It would be a bigger casino gamble than Ralph Reed has ever made!

By Michael

February 11, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

The only thing that Mitt has ‘flipped’ on is abortion. He went from being Pro-Choice to Pro-Life. I don’t believe he was ever Pro-abortion. I believe that he was pro-choice at one time because he wanted rape victims and mothers with pregnancies that could kill them to have a choice whether or not to keep the baby. He was never pro-gay. He was for gay rights but not for gay-marriage. He has never flipped on gun control or the Bush tax cuts!

By RL

February 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Link to this

I believe that should be FORMER “Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri”

By SpinDizzy

February 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Link to this

Michael,

Go back and watch his debate with Ted Kennedy. Again, he was VERY staunchly pro-choice and vowed to protect that right to choose. Hard to believe someone who had a deeply held stance due to a family matter on abortion to change on that. So you need to study up on the guy you defend on his abortion/choice stance. Look at the Goodrich case in MA and Mitt’s response to it. His own pen, by itself, gave MA gay marriage. No one made him permit gay marriage in MA. He did that on his own. So yes, he made gay marriage MA state policy. He did flip on gun control. He avidly supported the Brady Bill. That is fact and even had positive things to say on the Assault Weapons Ban. Go back and check the record. Again, it is fact. He did flip on his support on the Bush tax cuts. He was asked when they were enacted if he would support them. He told a Congressional delegation that he would not be a “cheerleader” for tax policies he did not support but that he had to be friends and close to the White House. Again, this is fact. Note that even Rep. Barney Frank praised him for bucking the White House on this. Then in a debate he had the nerve to tell Huckabee that he NEVER opposed them when it is fact he did.

Sorry to burst your bubble Michael. But facts are facts as someone else already noted. You need to do a little more vetting on the candidates you support. Your horse in the race has more in common for the other team than even McCain and Huckabee put together. The economic “genius” doesn’t even have a great record in MA. I know his excuse is that he had a Democratic legislature to compete with so he positioned himself as a moderate to cope. But since Congress is the same as the MA legislature, do we assume he will turn moderate in the White House to ‘cope’ with a Dem Congress as well? See? The guy cannot pass the smell test. Stop drinking the kool aid Michael and do your homework. THAT is what is wrong with conservatism and the GOP. The party and movement of individualism and individual thought has become a cesspool of a small collective telling the large collective what to believe, say, who to vote for, etc. Turn off the radio and stop reading the blogs. Research the records yourself. Weigh the facts and make an informed decision people. Stop being sheep to higher powers that are spoonfeeding you junk.

By Shelby

February 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR MIKE HUCKABEE BECAUSE OF WHAT I’VE LEARNED ABOUT HIM

Many would question whether Mike Huckabee is a true conservative; I would question whether he is even a true CHRISTIAN! For an ex-Baptist preacher, the man sure has a potty mouth! Re: where to put the flag pole if anyone disagreed with his position on the Confederate flag, and also considering the risqué music/song lyrics used by Huckabee and his band, Capitol Offense. Imagine the pastor of your church singing H*y Tonk Woman or Devil With a Blue Dress (song lyrics would be offensive to many) (www.irdial.com/blogdial/?p=909).

Huckabee has a history of corruption and lack of ethics and is one of two republican presidential candidates on the list of TOP TEN MOST CORRUPT POLITICIANS of 2007 (www.judicialwatch.org). One example, after being married for 30 years, Huckabee set up a WEDDING registry at Target for him and his wife to receive gifts for their house. The wedding registry was a way to avoid ethics laws prohibiting gifts to politicians.

Huckabee has also spawned a son who stoned and hung a dog to death. David was fired as a Boy Scout’s counselor for disobeying the “Be Kind” rule. Daddy Huck hindered the police investigation of David for animal cruelty. This should bring pause to anyone thinking of voting for Huckabee. Family animal cruelty issues often times indicate other problems as well.

His personality is described at Wikipedia as petty, thin-skinned, self-righteous, and somewhat vindictive (www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee).

He could never win in a general election. Imagine his Confederate flag flap being played over and over in the Dem’s TV ads. And he wants to amend the Constitution to ban abortions and gay marriage. This would alienate too many moderates and independents.

By Deseretian

February 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this

Mitt’s a good man. I’m sorry that the media and his own inexperience in political movements didn’t allow the public to learn that. If we’re smart, we’ll take the next four years and really look into to his character. He’s smart, full of integrity, and positively ambitious (not in a Clintonesque way).

Those of you who don’t buy into his persona need to look at his family and give him a chance.

By J Scott

February 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Craig and spincrazy:

Most of the stuff print on every blog about Romney are half truths and/or blatant lies. You guys need to get a life and go support your Socialist candidate of choice.

Everyone here knows that Romney had to pander to the Socialist citizens of Massachusetts to get elected. Once elected, he did everything he could to get people to work together without adding to the Socialist agenda most of the legislature had. I think he did a magnanimous job of getting them out of the horrendous debt they were in when he took office. That is why they elected him, and he did the job.

The people of the Socialist State of Massachusetts are the ones who want same sex marriages and all of the other perverted s** that is lockstep Liberal Democrat. If you want topiss up ropes, go see your legislator. Otherwise, shut up.

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 12:27 PM | Link to this

Michael is right, those are empty accusations that Craig is leveling against Romney. In fact, they sound a lot like the lies that Huckabee and McCain leveled against Romney throughout the campaign. I wouldn’t be surprised if Craig is a Huckabee supporter. Bottom line is that there are multiple sources that say that Romney never raised taxes. Before making yourself look like a complete idiot maybe we should look into what fees are. They are a conservative principal. If you use state government resources - you should pay a fee for it. Fees hadn’t been raised in decades in Mass. so it was time to raise them. He didn’t raise fees on necessary things, and he didn’t create new fees like Huckabee’s nursing home bed fee. Romney decreased the Mass. government’s rate of growth and decreased taxes, while vetoing ALL tax increase proposals that crossed his desk! It’s a fallacy to make an empty claim saying Romney was for gay marriage or even civil unions when he told the LCR’s that he wasn’t to their face. He went to Washington and argued ardently for the marriage amendment. He never changed his mind on that. The only groups saying he did, are the bigoted extremist evangelical groups that don’t want to see a Mormon pres. even though Romney is the best and most qualified leader America has seen in decades. It’s also silly to say that Romney was ever an advocate for taking our guns. From the start, Romney has held the same views that Pres. Bush held - does Bush want to take our guns, no, so it’s immature to say Romney does. He signed a bill in Mass. that was praised by the NRA and other gun rights groups - they were behind it just as much as the liberals there, if not more. NCLB in the original form IS good legislation. The problem with it is that it has allowed the education department to become an ever growing bureaucracy. Romney would do it differently and has promised to overhaul it. I’d be willing to venture a guess that you, Craig, don’t even know what the original legislation of NCLB looked like. The only mistake that Bush made with NCLB is letting the liberal legislature write the policy. Bottom line is that Romney knows there are problems with it. But lets look at how the schools performed in Mass. under Romney. I think his record speaks for itself. Romney is the most fit to be Pres. He doesn’t act like an elitist that thinks he has everything figured out, in fact he admits he doesn’t. I would be proud to have him as the leader of the Conservative movement for the next four years and after I pray that we will see him as our the next Pres!!!

