Adding to the extensive list of reasons to not trust Romney, we now include some common sense fact checking:
Tax Hike Mike? Not the Biggest Hiker on the Trail….
I’ve done some research on the various candidate sites, Wikipedia, CFG and so forth and I have to say, I’m not comfortable with Romney at all.
I could go into his recent policy changes on key issues of interest to social conservatives, or the image retooling that seems to occur between states or the fact that he has the crass notion that he can simply buy the White House with chump change left over from some leveraged buyout. We’ve heard all those arguments before, and as I’ve observed the campaign, they’re valid concerns. Then there’s the sleaze factor in the way he has bought off high powered organizations at great expense (more than 585,000 that can be accounted for so far) to trash the other candidates and you may have all the reason in the world to oppose a candidate. However, this is politics and merely being a phoney with deep pockets and no conscience doesn’t necessarily make a guy stand out.
The conservative media has been critical of another candidate, Mike Huckabee, for tax increases he made as Governor of Arkansas that were not completely offset by his tax cuts, leaving a net $500 million extracted from the taxpayers’ pockets. The tax charge is what it is – Governors, especially those who preside over Democratic states, are likely to raise taxes. Huckabee and Romney were both governors of heavily Democratic states and they both raised taxes.
The “Rest of the Story” is that using the same figures from CFG, on a “per year in office” basis, Romney’s tax increases were actually 70% higher than Huckabee’s. Romney’s “higher” tax bite may be even higher; when Huckabee left office, he also left an $800 million surplus which could be used to offset the tax increases. It doesn’t take a brilliant economist to catch such inconsistencies in any campaign, but in a campaign that is all about taxes and the economy, one has to wonder why Mitt’s handlers didn’t at least break out a pocket calculator before writing his attack ads.
How it all works out:
Mike Huckabee is charged with increasing taxes by a net of $500 million over 10 1/2 years. That is an average of $47,619,048 per year.
By contrast, Romney’s net $325 million over four years comes to $81,250,000. This also does not take into account any surplus he may have left.
Here’s the Apples-to-Apples:
“Tax Hike Mike” — $47.62 Million
“True Conservative Mitt” — $81.25 MillionSo the true conservative raised taxes 70% more per year in less than half the time in office than the ultra-liberal tax hiking Huck.
Even when considering the difference per capita, the amount Arkansans paid over what Masachussetts citizens paid was $2.00 per year! That’s less than the tax increase Arkansas voters approved – which was factored into the “Huckabee” tax increases.
Here’s the real shocker. Romney only served four years in office. Technically less, since he started running for president during his tenure as governor. Remember the charge that Huckabee’s net tax increases were about $500 million? at $81.25 million a year, Romney’s tax bite could have been as much as $853.13 million if he had been able to get re-elected and spend 10 1/2 years in office. That’s $353 million he saved the people of Masachussetts by quiting his job early to run for president — proof that he is indeed a fiscal conservative.
So in addition to the sleaze factor, his ideological viscosity, his cynical drive to do a “Leveraged Buyout” of the White House and all the other reasons his opponents give for opposing him, Mitt Romney’s opponents can now add, “he’s a tax and spend liberal who raised taxes even more than Mike Huckabee!” to their mantra.
Of course, before I hit the “Send” button, the establishment media will have Mitt’s latest talking points up debunking this “myth”.
For sure I’m gonna take some heat on this posting – so let it come. People can twist numbers to say what ever they want, but this analysis is a nice quick summary of one perspective.
This doesnt include any of Joseph Farrah’s reason’s for not supporting Mitt Romney:
Now let’s move on to the flipperoos that escaped Ann Coulter’s attention:
- Immigration: As late as last year, the candidate who now ridicules amnesty proposals said: “I don’t believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from our country. With these 11 million people, let’s have them registered, know who they are. Those who’ve been arrested or convicted of crimes shouldn’t be here; those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship, as they would from their home country.” Wasn’t that pretty much the Bush party line?
- Gun control: He supported bans on so-called “assault weapons.” He supported the Brady bill. He spurned the National Rifle Association. As late as 2002, he was still defending Massachusetts’ confiscatory gun laws. But, last year, he joined the NRA and claimed to favor easing licensing requirements.
- Minimum wage: In 1994, he opposed an increase, but offered as a compromise tying a hike to the rate of inflation. By 2002, he supported an increase. In 2006, he vetoed an increase. Like some other notable politicians of the recent past, he was against it before he was for it, before he was against it.
- Same-sex marriage: In 1994, he opposed the federal marriage amendment and promised to help establish “full equality for America’s gays and lesbians.” In 2002, he provided legal recognition to same-sex couples in Massachusetts, even though he was not required to do so under a state Supreme Judicial Court ruling, as he has suggested. As governor, he even threatened to fire officials who would not issue same-sex marriage licenses and perform civil ceremonies. Yet, now, in 2007, he miraculously supports the federal marriage amendment.
- Homosexuals in the military: In 1994, he supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,” saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Today he claims he doesn’t want to change the policy to permit homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
- Tax cutting: In 1994, he opposed a cut in the capital gains tax. In 2002, he refused to sign a “no new taxes” pledge. In 2007, he claims to support a cut in capital gains taxes. He has taken the “no new taxes” pledge. And he says he supports making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.
Nevertheless, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and countless other friends of mine – people who are right far more often than they are wrong – have somehow fallen under the spell of Mitt Romney.
I look at the man, and I see the face of disingenuousness. They look at it and see the face of sincerity.
Add this to the growing list of other World Net Daily columns that attempt to show the true Mitt:
WorldNetDaily: Family leaders call Romney ‘disaster’
WorldNetDaily: Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage
WorldNetDaily: 2002 Romney flier promotes ‘gay’ rights
WorldNetDaily: The many faces of Mitt Romney
WorldNetDaily: Romney for rights based on sexual proclivities
WorldNetDaily: Saving a roundhouse for Romney
WorldNetDaily: Not drinking Romney’s Kool-aid
Are they all bigots? Are they all extremists? Of course not – they just cant understand why the Republican leadership has so lost touch with reality and continue to support this train wreck. Mitt will be the death of the Republicans in 2008 if something isn’t done to stop him.