By SpinDizzy

February 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Huh? So you admit he panders? THAT REALLY helps the credibility of your guy. Do yourself a favor and don’t say any more. As stated before, he’s pandered once with a liberal majority in the legislature. What would stop him from pandering again with a liberal Congress which we currently have? Why pander? Why not fight for principles? Odd how no one is refuting him campaigning for far left fringe nut Rocky Anderson. Did he “pander” to campaign for such a nut? Nope. No one is arguing against the fact Mitt single-handedly gave MA gay marriage. Odd how the facts show he was not forced to do so but did so on his won. You’d think someone principled in defense of mariage would have ignored the issue instead of taking his own initiative on making it law. Joshua says fees hadn’t been raised in a while so it was time to raise them. Wow. Sounds like Hillary to me. Excuses to charge more? Several sources that say he never raised taxes? Sources please? Gas tax for one? Take a look at the “rate of growth” of the government in MA. Government employees increased in numbers while he was governor. Meanwhile manufacturing jobs and higher wage jobs declined in number while he was governor. Why kill and/or chase off jobs if he was an economic genius? Again, home prices fell and home starts fell at a higher rate than almost every other state in the nation. Not a good sign for the economic genius. The tax burden increased in MA while he was governor. He was for the Brady Bill and even assualt weapons ban. Look it up. It’s on record. Now he joins the NRA a year and a half ago to look good for the pro-gun crowd. Wow. Pander, pander, pander. And NCLB? Mitt’s education record? It remained the same or even trickled down slightly. He didn’t improve it at all. Cutting funds for state colleges so they were forced to jack up tuition costs? Sounds detrimental to improving the overall economic situation with higher educated students. He’s flipped on the major issues and his record, even noted by groups such as Club For Growth is NOT conservative. Refute me on the gay marriage policy in MA. Refute me on the outcome of the MA economy. Facts are facts. His record is moderate at best. And defending him by saying he pandered? Come on. Don’t willingly point out such a flaw and then tell me he’s the best. Again, if anything, he’s all over the board on his views. Don’t call the guy a conservative when he’s made more trips on the other side of the fence than McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee all combined. And no, actually I am not a Huckabee supporter. Never have been thank you. Shows your ability to figure out the facts but thank you for playing. I don’t need candidate spin to see the truth. I do my own research. Try doing your own as well. Look at the WHOLE picture, not the cut and paste cherry picked spin. You’d make for a better person than having someone else do your thinking for you.

By Mia

February 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

I am sick and tired of people mischaracterizing Mitt Romney’s record. A few soundbites on youtube during the heat of a decades-old campaign is NOT a record. Actions speak louder than words. His actual record in Massachusetts is very conservative and included, for example, actions on the side of life, lowering taxes, cutting wasteful spending and ending duplication of unnecessary positions, insisting on English immersion and rejecting special favors for illegals and other law-breakers. He stood up for law and order, personal responsibility, excellence and efficiency. Classically American ideals.

Romney is the best thing that’s come along in a long time and it’s unfortunate that not enough people realized it in time. Why reject excellence and a proven track record of success? He might be the most intelligent and qualified, candidate we’ve had in ages. Are we too stupid to realize it? Maybe we don’t deserve him…..

By Craig

February 11, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

Actually I think SpinDizzy has it summed up well. I am not a Huck supporter as well. Unless you are calling several conservative sources, the state of MA, and several federal agencies all liars, Mitt’s economic record shows no positive growth as a whole. He did not really improve MA in any regard. You may have no problem with jacking up fees, but I am conservative and I do. Sorry but drivers license, marriage license, and gun permit fees are not just trivial rarely used fees in need of being jacked up. They are pretty necesary items for especially those on the Right who value getting to work, getting married, and observing their second amendment rights. Odd that someone who claims to be a conservative is defending NCLB. And then says I have no clue what it originally looked like. Let me take you on a historical journey. Remember 1994? Remember the Contract? Remember the promise to get rid of the Department of Education and return education back to local control? Remember the Constitution? Remember there is no mention of education in it? Remember that powers not listed for the Feds are reserved to the states? Please tell me how NCLB honors constitutional principles? Conservative principles? And the promise made back in 1994 to return control of schools to local level? It is peculiar that so-called conservatives are defending something I’ve seen no other big named conservatives defend. Odd how someone claiming to be a small government/less federal bureacracy conservative wants to not only KEEP a big government program controlling local governments but wants to expand it even more. Peculiar.

By Ruthie

February 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

I can hardly wait for the next election, because we will definitely have a liberal in the White House for the next 4 years, whether it’s McCain or Obama or Hillary. Go Mitt!!! You’re the only one who can save our conservative party!!!

By artforlife

February 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this

Learn to form paragraphs, read a resume and make your point succinctly, please. Some of us have lives and we are too busy for riff raff from people who have nothing better to do. No doubt Romney does daze and confuse you, SpinDizzy. Duh.

By Tony

February 11, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Mitt had his chance and couldn’t even unite the conservatives much less the entire party. His day came and went. Time for someone new to come in and be an actual conservative for more than 5 minutes before announcing he’s running for the White House. I’m tired of pretenders, fakes, panderers, sell outs, liars, etc. Give me the real thing. Not some marketed plastic phony who cannot even cover up his liberal past.

By AmericanWoman

February 11, 2008 1:35 PM | Link to this

Many Republicans are scared of anyone with an IQ over 90, that’s Romney’s problem.

He was Valedictorian of his large class at BYU and earned two master’s degrees at the same time from Harvard in Business and Law, winning the Baker Scholar award for academic achievement.