Thanks goes to WiseGuy for this little tidbit:
Does Rommey even think that abortion is murder?
CBNNews.com – Is abortion Murder? Ask someone who is pro-life and the overwhelming response is yes. But Mitt Romney won’t say it’s murder. He recently said that it, “means different things to different people.”
For someone who used to be pro-choice and now says he is “firmly” pro-life, you have to do better than that. He has some convincing to do with some in the pro-life crowd. An answer like that doesn’t help. Also, it sounds like such a political answer.
Romney’s a smart guy. He has one eye on the Republican primaries but also one eye on the general election. He knows that if he says “abortion is murder” then he might indeed “kill” his chances in the general election. He’ll need independents and moderate Republicans to win the Presidency so that line would come back to haunt him. And he knows it.
Also read up on True Romney for some better insight into the mind of Mitt.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
You forgot something even worse:
Does Rommey even think that abortion is murder?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/171067.aspx
January 24th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Is what I hear the death rattle over at team Huckabee?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Thanks #1 – ill add it – very appropriate.
#2,
Right. Keep dreaming.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
It looks like Huckabee is going to come out swinging tonight against Romney in the debate tonight to try and solidify his ‘base’ in the Southern Super Tuesday states. Same old story coming from the Huckabee camp…
January 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
On The Record
Mike Huckabee is getting cozy with labor unions. He was the only Republican candidate to recently speak in front of the National Education Association and the International Association of Machinists. He even received the latter’s endorsement!
Huckabee called No Child Left Behind “the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime.” (Washington Times 03/01/05)
Here’s what Mike Huckabee said about Rep. Don Young of Alaska, a 3-time Porker of the Month:
“As Governor of Arkansas and NGA Chairman, I worked closely with Don on a range of critical issues, including transportation — which is a passion we both share. I’ve seen him in action and respect his commitment — not only to the people of Alaska, but to our country. I have deep respect for the job he has done in Congress, and I know he’ll do a great job as chairman of my congressional team.”
Huckabee raised the minimum wage in April 2006 from $5.15 to $6.25 an hour and encouraged Congress to take the same initiative on a national level (US Newswire 08/03/06)
January 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I thought this guy was conservative? What happened here?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
its not the mitt romney spell. I could put together a list like this much longer for huckabee. people look at mitt’s record objectively and you can get an idea of where he stands and what type of president he would be. it is clear he is more conservative than huckabee on most issues. it is also clear that he is vastly more intelligent and has a better ability to lead and solve complicated problems than the others.
this post is garbage. Most of it is pure spin which intelligent readers can see right through. national review, hannity, limbaugh…… are not idiots. they know huckabee is a pro life liberal and they know romney is a conservative.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
good article. eye-opening.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Erm… seeing as how much of this relies heavily on Mass Resistance stuff, it can be safely ignored.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Huckabee’s Critics (There Are A Lot of Them!)
The editorial board at the Wall Street Journal writes ($):
Some say Mr. Huckabee is the tribune of the “religious left,” and that strikes us as about right. He exhibits protectionist instincts, distancing himself from Nafta and saying he would insist on penalties and barriers to countries that don’t support his conception of “fair trade.” He delivers populist sermons against income inequality, but in favor of farm subsidies and an expanded government role in health care. He regularly knocks Wall Street, and he borrows from the Democratic playbook with digs at “the rich.”
Paul Chesser, writing for The American Spectator, states:
The criticisms of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee as a spendthrift tax-raiser when governing the state of Arkansas have been met with a few “yes, buts” that have not been very persuasive.
Former Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton (R) says:
“[Huckabee] says he’s pro-family. If you’re raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that’s not pro-family.”
Arkansas State Senator John Paul Capps, a Democrat, says:
“[Huckabee] outshines (other Republican hopefuls) with his glibness and ability to speak…He’s quick with answers and leaves a good impression. In the past, he blamed Democrats for raising taxes…We voted for them, but he proposed them.”
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
uh, brett, #2 doesn’t have to keep dreaming. Huck is done. it is between mccain and romney at this point. clearly.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Brett, Nice to see who you feel is the real frontrunner. I’m encouraged.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Wow, you just changed my mind. I should vote for Huckabee or McCain, but then I realize their negatives are higher nor have the executive experience to lead the free world.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
#9,
where? please educate us un-enlightening ones.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Deperation….
January 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Pat Toomey: He’s every bit as bad, and you don’t have to just take our word for it. Jonah Goldberg, you and your fellow editors at National Review, Bob Novak, and John Fund — to name just a few conservative writers — agree that Mike Huckabee is no conservative. You can read the Club’s white paper on our website, but here is a quick summary of Huckabee’s worst hits. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, the average Arkansas tax burden increased 47% over Huckabee’s tenure. Huckabee supported (in chronological order) a sales tax hike; gas and diesel fuel tax hikes; another sales tax hike; a cigarette tax hike; a nursing home bed tax; another sales tax hike; an income surcharge tax; a tobacco tax hike; taxes on Internet access; and higher beer taxes. Huckabee also oversaw a 50-percent increase in spending; happily signed a minimum wage increase and encouraged national Republicans to do the same; favors a national smoking ban, farm subsidies, and a federally mandated arts and music curriculum; opposes private school choice; and employs class-warfare and protectionist language on the campaign trail. Huckabee calls himself an economic conservative in the mold of Ronald Reagan, but the above list doesn’t sound like either.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Yawn….
Can anybody finish reading all this? I can only swallow so much partisanship at once.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
7. You hit it right on the money John…
Why do I feel like Brett keeps posting the SAME STUFF that gets debunked EVERY TIME in the comments section then refuses to correct his bogus posting claiming its not his, since he didn’t write it.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Oomph.
But don’t worry folks. Mitt will find a way to buy his way into the nomination.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
#13, yea 10/12 years in executive office compared to 3 1/2 for Mitt. Good comparison.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Are you that cheap/poor jon that you’re willing to sell the presidency to somebody?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
BRETT,
Thank you SO MUCH!!!!!!
I can now walk away gracefully from the candidate that I have supported for so long……
It is all because of your extensive research……
Brett…..Thanks……
IT IS NOW OVER for ROMNEY……
nowandlater….You and I can Rejoice together…..
January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
There are plenty of things to criticize Romney on, but this is not one of them.
The bottomline is to look at budget growth.
But alas, it’s pointless because but is profoundly unelectable.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Nice work. Maybe these idiots who have fallen under his Romney spell will start to realize what a sleazeball politician he is. He is the worst candidate in the field, by far!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
#13
Here’s a better bet: Rudy Giuliani. He does not have the poor track record that McCain, Mitt, and Huckabee have on many conservative issues and his executive experience is far superior than that of Romney’s.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
*Mitt is profoundly unelectable
For the good of everyone please Mitt dropout now!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Brett,
At this point I assume that anti-Romney posts like this are designed to boost support for McCain, since he is the only other candidate (with a whisper of hope that he may win) who even claims to be a social conservative. Is my assumption true?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
This really is the nail in the coffin for me. That anyone could post such ridiculous claims is really beyond the pale. This is disgraceful. You claim the moral authority, and then you resort to half truths, twisted logic, and down right lies. It’s dispicable. Brett, nothing personal, but I’m going to have to ignore everything your post from here on out.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I guess people here agrees with Romney that abortion is not murder.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
29, if you’re gonna quote people do it right… different things to different people. thats 100% accurate.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Please note, I like Mitt and I think he is a straight up guy, but I realize the realities of his electability.
I would have him babysit my kids or mow my lawn but I don’t think he is a wise choice for president.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Right…lets use newspaper titles as the basis of truth…
Homosexuals in the military: In 1994, he supported “don’t ask, don’t tell,†saying it was a step toward “gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.†Today he claims he doesn’t want to change the policy to permit homosexuals from serving openly in the military.
And i fail to see your point with this one…he supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” and he still does…STOP THE PRESSES…the absolute nerve of this guy…
As for all the others they have been debated multiple times, especially the gay marriage issue, where he was praised by multiple conservative groups for his work on trying to prevent gay marriage in Mass, and for using a little-known law from preventing other gay couples from around the country to come to Mass to get married. If you want to play the post game, I can come up with a list 10 x’s the size of this one, refuting all that you posted and praising Romney for his policies and credentials. just say when.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Romney supports the ENDA…scary stuff.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20071230/30684_Pro-Gay_Romney_Upsets_Family_Values_Leader.htm
January 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
WorldNet Daily has an agenda against Romney. They aren’t objective at all.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Brett, while you’re at it, Mitt believes in evolution too. Unbelievable!!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Brett,
Thank you for dumping so much negative info that no one will want to read it. Your subtlety also does wonder for your case. YAWN… Nothing new here folks, move along.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
WiseGuy –
Huckabee fought hard to make special allowances for an abortion for a 15 year old who was raped by her step-dad in exchange for the continuance of $990 MILLION dollars of federal medicaid funding.
So thank you for bringing up that point so we can all get the facts out. Yes, even Huckabee’s hands are not clean on the issue.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
If the guy can’t win when he’s outspending folks 10-1, what makes ANYONE think he can pull it off in November?
He’s our John Kerry. Plain and simple.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I wanna do the easy one!!!! It’s:
Let’s hear from the NRA itself. NRA gave Mitt a grade of ‘B’, a reasonable good grade in that Mitt did accomodate what NRA wants, but to the extreme that NRA would like him to. Mitt did get a couple of bills to make Massachusetts’ gun laws less confusing for the gun owners. And he never did change his stance on assault weapons. He’s still against it.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Mitt Romney for Babysitter or Lawn Mower 2008!
Do America a favor Mitt and drop out!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Back to my original question: Will the debate be on webcast or only on TV?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
* eh, but not to the extreme…
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Please, its obvious SOMEBODY does not want Mitt elected! You could find any amount of negative stuff about ANY candidate and then SPIN it to make it seem awful. There is also the art of taking things out of context. And siting biased and irrelevant sources. Take EVERYTHING with a grain of salt! Mitt governed conservatively. You have to remember he was working with a 99% extremely liberal group of people who would override the conservative principals. But of course, THAT information on the issues would make this post long indeed, wouldn’t it?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I’m for gay rights but I’m against ENDA. For the same reason: Individuals have a right to their conscience. Whether that be gays or people who don’t wish to associate with gays.
If the religious right really wants to oppose such laws, they should send fundamentalist Christians to gay areas to apply for jobs at all the gay establishments. That would be a very effective argument.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sigh. What misleading facts. First of all, this uses the higher fee number. The Massachusetts government itself estimated the increased fees at 240 million. Second, Romney gave the Massachusetts citizenry a capital gains refund immediately upon entering office which offset those fee increases. The rest of the tax moves during Romney’s tenure were the small cuts, that people use to pad the number of taxes they’ve cut. They made little difference, but the difference they did make decreased the tax burden. On immigration, Joseph Farrah seems to not quite know what the “Bush line” was. The Bush line didn’t include this little gem: “should begin a process toward application for citizenship, AS THEY WOULD FROM THEIR HOME COUNTRY”. Oddly enough, though it seems like a small alteration, this amounts to a huge difference between the stuff Romney was talking, even when he was most sympathetic to illegal immigration, and what McCain and Bush proposed. And it’s, as it happens, precisely the position Romney holds today. Illegals should apply for citizenship or permanent residency- just as they would from their home country, without any sort of special pathway. The rest of Farrah’s criticisms are laughable. Much to my dismay, Romney still supports a relatively policy on the minimum wage and he favored increasing it even when he vetoed that bill. He just wanted a smaller increase and he wanted (and wants) it indexed to inflation. On marriage, Farrah’s the traditional “let’s ignore the courts” approach of the radical anti-gay marriage advocates. Such a position doesn’t even deserve a response. Gosh, it’s painful to watch this country’s intellect take such a precipitous drop.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I actually started laughing out loud at this post, this is the exact SAME thing people were talking about months, even YEARS ago. There is nothing new or “eye-opening” (#8) here unless you’ve been living under a rock for a decade (or you’re an idiot).