By SpinDizzy

February 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Actually artforlife, I am far from dazed and confused. It doesn’t take a genius to research Romney’s little one term and his failed campaign for Senate. It’s very easy to note his flip-flopping on the issues. If anyone had a brain, they could easily figure this out on their own rather than have someone feed them what to say. It’s amazing that someone of Romney’s educational background couldn’t beat Ted Kennedy, had to depend on Jane Swift’s failure to become governor, and couldn’t even outlast Huckabee, a guy with little to no educational background. Odd how artforlife complains about other posts but somehow has the time to read someone’s “riff raff” to comment and whine about it.

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

Craig, you continue to baffle me with your lack of reason. Where are your sources (conservative and otherwise). I guarantee that I can at LEAST go toe to toe with you on conservative sources that would say precisely the opposite of your ludicrous accusations. The only contract I recollect is the Repubs contract and in it one of their initiatives is to return more power to the PARENTS (school choice)…one of the original aims of NCLB. It’s ridiculous to note the Constitution for its lack of mentioning education. Maybe we should leave slavery among other things (like marriage) to the interpretation of unelected judges to the states too. Are you of such a small mind that you can not concede that Romney admits flaws in the policy of NCLB - I’ve heard him say it with my own ears, right in front of me. There is a difference between expanding something with all of its flaws, and overhauling a bureaucracy by cutting back personnel (as he’s said he’d do) and expanding the policy to include greater school choice (something that THE CONTRACT stated). You’re misapplying his words…and I think you’re doing it on purpose. Just who do you support Mr. Craig - if I may ask?

By J Scott

February 11, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Joshua, Craig and SpinDizzy won’t tell you who they support because they are embarrassed to admit that they are ron Paulites, who spend inordinate amounts of time bashing all of the Republican candidates, hoping we will switch to RP. You should have been able to tell this just by their unbelievable diatribes they post here. You see their comments all over the web against everyone but Ron Paul. Like RP has a chance in hades of getting more than 5% of the vote.

By Jed

February 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

You can make a stronger case that it is Massachusetts that is corrupt and not conservative than Mitt Romney. While I prefer not to make such a blanket statement, I think most conservatives would agree that the state is no friend to many of our core values. Mitt himself is probably the least corruptible of the modern politicians we have a choice of. I’ve met him, worked under him, and knowing a bit about his parents and his faith, believe he has pure intentions and may even fit the Reagan mold better than Reagan himself.

Mitt for President 2012!

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Link to this

I hear RP is on his way out too…

By Craig

February 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Lack of “reason”? Or just lack of taking your word for fact? Read the GOP platform on abolishing the Department of Education and returning control of schools back over to local control. NCLB enforces a nationwide standard over local schools and punishes those not meeting those standards. NCLB is an unfunded mandate on local school systems. Read Romney’s website and see his own plan for expansion of federal control over education. His position is completely counter to every major conservative’s position and even the GOP platform. His own website says that his ‘reform’ is focused on rewarding those who meet or exceed but still does nothing for punishing those who fail. Forcing schools to abide by national standards without offering actual help to meet those ‘goals’ is NOT helping the schools. Again, read his site. Everything under his education section is expanding the power, control, and influence of the federal government over education. It is truly amazing that his plan sounds so much like Obama’s and Hillary’s. But yet he claims to be a conservative. It would be odd to see a “conservative” have a similar plan to those two now won’t it?

Are you comparing slavery to education? Great comparison. Knee jerk at best as well. The powers not enumerated to the federal government are to be left to local and state governments. Try reading the 10th amendment. That is another conservative principle. I guess you’d rather side with a vast federal bureacracy over the local knwoledge of needs over schools. DC is very in touch with Smalltown, USA’s needs over education. You may have heard him right in front of you but I have seen firsthand in MA, seen his own website, and heard his own words as well. Are you of such a small mind to see that conservatism is counter to Romney’s position on education? It may sound great on paper, but it is NOT conservative.

As far as sources, I think several have been already cited in posts above - Club For Growth, Heritage, Cato, FDIC, MA state govenrment, etc. are just a few.

It looks as if Mitt’s gay marriage issue in MA along with his history of helping elect a liberal in office have yet to be refuted as well. I can go toe to toe as well. There is no misapplication of Mitt’s words. His record is public. I will give you that you can find a token conservative appearing item here and there. But his overall record has brought a higher tax burden, larger government, aid to electing liberals, no economic improvement for his state, etc. For each “conservative” item you can dig up, I can find 5 taking Mitt the opposite direction. I’m sure others already posting can do the same since there are so many to choose from.

By Susan

February 11, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Craig and SpinDizzy, Mitt fought hard to protect marriage between one man and one woman- you’d be hard-pressed to name ONE person from MA who fought against those non-elected, activist judges more than he did on that issue! It was NOT in his power as governor to overturn that decision (you are mistaken there)- he did EVERYTHING he could and tried to get an ammendment to the state consitution to overturn it.

I was slow to get behind Mitt out of concern for his motivation for flipping to pro-life. Not only did I look into it, but it wasn’t until I heard him personally tell about his experience that I discerned his sincerity. His mother was a pro-choice advocate, after a family member died from complications of an illegal abortion. While he has ALWAYS personally believed abortion was wrong, initially he felt that for the safety of those women who would choose it, that government should not interfere with their right to choose. If you really listened to the 1994 debate, you would see he said he would protect a woman’s right to choose (but he did not say he personally embraced the pro-choice movement at all.) HOWEVER, once govenor when cloning and stem cell research were front-page topics- once he was confronted with it, THAT is when he was converted- that was when he knew he became pro-life on a “government level.” And every piece of legistlation that crossed his desk, he came down firmly on the side of life. The MA Citizens for Life awarded him at the end of his term for his strong pro-life stance.

I could go on, but need to go. Suffice it to say, it sure looks like YOU have misjudged. Oh. Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons ban— I wish I had more time. There was a great article… do a google search “Romney is the real deal” and see what you find.

By CM

February 11, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this

Conservative Voter:

Yeah, you do need to find a different label for yourself. Trt liberal on for size. Or religious zealot.

By CM

February 11, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this

American Woman:

Small correction: Romney earned an MBA and a DOCTORATE of law simultaneously at Harvard.

By Susan

February 11, 2008 3:17 PM | Link to this

And the fees they raised were NOT on driver’s licenses and the like. These were NOT on things that applied to the general public as a whole, but upon things like fees businesses would pay for road signs, etc. There was a 3 billion dollar deficit when he took office. He balanced the budget every year and left a 1 billion dollar surplus at the end. Of that 4 billion dollar difference, the increased fees brough in around 240 million. Just a fraction. He is a master at cutting the fat.

I love what he did when taking over the Salt Lake Olympic commitee- first time they brought in catered lunch and he says something like, “what’s this?” to which it is explained to him that’s daily lunch. His reply was like, “Take it away. From now on, we’ll order pizza. If you want some it’s $2/slice. If you want a drink, there’s a vending machine down the hall.” We need someone like THAT in government!