The fact that many of you can’t comprehend that gay marriage/civil unions and abortion are such non-issues is hilarious, Romney was a Republican governor of one of the most liberal states in the union, that he was able to fight for JUST Civil Unions is AMAZING. I lived there during his tenure and it was in the news all the time, he was constantly upsetting the liberal, elitist world of academia that is Massachusetts with his REPEATED statements of opposition to both gay marriage AND civil unions, but ultimately was forced to agree with civil unions, especially in the face a Supreme Court judgment.
Romney is the most experienced, driven, dynamic, palatable candidate that we can put up against Hillary in ’08. I know its hackneyed to say so but it’s really time for the old codgers of the party to start recognizing that republicans who are more centrist on social issues are the wave of the future. Deal with it.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
nowandlater, you say you oppose mitt because hes unelectable. wehn he IS elected, will you support him then?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Jon – why don’t you put the spending in perspective. How can we measure the effectiveness of a campaign? By their delegates of course. And would you say it is a fair measurement to take the funds spent on the campaign and divide that by the number of delegates earned so far? Seems reasonable enough.
Fact is Rudy is the big spender so far in this campaign. Each of his 2 delegates cost him roughly $23,000,000 dollars. McCain and Paul’s delegates cost about $1,500,000 each. Romney and Thompson’s delegates are about $850,000, and Huckabee is the thrifty candidate in the race with his delegates costing about $80,000 each.
So the continued narrative about Romney buying the election doesn’t stand up to the facts on the ground. Sorry – deal with it.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Brett,
You are pushing lies.
Where are the sources for Romney’s net $325 million tax increase? I’d like to see the specifics. I’d also like to see acknowledgement of the tax cuts Romney brought, and see how that balanced into the final number.
What I don’t want to see is you backing down from your anti-Romney tirade with Huckabee-esque passive-aggressive “it’s-not-me-I’m-just-quoting-someone” rhetoric. I want to see numbers.
Here’s Romney’s list of tax cuts that your sources don’t mention:
$250 Million CAPITAL GAINS TAX CUT
INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
2004 SALES TAX HOLIDAY
2005 SALES TAX HOLIDAY
BIOTECH MANUFACTURING JOBS TAX REBATE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS TAX RELIEF
COMMUTER TAX RELIEF
VETERANS TAX RELIEF
HOME HEATING OIL DEDUCTION/ENERGY EFFICIENT CREDIT
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
FIRE SAFETY TAX DEDUCTION
CONFORMITY TO FEDERAL INCOME TAX CODE
MEDICAL DEVICE TAX CREDIT
MOTION PICTURE TAX CREDIT
BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT EXTENTION
HISTORIC REHABILITATION TAX CREDIT
January 24th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I am done with bickerings…
Don’t listen to any of the news or stuff you read… because they are all doctored they are written by liberal media professionals making money to slander and smear… to go against Mitt. They are all old news. Mitt will do just fine. GO MITT! People who are the most vocal often find themselves talking to the wall…it does not matter to me!
If in doubt, ASK MITT ANYTHING!
GO MITT!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
50,
Because Mitt will never lie. RIGHT
January 24th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
OH no Brett Passmore does not like Romney!!!!! That is a BIG surprise.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Brett, is this really you? http://mikehuckabee.meetup.com/40/members/4646953/photos/
January 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
By delegates? Are you kidding me?
Let’s go by….call me crazy here…but RESULTS.
When Romney faced competitive races(sorry guys, but his home state really doesn’t count)….he LOST.
He LOST to Huckabee in Iowa. He LOST to McCain in NH.
When it mattered…he LOST…despite throwing in exponentially more money, he LOST.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Rudy’s new Florida Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-A_-XjH_NU
January 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Dear Mr. Huckabee, since Jesus loves you more than you will know, can I have one of those ‘get out of jail’ passes? I’ll promise to mow your lawn and I’ll donate $10,000 to a few charities that you’ll like and even to the state GOP.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
It is interesting that there are more posts on here attacking Brett and Huckabee than anyone disputing the contents of the post. As for Rush and Hannity… you all sound like them, just repeating sound bits like the mainstream media -failing to think of big picture context and real world implications. Except they all get paid outrageous amounts of money to do it.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
More misrepresentation from Brett,
On immigration…
Romney opposes deporting 11+ million people at gunpoint.
Romney opposes giving 11+ million people a special pathway to citizenship.
Romney’s plan requires that illegal immigrants go through the same pathway as legal immigrants in applying for citizenship…starting at the back of the line.
No contradictions.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Great post…for entertainment. I especially like the “White House leveraged buyout” phrase. Poor arguments, but great language. Hmmm, reminds me of…well you know.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Brett, your posts more than any other editor on this site are more biased and the least based in honest objectivity. Congratulations.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Brett
Your just showing your ignorance and showing the lying dishonest ways of you and your candidate.
Using your spin with numbers can you also turn a $1 bill into $1 million?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
I think we should take Brett’s attacks on Romney about as serious as the mormon push polls conducted by Huck supporters.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
#55, that is a FANTASTIC AD. Only Rudy supported the Bush tax cuts from the start. Why are we even considering McCain and Romney??
January 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Here is what Romney actually believes about abortion. SORRY ABOUT FACTS GETTING IN THE WAY OF A HIT JOB.
“While a young bishop, for example, Romney got word that a woman in his ward was considering an abortion. This was the sixth pregnancy for the woman in her 40s, who had four teenage children, and she developed some medical complications.
Romney arrived at the hospital and forcefully counseled her against the procedure. She felt Romney misunderstood and mistreated her. The woman later wrote about the experience in Exponent II, a national newspaper for Mormon women that was published in Romney’s Boston stake. Though she didn’t use her name, many church members knew who she was.
The episode came back to haunt Romney when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 1994 as a “pro-choice†candidate. It also reflected some of the ongoing tensions he had with some Exponent II writers during his tenure.â€
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7943560
FYI, the Salt Lake Tribune is the historically anti-mormon paper in Salt Lake.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Wiseguy, late term abortion is murder – that I know. Do I believe that forcing a fertilized egg to pass through eh uterus and be discarded is murder? NO. Sorry, but I just don’t feel it.
Now, how about going in a cutting out a fetus, however old? It’s absolutely wrong, with a few exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother). So I guess I don’t think it’s “murderâ€, in all cases.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Brett is a Texan??? Figures.
As much as I like Texans, they are usually the LAST people to catch up on the realities of their party. Republicans must change and adapt (yet remain conservative), and as unfortunate, saddening and disgusting as it may be, it is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL to regulate morality (except when it effects others deleteriously, and yes I know I’ve opened pandora’s box but its time for Huckabee supporters to realize not everyone should hold the same values as them), nor is it patriotic to support the notion that we should.
Now everyone blast me for my generalizations. Oh and I don’t really have anything against Texans…just jackasses.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Metro, #63, because Romney has a better chance of holding the conservative coalition together, fiscal, social, and foreign policy conservatives. I know the only issue that matters to you is fiscal policy, which Rudy would be good at, but Rudy loses a large part of the Republican party.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I put together a quick list for those reasons not to vote for Huckabee.
1- He is a moron. please refer to foreign relations experience
2- He would promote a theocratic state and limit separation of church and state.
3- Clemency
4- Please refer to reason # 1
January 24th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
And here we thought Huckabee supporters were above the fray of negativity. You should know better Brett that the Huckster doesn’t want anyone poking through someone’s record! At least we know you’re for the push polling.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
More misrepresentation from Brett,
On guns…
Romney previously supported a ban on assault weapons.
Romney claimed he and the NRA didn’t line up on all the issues.
Romney supported the Brady Bill.
Romney was praised by gun groups during his efforts in MA to streamline gun laws and make the guidelines more clear for hunters.
The NRA rated Romney a “B” (as SGS pointed out).
Romney currently supports a ban on assault weapons.
Romney currently admits that he and the NRA don’t line up on all the issues.
Romney says the Brady Bill is no longer necessary due to advancements with background checking.
Romney’s never been 100% NRA. No flip flops.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
#68
Wow, supporting the constitution. What a novel idea. Kudos.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
0%, 1%, 7% Income tax rates before Huckabee AND after Huckabee!
Plus, more people are paying 0% since he raised the tax threshold.
Gas tax cost AR people $28.08 PER YEAR per vehicle. Not too much to pay for parts not falling off cars as they drove the roads! It also brought truck revenues back to AR since they had avoided driving through AR previously.
Read Romney’s economic & job growth was dismal during his tenure – plus, why couldn’t he win re-election? Because the people of Massachusetts were WORSE off after 4 years! I personally do NOT want to be saying that after 4 years of a Romney presidency.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
WND? The North American Union conspiracy, pro-Paul/Constitution Party wing of the conservative movement? Eh, I’ll pass on them as realistic sources of news.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Emtee, and foreign policy matters to me bigtime.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
My vote is not for sale.
To be POSITIVE: there is not one other candidate running for election that I would trust to lead the United State of America as President.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
come on people – all we need is a solid understanding of the terms used and then we can have a civil discussion
‘hope’ = what you pay to the government each year – usually withheld from your paycheck – also ‘hope’ is added on to most purchases that you make while shopping.
‘hope’ is used to build new roads and buy school busses and to pay for the tuition costs of illegal immigrants.
So what we are really talking about is which candidate has a solid record of raising hope? And who in their right mind would ever deny hope to the child of an illegal immigrant? Afterall, they didn’t make the choice to come here illegally, we can’t withhold hope from them.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
#68:
Mitt has MORE foreign policy experience? Where and when?
Clemency granted for those that paid their fines and served their sentences and now want to contribute to society (the purpose of prison was to rehabilitate)! How horrible! Why would we want them to contribute to society and the economy?
Yep, love that steeple he put up on the Arkansas capitol building, don’t you? Love all those Bible-readings and prayers they’re now saying in schools in AR! Come on – look at the facts, not your biased brain!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Anita
how many gallons of gas do you buy annually?? $28.08?????
January 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
72. Anita,
I hope you are better off after a Romney presidency.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
New ARG FL:
JMac 29
Mitt 22
Huck 17
Rudy 16
January 24th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
More misrepresentation from Brett,
On same-sex marriage,
In 1994, Romney opposed the federal marriage amendment on the grounds that it was not necessary. Indeed, not a single state was even dealing with same-sex marriage as a ballot issue. With multiple states legalizing same-sex marriage and civil unions, and state ballot initiatives in a majority of the country, the situation has changed. He told the Log Cabin Republicans that he opposed same-sex marriage.
His position on same-sex marriage has never changed. Romney used every option legally available to fight the Supreme Court ruling enforcing state recognition of gay marriage.
Governor Romney petitioned for stays, enforced 100 year old laws, fought for legislative amendments, fought for ballot amendments, petitioned the court to sue as a private citizen after his Democrat attorney general refused to take his case. He brought to fruition the court ruling which ended in the legislature voting on the amendment while incoming Governor Deval Patrick screamed at them, something no one but no one thought the legislature would ever do.
Unless you happen to be one of those “defy the judiciary conservatives”, Romney’s record on marriage in unassailable.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Welcome to ARG poling! hehehe
January 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Flame out!
January 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Anita
“Clemency granted for those that paid their fines and served their sentences and now want to contribute
to society”????????????????????????????????????????????????