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this

Craig, it’s obvious we could argue all day about this because I can give you quotes from the Club for Growth that cite Romney as a pro-growth ally, as well as CATO - I don’t know that the MA government would be one I’d call a reliable source if I were you, as in MA they happen to be very liberal.

What I was saying when I wrote slavery was that the Constitution said nothing about slavery until an amendment was made. Likewise when I said marriage - the constitution does not have the word marriage, yet I believe there should be a marriage amendment. It was a direct response to your saying that the Constitution doesn’t have the word education in it. Our schools continually under perform in comparison to other countries. There is some sort of Federal involvement needed and I happen to agree with Romney’s proposal. I’m a conservative and so is he. I believe accountability is absolutely needed when it comes to education and I think, when done right, the federal government (our elected officials) can provide that. What you’ve “seen” first hand in MA is that MA consistently out performed the majority of the nation when Romney was Governor. That’s a pretty good record, actually the best record out of everyone who is running for Pres.

In your last paragraph, it’s funny that you level all of the same accusations once again. Especially when the facts directly refute what you’re saying (says the CFG and CATO). As far as helping to elect a democrat - conservatism isn’t Republican only. When we’re dealing with the lesser of two evils if that means electing a democrat if they hold the better policy solutions, then I’d be on board 100%.

Bottom line is we can argue until we’re blue in the face. I believe if people will take the time and truly research credible unbiased sources, then they will find not only that Mitt Romney is a conservative like most of America, but that he is one of the most capable Presidents of our lifetime, potentially one that would out-Reagan, Reagan!!!

By Lynda

February 11, 2008 3:45 PM | Link to this

I am amazed that there are so many comments about Mitt still. You don’t need to destroy him anymore, your lies and half truths have already done it. Get off it. IMHO, you have destroyed that one hope the Republicans had to win this election, and save the economy. I’m hoping he might run next time, but by then the economy will be so far down the sewer, it will almost be impossible to fix it, and maybe thats where it needs to be.

By Craig

February 11, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this

Susan,

You are completely wrong. Please take the time and research the decision and what the judges required. The decision required the legislature to act on the issue within 180 days. The legislature did not resolve the issue. Thus it was a moot point for Mitt to even do anything. Also, please study the MA state constitution. John Adams ensured that there was an embedded separation of powers within the state constitution. One branch cannot order another branch to do anything. Thus the courts even ordering the legislature itself to do something was in fact unconstitutional. The decision did not even require the governor to act on anything. The governor is the chief executive. His job is to execute the law. There was no law resolved. Therefore based on legal and constitutional principles, Mitt had NOTHING at all forcing him to act on this. Several conservative constitutional scholars have stated this repeatedly.

To review history, Mitt took it upon himself to change the state form required to get married. Prior to Mitt’s actions it specifically required a male and a female. After Mitt changed the form, it asked for person 1 and person 2, thus opening the door for same sex marriage. No order, law, etc. required Mitt to change the form. If you think otherwise, please provide proof of what forced Mitt to change the form.

Since you brought up other issues I will respond as such. Prove to me prior to him being governor where he stated he was pro-life. Review his debate with Ted Kennedy. He was as clear as crystal on his view on being pro-choice. He said he would fight, repeat fight, to protect that right. Why would you fight to protect something you don’t think is right? If life is precious, why not fight for it? Show me where he said he was pro-life. Prove it to me.

As for the Brady Bill, Susan, it’s just another issue he’s changed on. Do you not have any concerns over someone who once supported liberal positions but now says he supports conservative principles? Romney’s whole argument with McCain is that McCain had previous “liberal” positions and therefore was not conservative. How can that argument apply to McCain but not to Romney? As long as we are Googling, try Romney Brady Bill and see everything that comes up. His record is all over the internet.

By James

February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this

Romney has superior qualifications to any candidate that has run in decades. McCain should choose Romney as Vice President to unite the party. Romney is obviously going to run again as soon as he can. He has huge backers and almost all of the conservative activists and personalities. Romney respected constituents in liberal Mass. He was not a flip flopper like many label him. Every candidate has changed positions and for less noble reasons than Romney. He will be President one day. It is like he was born to be. The man is a genius.

By Kelly Warnick

February 11, 2008 4:11 PM | Link to this

If Mike Huckabee had made racial comments about a leading black candidate or sexist comments about a leading female candidate, he would have been castigated by the media. How he was able to topple Romney’s campaign with religious bigotry is dumbfounding to me. It seems that everyone is oblivious to the obvious.

Now that Mitt Romney is out of the race for the GOP nomination, history will show that Mike Huckabee pulled off the political crime of the century. It was Mike Huckabee that raised religious issues among Iowa evangelicals by comments toward Romney’s religion.

As Huckabee’s tactics started to show in the Iowa polls, Mitt responded with his “Faith in America” speech. Romney was then forced to work on damage control. Romney’s efforts in Iowa payed off and he continued to rise back in the polls but the damage gave him a second in a state he held firmly until Huckabee’s misuse of the public forum.

McCain saw his window and concentrated on New Hampshire while Romney was being unduly “occupied” in Iowa. Romney was forced to agressively address things detracting from what his positive messaging had been and did so famously. Romney then relied on comparison ads to contrast differences. These ads were constantly referred to as “attack ads” by Huckabee, who continually portrayed him as “desperate”, and “attacking”.

Then Huckabee, and John McCain for that matter, was able to capitalize on such tactics. Because of Huckabee’s misleading of the majority evangelical state of Iowa and with the ignorance of the media toward the Mormon religion, he flew under the radar of a nation that has worked since Lincoln to erase such bigotry.

A majority of the nation now sees only that Mike Huckabee won the Iowa caucus and that John McCain began his comeback by winning the New Hampshire primary yet know nothing of the back story. I think it important to present it. Observe for yourself and pass these perspectives along. America was robbed of a president that would have been a TRUE man for change with a proven record of turning things around in the oval office.

“What would have been…” is how this campaign will be characterized. Stories will be told without the media and dirty political agendas and America will come to know the authenticity and integrity of Mitt Romney. My only hope is that he finds the determination to try again in four years.

By Tony

February 11, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

What scares me more than anything are the Willard supporters who make him out to be the Messiah. You’d think the guy was after all of the garbage I’ve heard about him….he’s a genius? Huh? How smart he is? Huh? He failed people. No majority believed his record. No majority believed his abilities. He couldn’t even get re-elected in Massachusetts if he wanted to. If he’s so great, let him run for Senate in UT or something. Prove just how good he is at running a government. He sure didn’t do well in Massachusetts. He was mediocre at best. I have family there and lived there myself. Most up there will tell you he is no conservative. The people closest to him know him best and the ones I know in with the Party up there say he basically fluffed his record to run to the right. Nothing to see here people. Move along. In 2016 when he’d be able to run and even remotely win, he’d be as old as McCain is now. If McCain’s age is a problem now, Willard’s will be then.

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

I found an interesting article articulating Romney’s passion toward passing the Marriage Amendment. This is from the ultra-conservative National Review for those of you who are tallying:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/gallagher200406250924.asp

By Craig

February 11, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Actually I support John McCain, a man you know exactly what you’re getting. He’s not all over the board on the issues and is not afraid to take on the tough issues that need to be resolved. I have no problems with his record since I am not looking for the perfect candidate. I don’t agree with all of his positions but I know for a fact what he stands for. He has a conservative record on judges, military, life, guns, etc. While he may have taken a few positions that people would call liberal, he is by far much more conservative on positions than Mitt. Again, there is no purely conservative in this race. But clearly McCain is not someone pretending to be what his record shows is the exact opposite.

By Expat

February 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this

I’ve read a few of the comments from Spin Dizzy and his pidgeonholing of Romney and have to make a couple of points.

It is fortunate that Mr. Dizzy was not around or had no clout in the pre Reagan era or the country may not have enjoyed one of its greatest presidents.

Reagan when facing spiraling deficits, sinking poll ratings and a hostile Congress signed some of the largest tax hikes in our history.

Reagan promised to limit government and eliminate the Energy and Education departments. Instead he added a veteran affairs secretary to the cabinet.

The 86 immigration bill turned out to be the most liberal amnesty for illegal aliens in our history and set the state for our current problem.

Reagan cut and ran when our marines were bombed in Lebanon enboldening the Islamic extremests we now face.

Reagan appointed judges far more liberal than the current sitting president.

Reagan was divorced.

Need I go on with this palaver out of context, incomplete recital of Reagan’s accomplishments and assume serious people will consider it as accurate?

The obvious answer is no. We need Mr. Dizzy to take Romney’s record in total and in context and open his mind to the fact that Mitt Romney respresents the best source of future leadership for this country on conservative ideals.

By Jenny

February 11, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

I hope Mitt does run for office in the future. We need a man of integrity and intelligence, and he was our best hope this election. I would hope a nation that has so many advantages and opportunities could be represented by individuals who are honest and good and capable.
If Mitt ever runs for President again, I would be a Mom for Mitt. I have realized that even the quiet voices of mothers need to be heard in the political debate of our nation. He offers the best hope for the future of our children.

By waiting

February 11, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

Please come back Mitt …I cannot handle the thought of having to listen to Huck-up-chuck sound bites for the next several months!

By SpinDizzy

February 11, 2008 5:14 PM | Link to this

Well besides a wonderful slamming of Ronald Reagan, expat offers nothing proving his conclusion that Romney represents the best source of future leadership. If Reagan was horrible and Mitt’s record in MA is nothing spectacular, why do we need to believe he is so wonderful? If he coddled and pandered in MA, what makes you think he’d hold the line as President? Sounds like expat beat around the bush and made a comparison between Reagan and Mitt but then slammed Reagan. I think the case for Mitt gets worse each post by a supporter.

By Craig

February 11, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this

Joshua,

If you read the article, you will note they did not include the fact that the form in question was changed by Mitt. It was his own pen that changed the form and opened the door for this to occur. This article does not also cover the fact that the Goodrich decision NEVER forced Mitt to make that change. It’s odd that someone who took it upon himself to change the form would come back and say what it opens the door to. So Joshua, please go back and see the fact that it was Mitt’s actions as the Governor and Chief Executive that made this action. Please show me otherwise where Mitt was forced to do this according to the courts:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

By Tony

February 11, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

You know every blog I read, I see Mitt people saying they want McCain to fail and will either stay home or vote for the Dem. So Mitt’s people are behind sabotaging the election for their guy to run in 2012? They’re about burning down the country at the hands of liberals to give us Romney the Messiah? Wow. Making everyone suffer for years for their candidate. THAT is what I call principles and patriotism folks. They’d rather make us all suffer under terrorism, pay higher taxes, and tank our economy just to get their candidate elected. So loyal - we should be so fortunate to be led by a man with such followers. Sounds like Hitler’s devotees and Gotterdammerung.

By GaConservative007

February 11, 2008 6:15 PM | Link to this

Anybody But Hillary!

By MEANSTREAK

February 11, 2008 6:59 PM | Link to this

we lost the best candidate this party will ever see,mainly do to southern mormon bigotry,a finer man(or woman)in 08 does not exsist.come 2011 and the country is broken worst than it is now,we all will be in need of someone who can fix it and if his wifes health holds out it will be mr.romney.we made a gigantic mistake this year. mitt 2012

By Tom

February 11, 2008 7:12 PM | Link to this

Craig,

That link doesn’t mean much considering not one of it’s claims is backed up by any sources for each part of its timeline.

Without them, it’s laughable at best. And while you’re looking for sources for that, maybe you can try and take a stab at beefing up your earlier claims?

I’m also interested in hearing you explain how exactly it was Mitt’s fault that gay marriage was instituted in MA. That’s certainly a new one to me…

Tony,

Mitt Romney cannot be held accountable for the words of a few of his supporters. No one can and you’re taking a rather unfair swipe at Romney with that comment.

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this

Craig, tell me how so many deeply conservative groups that have built their entire career on family values, people like Dr. James Dobson, Paul Weyrich, Morton Blackwell, James Bopp Jr., as well as many others - have endorsed, or otherwise said they would support Governor Romney’s bid for the presidency if the MassResistance and the few radical groups like them were correct in their assessment of Governor Romney’s performance on social issues. Bottom line is that they found someone at the top to throw under the bus because they didn’t feel he did all he could. It’s very curious that these outside groups, and people like you assume they have a more accurate handle on the law. Also, if Governor Romney didn’t understand the Constitution and the rule of law - why did many very strict constructionist judges endorse Romney for President? You have to look at the facts bud, not ridiculous accusations that you can latch on to have a reason not to support the superior candidate before he suspended his campaign!