So he only released Murders after there death??(life in prison should mean life in prison)
January 24th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
#72 Anita,
“plus, why couldn’t he win re-election? Because the people of Massachusetts were WORSE off after 4 years!I personally do NOT want to be saying that after 4 years of a Romney presidency.”
You need to check your facts, Romney never ran for reelection, if anything Mitt was ridiculed for using MA as a stepping stone to the whitehouse, many MA republicans (and there are not many of us up here) were angry because we wanted him to run for Govn again. All that being said, I endorse Mitt Romney for President of the United States.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
More misrepresentations from Brett,
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is legal. LEGALLY SPEAKING, ROMNEY IS RIGHT.
As Governor, Romney fought to have the legal definition of life extended to the point of conception. He clearly believes that abortion is killing, but also recognizes that it is currently LEGAL.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Brett man. You’re starting to sound like the liberal media. You put out proven lies and misinformation, and then when someone questions you or puts the facts in place you ignore them and continue spouting the same crap. Huckabee is done. Support McCain if you’re so anti-Romney.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
BTW, that ARG poll has a bizarre split for Rudy between early and late voters:
Already voted:
Rudy 28
JMac 28 (this will be higher because the elderly tend to vote early)
Mitt 21
Huck 12
Not voted yet:
JMac 29
Mitt 22
Huck 18
Rudy 13
That means if Rudy got out the early votes AND makes the best closing argument in the last 5 days, he could win this thing.
Even according to a poll as biased against him as ARG.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Brett Passmore
For goodness sakes, have the nerve either defend your attacks on Romney, or admit that you are distorting the facts.
#49
#58
#71
#81
#86
January 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
#88 Metro
Is there a link to the ARG poll?
January 24th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
zzzzzzzzz
January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
murphy, he has no interest in doing that, and frankly, he lacks the capacity. There is little truth to any of the claims and insinuations he makes, but it doesn’t matter to him. Smearing and slandering our candidate is all he cares about.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
More misrepresentation from Brett,
On minimum wage,
The fact is that in 2002 Governor Romney did propose a small increase in the state minimum wage that was indexed to inflation. When this came to a head in 2006, Romney suggested an increase from $6.75 per hour to $7.00 per hour, only 6 cents more than his original pledge of $6.94 in 2002 (and less than the level he suggested in 2002 when adjusted for inflation). The Democrat legislature sent him a plan raising the minimum wage to $8.00 per hour over the next two years, of which Romney said that “Such abrupt and disproportionate increases would threaten to eliminate jobs in Massachusetts, especially at the entry level…” He vetoed this bill, on the grounds that such a steep hike was bad for business and for people trying to come off of welfare at entry level jobs. Romney felt that “it made more sense to index that so that businesses could see the change in cost over time in predictable ways rather than in large jumps from time to time.” http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2006/07/22/romney_rejects_minimum_wage_bill/
One of the facts of life in the bluest state of the union is that you are going to have minimum wage increases. Successfully orchestrating a small increase can be more effective than opposing ALL minimum wage increases, only to see the 90% Democrat legislature override his veto. In this instance, Romney failed in his attempt to push through a $0.25 increase in place of a $1.25 increase.
As for the claim that Romney reneged on his promise to index the minimum wage, the massive legislature-driven wage hike to $8.00 was five times more than Romney’s suggested increase, defeating the point of slow increases over time to prevent huge sporadic hikes. Romney was under no obligation to seek further increases in minimum wage (regardless of minor inflation) once the incentive to avoid large hikes was removed.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
metro
if your putting your hopes and dreams on an ARG poll you may be setting yourself up for a fall
January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I love how people have refuted two of my reasons for not supporting Huck, please refer to post 68, but no one has argued against my first assertion that Huck is a moron.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
#67
The myth that Romney would hold the Republican Party together is usually promoted by social conservatives who are used to throwing defense/econ conservatives a bone every once in a while to keep them in line. The idea that since Romney was a businessman that he will satisfy that wing of the party is incorrect. Plan on seeing a large number of defense/econ conservatives walking away if Romney is the nominee.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
#95 because he’s not a moron, he’s unqualified. But what you said was funny.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
#96
And voting for who, Hillary???
Please.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Ray, http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/flrep8-706.html
The Truth, you don’t get it. I said even in the WORST poll for Rudy, it shows how he can win.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Our economy is slowing down, and based on Romney’s record in Massachusetts, he would just make things worse.
Romney’s Massachusetts was 48th in job creation, just ahead of Michigan and Louisiana. Massachusetts LOST jobs 40% of the time under Romney’s mismanagement. This is nothing to boast about!
From the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/
Under Governor Mitt Romney:
“Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy.”
From Factcheck.org http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/myrtle_beach_blarney.html
“Payroll jobs in Massachusetts hit their low point in December 2003 at the end of Romney’s first year in office. And the number of jobs declined in seven of the remaining 36 months of his term. The claim that jobs increased “every single month” is false.”
“Furthermore, Romney’s job record provides little to boast about. By the end of his four years in office, Massachusetts had squeezed out a net gain in payroll jobs of just 1 percent, compared with job growth of 5.3 percent for the nation as a whole.”
January 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Okay, can we get equal time to tear down Mike Huckabee now. I think we need to post the Wayne Dumond victim commercial and all the artciles associated with it. Also, let’s put up all the links and articles to Huck’s destruction of the republican party in Arkansas and how he used intimidation and threat to subdue people who disagreed with him. We might aw well put up links to his son murdering and torturing a stray dog that he ahd his co-torturer labeled as a “queer dog”. This can be fun, Brett.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Brett Passmore
#49
#58
#71
#81
#86
#93
That makes six of your major lines of attack complete frauds, and you don’t even make an effort to dispute it.
Can we look forward to more of the classic Passmore style of misrepresentation the day before the Florida primary?
January 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Thanks Metro
January 24th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Brett:
You just lost all credibility with me.
You republish stuff from Joseph Farah, an evangelical Christian who brought us stuff like this.