By Joshua

February 11, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this

Tony, a few people that write in online blogs hardly make up the entire base of Romney supporters!! In fact if you were to read real news publications you would understand that most Mitt supporters have already filed in line behind McCain (and to a lesser extent the Huckster). So before you throw everyone into some stereotype that you’ve imagined, it would be best to know the facts! As for me, it’s not about sabotaging the election. The Repubs seriously don’t have a chance and will lose two to one unless another attack happens or there are other developments in the war. I’m not voting for McCain based on principal - I can’t vote for someone that cheated on his wife, as she was home taking care of his kids, with a woman that had the money to fund his political ambition. There is something fundamentally flawed with someone that would do such a thing!!

By Conservative Voter

February 11, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this

CM,

Could you please explain yourself?

What did you mean by this

I am a limited government, low taxes, pro-life conservative. How can I be a liberal? How does that make me a religious zealot?

By DB

February 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Link to this

Purdue’s recent study demonstrates conclusively that Romney hatred is motivated primarily by Mormon bigotry. Therefore, when I read virulently slanderous attacks on Romney I can’t help but wonder if this simply reveals anti-Mormonism. It sure is hard to sort out, isn’t it? I bet most Romney bashers on this site will be the first to step forward and claim they’re not anti-Mormon bigots. And … unfortunately, most of them will be lying.

By Jim

February 11, 2008 11:16 PM | Link to this

What I think is funny is how all these people are reveling in the fact that Romney didn’t make it to the nomination, let alone the presidency. He ran. That’s more than any of you have done. It’s easy enough to sit back on your asses and criticize someone who is sacrificing plenty of his own cash and his reputation for you.

Romney’s failure is not his, but ours. Too many people allowed themselves to be misled by Huckabee, McCain, and the MSM in general. Talk about casting pearls before swine! How well Romney did in the face of this opposition is commendable.

Furthermore, it takes a true leader to be complimented to the extent that you critics are doing. Every argument against Romney is only a testament to his dedication to fair-play; to compromise. Romney may be no radical conservative, and good thing, because if he was, I wouldn’t have voted for him. He picked his battles in Massachusetts; some he won, others he lost. But he did make a difference. The fact that no radical group was satisfied is evidence enough for me.

I’m proud to have made my decision based on my own research, my own initiative, and my own instincts concerning Governor Romney. Give him the respect he deserves for a hard fought campaign that has cemented him nationally. Here is to the reasonable politician: Mitt Romney.

By Will Jones

February 11, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this

Romney’s “record” as an American man is Certified Grade A Vietnam Draft-dodger. He expanded that record to Liar, Quibbler, Hypocrite, and Fraud when he and his flacks tried to rewrite history.

Like Steve Forbes and George W. Bush: a draft-dodger is a draft-dodger is a draft-dodger no matter his money inherited from a flack for the traitors on Jekyll Island who unconstitutionally created the Fed, or that his traitor pappy killed John and Martin to send us to die in Vietnam.

Romney chose the “other side” from the American People. Those who see him and don’t see that don’t know what it means to be a man, or American.

By David

February 11, 2008 11:52 PM | Link to this

There are a great many people who have a lot of misperceptions about Mitt Romney. My family has known the Mitt and Ann Romney family for nearly 40 years. My wife served their family as their housekeeper for five of those years. If there is anything embarrasing, illegal, unethical, or in bad taste, she would know about it.

Mitt Romney’s family has inspired my family to a vision of conservatism and of living a better life. While some believe he has pandered to liberals in order to win Massachusetts, they are only using this issue as an excuse to justify their frustrations of his conversion to conservatism.

Mitt Romney has never pandered to anyone. It is not in his nature. While people believe he “flip-flops,” there is such a thing as having an “open-mind.” Unfortunately, people have a difficult time telling the difference. It just makes me wonder if the majority of Americans are “flip-floppers.” Issues have changed more often during this election cycle among the people then any candidate in the history of American politics have changed their positions.

Personally, I believe he could be the new face of American conservatism if people are willing to let go of their prejudices. It is this kind of unethical behavior during a political season that feeds hate crimes. Who knows, maybe people are alright with hate crimes in America!

There are to many people out there just slamming candidates with stupid remarks that they heard some media source call them in order to lift their own candidate. Some people might call this golible or even uninformed. So before people start spouting off foolish remarks, perhaps what they are doing is giving the rest of America a perspective of themselves!

By Biill Watkins

February 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Link to this

I think very few Americans got to see the whole concession speech. That should be copied, distributed, and replayed all over the country. What is Mitt doing right now to help the conservative cause?

By Biill Watkins

February 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Link to this

I think very few Americans got to see the whole concession speech. That should be copied, distributed, and replayed all over the country. What is Mitt doing right now to help the conservative cause?

By Biill Watkins

February 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Link to this

I think very few Americans got to see the whole concession speech. That should be copied, distributed, and replayed all over the country. What is Mitt doing right now to help the conservative cause?

By Biill Watkins

February 12, 2008 12:27 AM | Link to this

I think very few Americans got to see the whole concession speech. That should be copied, distributed, and replayed all over the country. What is Mitt doing right now to help the conservative cause?

By Bill Watkins

February 12, 2008 12:48 AM | Link to this

Very few Americans got to see Romney’s withdrawl speech. In my opinion that should be copied, distributed nationwide and replayed over and over again so that more people in the party will know how well Mitt sees the issues. What is Romney doing right now to further the conservative/republican cause? To me it seems he needs to make friends with some of the people who hated on him so much like Tim Russert, others of the press, the other canditdates. Sure, it is hard for him to invite them to his house for a coctail party but there must be a way. Most important to me is that he lead us to help the like minded canditates who are up for seats in the house, the senate and even governerships. Become their friends, endorse them, work for them. Remain positive about America, show compassion for those who are less fortunate. Get ont he Radio like your hero Reagan and express your thoughts and solutions for the Country’s problems. Serve the people of America for the next four years and then go for the White House again. Yes, a lot of us are deflated because you did the right thing and you steped aside. But, we are still looking for your leadership in solving the ills of this country, of our people, and in fact the people of the world. Yes, if we call ourselves the greatest nation in the world then we need to use that greatness to be ready and willing to help other nations to help themselves. Mitt, you have God given talents to lead this nation in appropriate ways. We want to help!!

By Will Jones

February 12, 2008 1:47 AM | Link to this

Romney can forget American politics until he is no longer a pansy draft-dodger. Bush wiped out our tolerance for it.

By E-Z

February 12, 2008 3:13 AM | Link to this

You said, he said, they said, whoever said, it’s all others’ opinions. I believe the BEST way to discern someone’s core believe and value is to look at the way he/she has lived his/her personal life.

Romney is a very handsome guy with extreme IQ and awesome history of successes, yet he had NO scandal whatsoever in him or his immediate family. It’s stupid to think that he can achieve that without core conservative values.

He is ‘over-qualified’ for the top job of this country for now. If people don’t wise up, we will not deserve him in 2012 either.

Tony, out of all the comments I’ve read, yours is the reflection of the least intelligent. You said: “he’s a genius? Huh? How smart he is? Huh? He failed people…”

By E-Z

February 12, 2008 3:42 AM | Link to this

Will, just to set the record straight, Romney’s not a draft dodger. He entered into the drawing after finishing his religious service in France, and was not drafted!!

By Michelle

February 12, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this

Thank God Mitt Romney is out of the race. He would be the worst thing that ever happened to our country. The guy is NOT electable. He had everything on his side: money, conservative media, organization, etc and he couldn’t compete. Craig’s comments on Mitt’s record are exactly right. But, don’t take our word for it, look it up yourselves. The reason people don’t like him is not because he is Mormon, it is because he has no character. I am a Christian and wanted to like Mitt but became so turned off by him when I saw how much he lied. I’ve never seen anyone lie that easily except Bill Clinton. People want authenticity and Mitt has none.

By carlene

February 12, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this

A makeover. Great. Put another coat of polyurethane on that guy. Feed him some more lines. Turn the $100 million man (money spent) into the $200 million man. When will the GOP stop thinking for us. We can choose our own president we don’t need them to help us or manipulate us with that important right we have. There is a viable candidate for president still in this race and its not broken old, karl rove endorsed, speech impaired, void of passion bomb, bomb, bomb John. The dems will debate him under the table, finally the exterior will break under the dem interrogation trust me. Wake up GOP you told us we can speak up on amnesty, so speak up we will on OUR President choice.

By Rye

February 12, 2008 9:04 AM | Link to this

Lets see what’s wrong with Mitts record? How about forcing people to get health care and also offering abortions for a $50 co pay. Doesn’t seem very conservative to me. Unless being conservative means that we all bow to the altar of money.

By bill fitzgerald

February 12, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Voting for Huckabee the crook and for McCain the adulterer compared to the immaculate record of Romney who the press admitted several times that they could find nothing in the closet on him, squeaky clean they said,is simmply a sign of the times whe people will choose evil over good.

By charles corley

February 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

gooooood morning/ i bet joseph smith is laughing his a* off. joe was no dummy. he came up with celestial marriage, polygamy and conscientious objector on religious grounds. since moses came down from the mountain with the adultry idea the baptist have been worrying about going to hell. joe’s bunch, believe it or not, 30,000 are still practicing polygamy and still don’t like war and the baptist are still worrying about going to hell. grandpa romney had 5 wives and mitt has 5 boys who are all objectors as he was. reed’s deferment was bed wetter. come on down you sinners.

By April

February 12, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this

Would someone please find Craig a job.

By Will Jones

February 12, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

“E-Z”: Google “Mitt Draft dodge Vietnam” and don’t take my word for it.

He dodged the Draft and doesn’t have the integrity to admit it. Those flacking for him now are either dupes or liars…because he dodged the draft.

Had he really wanted to serve with the 9.2 million actual Americans who did so honorably during Vietnam I’m certain one or more of the services might have deemed him fit.

…and your repeating “handsome” as a qualification of his for national office suggests what had heretofore only been hearsay about the wet sheets and perverts at the Mormom Tabernacle’s initiation rituals in Salt Lake City is true.

Mormonism is “Rome West.” Romney proves it.

Romney has no character and endorses the homosexual draft-dodger who committed 9-11 and now has his betters dying for lies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wonder how soon, or if ever, we’ll find out how many of his sons are also bent. It’s a false culture no matter how many of you share it.

By Kay

February 12, 2008 12:17 PM | Link to this

Whatever happened to Government of, for, and by the people.

We, the people, do not need our candidate chosen for us by people scheming to “remake” a candidate to push down our throats.

How arrogant, how anti-constitution, how foolish to believe that they are of superior intellect and must choose for us poor ignorant masses who our candidate will be. These people need to be confronted about their little meeting and made to understand that their bizarre plan to push a remade Reagan onto the electorate will not work in this home of the brave, and land of the free. We, the people, must speak!!

By Rob Collier

February 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

I don’t live in America and I can see the disaster the Republican party has made. Mitt Romney is the man to re-enthrone conservative values, for family values, for economic stability and ultimately the White House. A predudiced bigoted press, back room deals and conspiracies gave the Republicans what they deserved the adulterer McCain who has no truth in him. This democrat in republican clothing will yet show his true colours to the Republican party - who will rue the day. Oh foolish Americans - where are the wise the honest and the true. Is this still the land of the free? or the land of the foolish. Your flag is drooping and your future looks dark and Mitt Romney the best professional political candidate you have had for many years came to your aid and you chose bigotry and dogma. The constitution is under challenge- not from without but from the corruption within. Wake up and rise to be the nation you should be. Give America her President - give the world her leader Mitt Romney

By Dedi

February 12, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this

I voted today, 2/12/08 at 6:55 AM in Virginia for……MITT ROMNEY!

By J Scott

February 12, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this

To Will Jones:

Your bigotry and hatred for Romney and Mormons makes me embarrassed to be an American.

Where you come up with so much ignorant bile, we will never know. You need some counseling boy.

By Alienated Wannabe

February 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this

Craig,

I believe in being compassionate and patient with people, but your outrageous statements demand a different kind of response: You, sir, are either incredibly misinformed regarding Governor Romney’s position on Gay marriage in Massachusetts or you are a bold face liar.

Everyone knows he battled that movement from step one. How could a sincere observer of that process ever make the claims you have made? Something tells me that you are purposely trying to spread lies regarding Governor Romney.

If so, shame on you for your despicable conduct. You are a traitor to the Conservative movement.

A.W.

By Rusty

February 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this

Craig - I’m fed up with the MassResistance interpretation of the Mass. Supreme Court (MSC) ruling, and all you parrots out there squawking it to the heavens.

1) MSC didn’t change any law, they changed the interpretation of a word in the law. That word is marriage. MSC dropped the common law interpreation of marriage from man/woman,bride/groom,husband/wife to any two people seeking to have their commitment recognized by the state.

2) MSC gave the Mass. Legislature 180 days to act. This was not a suggestion as MassResistance claims, but a ruling that current Mass. law does not prevent the issuing of marriage licenses to individuals of the same sex under the new interpretation of marriage because there is no clarifying language in current Mass. law. The legislature had 180 days to add clarifying language to specify man/woman,husband/wife,etc. Which they failed to do.