“A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55642
True colors revealed and very sad to see them.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
It looks like we need a new person to cover Huckabee…. again. Kavon, are you reading Brett’s fond farewell to race42008.com? I really thought better of Brett, but maybe the Huck supporters are too much alike.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
the problem is, brett, is that you can attack just as many things about huckabee. (and people have) The fact is that Huckabee ran an anti-romney campaign instead of a pro-huckabee campaign, and it cost him what could have been a good shot at the nomination. he spent all his time and effort attacking romney, and it didn’t help him. likewise, you could have been a decent poster if you posted good content, instead of just attacking mitt.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I’m not even a Romney guy, and I agree that somebody’s posting privileges should go by the way side with this effort.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
The ARG poll shows Fred with 6%, I’ll assume most of that will go Romney’s way thus putting this poll in line with all the others we have been seeing, the race if very tight.
Intrade:
Mitt 52 (+12)
McCain 40 (-5.5)
January 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Ray, need to specify that’s Intrade FL.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Well, at least this should be taken down. I mean, are we going to devolve into this type of site? I certainly hope not.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
When Brett first came aboard he seemed genuine, much better then Rhett Hatcher. He has continued to go downward in his postings, unless he is not removed as a front page poster I think we have not seen him hit rock bottom yet.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You may disagree with the man, but 95% of this stuff is, at best, utter misrepresentation, and at worst, straight BS. If you’re a Huckabee supporter, you constantly claim that Huckabee’s shifty positions and background deserve “context” – but here none is provided. I’m willing to give Huckabee a break on a number of issues that have been used to hit him between the eyes, on the basis of “context” (even if some of it is homespun BS by Huckabee himself), but I give Romney the same chance. Anybody can cherry-pick a candidate’s record here or there and spin it up to look like a plate of undigestible slop – any citizen with brains will learn not to tolerate such attempts to pass off lame hit jobs as factual representations. Romney has some problems with his record, but this hack job is a joke.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
This is why I have such a hard time thinking of Romney somehow as a conservative or more conservative than Huckabee.
Even Romney’s biggest fan Glenn Beck said today that he despised Romney’s health care plan for the U.S. Romney’s health care plan has got to be the most liberal plan among the Republicans. I am just glad that we have enough people out there that do their own research and find this stuff out rather than listening to the powers at be. The only reason why Romney is doing as well as he has is because of his power and money.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
#108 Metro,
“Ray, need to specify that’s Intrade FL.”
Sorry, your correct, I’ve done this a couple of times over the last few days, my apologies.
Intrade for Florida primary:
Mitt 52 (+12)
McCain 40 (-5.5)
January 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
This is absurd that you are comparing me to Rett. i am not posting lies or bigoted responses.
this is legitimate commentary from well known bloggers.
And for the record, Joseph Farrah is not a Huckabee Supporter -
January 24th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Brett #114: …this is legitimate commentary from well known bloggers.
Do you care if it’s true or not?
Read #101.
Then try and raise the quality of the evidence you bring to the front page.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
By the way, pulling numbers out of your behind and acting like they make sense does not make you look smart. Any analysis of a candidate’s record on the economy and taxes needs to take into account things like size of the state government, state population, fiscal trends in the state, available options for policymaking, political opposition and involvement, etc. Context. Brother, this is why politics and campaigns are maddening for people who actually like a little research and context with their public policymakers – most of what you get is built out of balsa wood and BS.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
114,
So Joseph Farrah publishing that ” a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” is reflective of the legitimate commentary from well known bloggers that he publishes otherwise. That guy has an agenda and is willing to say anything/publish anything to achieve it.
Give me a break!
January 24th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
#114 Brett,
“This is absurd that you are comparing me to Rett. i am not posting lies or bigoted responses.
this is legitimate commentary from well known bloggers.”
No one has called you a bigot! Posting Lies? Well leaving out important facts can be construed as untruthful….lies or untruthful,take your pick.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Brett
you are posting lies
January 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
This was an extremely one-sided posting Brett. I thought at one time you were a fair posting individual, but as your man is going down, it seems you are stooping to his levels and don’t mind distoring and outright lieing, the same as your man Huckabee! I’m expecting him to lie some more tonight and show his dark side as he has been ever since he has started to slide. This man surely is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Oh well, he’ll be gone soon. I hope you can regain your fairness when Huckabee drops out.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Everyone from Mitt’s campaign is hoping that Mike is falling. That is why Mitt’s friends in the Conservative MSM are writing Mike’s obituary daily in order to try and create a self fullfilling story…
Keep Hoping guys. Mike is about to bring the ‘HuckaBoom 2.0″, and soon you will join in as you see the lies peeled away, and as Mike continues to represent himself as opposed to his opponents misrepresenting him. (i.e. fred, mitt, liberal & conservative MSM)
It has been disgusting the level to which the MSM and a few candidates have pulled the wool over the eyes of the conservative electorate in regard to Mike’s stances and record.
Don’t believe everything the ‘tee-vee’ tells you to believe…learn for yourself…
http://www.MikeHuckabee.com
January 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Brett #114: i am not posting lies…
PROVE IT.
Address the fact that most of your post is misleading. Address the counter-arguments. Stop pointing the finger at the people you quote.
If you want people to think of you as honest and of high caliber, you’ve got to earn it.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
brett this kind of sucks as a post, huck kind of sucks as a candidate, even if your arguments didnt suck we’ve seen them before, and soon enough hucks lame ass campaign based on saying clever things and kicking it with chuck norris will be done and we won’t have to hear from him for a while. your arguments would be more credible coming from a Fred or a Rudy supporter. face it, if mitt hadnt run such an akward campaign in Iowa , there would be no room for huck. or if brownback hadnt tanked so bad. he got lucky for a while, and people got sick of him. sure there will always be the religion based army, but show me one non evangelical that is still excited for the huckster.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
This reminds me of Rhett who would always put together som e huge long post when polls came out showing Romney doing well. He did it to push the positive Romney news all the way to the bottom of the page.