3) Because of the new interpretation of the word marriage and the Mass. Legislature’s failure to clarify the meaning in the law. Governor Romney had no choice but to issue the marriage licenses after the 180 days had expired. The original case was brought because a same-sex couple had been refused a license.

Why don’t you try actually reading the Supreme Court ruling: (The link is to a findlaw analysis so you have to wade a little to get to the actual ruling.) http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf I don’t need MassResistance’s spin to explain it for me, I can read what the MSC told the Legislature and the Executive branch to do with my own eyes and use my own brain to reason it out.

Mitt did not single-handedly institute gay-marriage in Mass. But as the Executive of a state where the Legislature refused to act and the Court throws out precident, it fell on him to enforce the law as passed by the Leg. and interpreted by the MSC. Gov. Romney then enforced a lesser known law to limit same-sex marriage to Mass. while he began the fight, unified with a majority of people in Mass., to do what the Leg. refused to do. To clarify and codify once and for all, by Constitutional Amendment, that marriage means one man and one woman. period. end of story.

Your gay marriage argument has now been refuted. Don’t bring it up again.

By Will Jones

February 12, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this

Just as polygamy engenders homosexuality/pedophilia in the present cultural heir of Sodom, Arab Islam (Viz. Michener’s “Caravans,” Herodotus “History of the Persian Wars,” et al), Mormonism’s recent perversions have clear manifestations in the lack of “manly” character demonstrated by Mitt Romney during Vietnam, in his transparent draft-dodge and lack of protest against the Vietnam crime; and, in his and his honey-tongued “admirers’” indirection and absence of integrity in the matter, now.

I bear Romney no ill will. He is but one more failed shell of a man on life’s highway: full of Mammon and empty of character. American culture would end if his type set the standard. Young men’s willingness to fight, kill, and die for the commonwealth of E Pluribus Unum is Sine Qua Non. If Romney wasn’t taught that from birth and didn’t figure it out as a “boy become a man” he doesn’t need to do anything but stay away from my children and pay his taxes. Any of his acolytes who know the circumstances of his dodge who think that’s “fine” are probably pedophiles, too.

By E-Z

February 12, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

Will, let me repeat “Romney is not a draft dodger”. He entered the drawing after his religious service in France, and was not drafted!!

Unless you have anything to say to dispute what I just said, please don’t repeat the non-sense, otherwise I have to conclude you are a boldface liar.

You comment about Mormon shows that you are just a thorough bigot. Fortunately based on my observation you are still the exception, otherwise I’d move out of the country in a heartbeat.

By Mr. Law

February 12, 2008 5:27 PM | Link to this

Mitt Romney is the conservative’s conservative

He is far and away the most conservative Presidential candidate. Claims to the contrary are based upon leftist hate-journalism. Trusting the Boston Globe or any other hard-left news outlet is pretty ridiculous, especially coming from those pretending to know who is conservative and who isn’t.

Intelligent, intelletually honest conservatives love Mitt Romney and supported his candidacy. Those who oppose Mitt Romney, claiming he isn’t a conservative are anti-Mormon bigots.

By Churchill

February 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

E-Z, Will Jones is the lunatic -in-residence on this board. As a conservative I have found that Will Jones and his religious intolerance perfectly illustrates the bigotry of the left. He is a typical angry lib. Will Jones and his ilk are haters. They hate this country, they hate the history of its founding. They hate capitalism. They hate success. They hate the idea that is America. Screw-em. Peace.

By Savea7

February 12, 2008 5:36 PM | Link to this

It’s sad and frustrating to read ignorance, hatred, bigotry, resentment, jealousy, envy, hypocrisy and lies in many of these comments. We can’t agree on certain issues even when the source is revealed! So, how can we know for sure what we wrote here is nothing but the absolute truth? Maybe the better proof is of those who were actually there who knew or heard the candidates in person like a few comments here. One such commentator knew the Romney’s for 40 years. And when I look at Mitt’s family, it’s is enough for me to know that among the dirty pigs in the mud of politics, Mitt Romney is the least dirty of them all.

By J Scott

February 12, 2008 8:07 PM | Link to this

Will Jones, your are nothing but a stupid, blatant, bigot. Its a good thing that you can post here without leaving a trace about who you are, other than you sound like some bible toting preachers I know. Your stuff here is pretty much hatred and ignorant rantings of a bigot.

By Will Jones

February 13, 2008 6:52 AM | Link to this

“E-Z”: The “religious service” was Romney’s draft-dodge. How many had the integrity to stay in the profession they chose when they dodged? Ministers? Lawyers? Doctors? Not Romney: his “faith” was temporal. Just long held enough to bridge him to a high lottery number. He’s a dodger…and didn’t protest.

For him now to say his “greatest regret” is that he never had the “opportunity to serve” demonstrates an impertinence unbounded by even a vague sense of patriotism, spitting in the face of every one who ever wore the uniform.

Though Vietnam was a crime, an atrocity, and treason, never was heard a protest from Romney. But he sure felt the urge to proselytize the French for Mormonism while Americans were dying in France’s lost colony.

It was bad enough that the able-bodied with money could stay in college and put off sharing the “burden” of citizenship with the less financially secure, draftees, and the dupes who actually hadn’t figured out it was all a lie and thought it our duty to serve with our countrymen in the ranks in a “righteous, noble” call to arms.

But not pansy Romney and his sycophant cadre of perverters of all that is great in America.

The Anti-Christ faction is going down. The names in the article above floating Romney show just how corrupt he is as they circle the drain.

P.S. Stick with him all you anonymous supporters of “macho” closet-queen draft-dodgers…so we know what scum to fight the next time the Anti-Christ tries to trot out the loser Romney.

By David

February 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Yes, lets make Romney the real face of conservatism. Now that conservatism supports the rights of gays, I’m on board. When he told CNN commentator Roland Martin that he supported gay rights, this got my attention. Then I found out Romney supported ENDA, hate crimes, domestic partner rights, and even opposed the Boy Scout policy on gay Scout leaders. He even implemented gay marraige. What’s strange is that Romney would do and say these things and the usual hate mongers on the right — like Hannity and Coulter — would not say a word. I guess conservatism is evolving! GAY RIGHTS NOW! Romney in 4 years!

By James West

February 22, 2008 7:44 AM | Link to this

Forget Romney. The millions of us who support Huckabee would never find him acceptable. His flip-flopping show that he is really not a social conservative who has always supported conservative principles. Sekulow and Reed are political opportunists and pragmatists, not principled men. They represent a lot of other “so-called” Christian conservatives who, when called upon to take a firm stand, look for an easy way out to achieve their political purposes. Well, it won’t work.