On the Glenn beck thing, Romney agrees that the Massachusetts health plan is not a good model for U.S. health care. There are particluars in Massachusetts that would not make it a good national plan. Romney has always said this.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Brett, you’re no Rett.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
We may need a Huckabee Lies post to balance this crap out. Trust me, there is plenty to post.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
If Romney gets the nomination it will be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on conservatives — it really would mean the end of talk radio and all the parroting hacks.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Romney go away.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The only thing I know for sure about Mitt is that he lies : Did his father march with MLK?? Did he attend planned Parenthood rally?? Did he get the NRA endorsement in MA?? Is he a life long hunter?? Does he have lobbyist tied to his campaign?? Can you trust anything this guy says??
Empty suit!!!! Phony!!!! Go Huckabee a man with integrity.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Lousy Brett, you have an agenda don’t you? And how silly is this: A vote for Romney is a vote for Satan? What type of people come up with that idea?
January 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
I purposely DID NOT post the Vote for Romney is a Vote for Satan
It was inappropriate at best, wrong and misleading at worst.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Huckabee, the man with no integrity. Just ask the republican party in Arkansas. Just ask the victims of rapists and murderers. Huck has left a wake of devastation, intimidation, threats, lies, etc wherever he has gone. He is one evil guy – he comes in sheeps clothing, but he’s been proven to be a ravenous wolf underneath.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Brett Passmore, this is terrible posting. You should take it down immediately. If you don’t, I am sure that Kavon will.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Brett, answer murphy’s challenge. It will bolster your credibility.
what the crap is wrong with arg? why are they always so off from everybody else?
January 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
i love htat there is even a ‘vote for romney is a vote for satan’ article to post. how ridiculous.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
wow, how dare somebody post something anti-Romney!
Even if its true, how low! *sarcasm*
Its interesting how whenever somebody writes something negative about Romney, the author gets attacked personally.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
131,
Then you knew the quality of the source of the information and ignored it.
I think it was a lot worse than “wrong and misleading.” It is called bigotry.
Substitute another American polical figure like “George Bush” or “Mike Huckabee” and tell me if Joseph Farar would have published that.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
What bothers me most about Romney is that he will say whatever he thinks people want to hear. He is so much like John Kerry that it scares me. It will be very easy to “swift boat” him if he is nominated. He seldom gives a straight answer to a question. You can just see his brain straining to come up with an answer that means almost nothing.
I want a candidate who is true to his core values as Ronald Reagan was. I truly believe that Mike Huckabee is that man. Duncan Hunter thinks so too and he’s certainly recognized as a very conservative Republican.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Facts:
If Gov. Romney did not have large amounts of money, he would not be in the race for the presidency.
Gov. Romney was elected to one term as governor and could not be reelected.
Gov. Huckabee was also elected as governor in a predominately Democratic state. He had served as Lt. Governor, and was reelected to the office of governor, because of his competence. He did not pander nor shift his principles (remarkable).
As shown above (and others have made clear), Gov. Huckabee’s economic record has clearly been misrepresented by some of those supporting Gov. Romney’s bid. It’s a red herring.
Gov. Huckabee is a true conservative with thoughtful, nuanced positions and policies. They can be hard to defend against unfair attacks in the age of sound bites, but they sure make a better presidency.
There are a lot of people out there in the supposed conservative camp that are afraid of Gov. Huckabee because he is a consistent Christian. I would have never said that six months ago, but the experience I have had on talk radio and the internet interacting with others has made this clear. The transparency of this man and the principles he follows makes him the best friend of those who disagree with him. By principle he will not attack you unfairly, be disingenuous, be a traitor to our country, abuse people, etc. Look at his record of governance and see if there is anything to fear. There is not. What you see is what you get. Isn’t that refreshing?
I know Gov. Huckabee loves this country and sincerely believes in the sovereignty and security of America as his top job as president. Rep. Duncan Hunter’s endorsement clearly rings to this same assessment. He has insight on this from his unique perspective.
Gov. Huckabee is highly electable, as past experience has shown. He is bright, an articulate speaker, able to simplify and explain complicated issues. He would draw many supporters across the board in a general election, and would govern with consensus whenever possible, but would stand for principles against a tide of opinion when necessary.
From a careful assessment at the beginning, and then what I’ve seen since last summer, I don’t trust Mitt Romney. He has persuaded a lot of people to trust him with the future of our country. I don’t.
Those are facts.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Even if some conservatives are saying that “Huckabee is done,” does anybody pay attention to what the candidates themselves say?
Romney, himself, said today in Florida when asked about Governor Huckabee’s campaign, that he thought Huckabee was campaigning less and may not end as strongly in Florida, but that he was stepping it up already in a swath of Super Tuesday states and that he would likely have a head start and be formidable in some of those states. He gives Huckabee his due and some respect.
Huckabee, on the other hand, when asked about Romney, complains about Romney’s financial resources for running his campaign (we should all be happy to have a “frontrunner” who will be unable to compete with the Democrats on campaign fundraising, then, I take it?). He then goes on to bash Romney’s business career as that of a robber baron, buying up companies and dumping workers by the thousands, enriching himself and his cronies while sacrificing the worker bee. No respect for the man’s ability to compete in the economic world, invest in businesses, turn them around, create jobs and capital, and grow the economy.
What a difference.
Romney was a businessman. His JOB was to make his own business, and others, successful. That means you make tough decisions and the bottom line matters. He and others who actually work in the capitalist economy understand that you can change, improve and make your business competitive, or . . . you die. Your business closes its doors. Your products languish. Your employees get hit with pink slips. His expertise was in working with bloated, non-competitive, struggling companies and giving them the leanness, tools, and management needed to at least have a chance, a chance in a very competitive business world, to succeed. He always says, when asked, that sometimes they succeeded and sometimes they failed. He understands that the real economy is not some fairy-tale world where nobody ever loses a job or no company ever goes under or falls behind – it’s a constant competitive enterprise, and it is what pushes excellence and demands innovation, and brings out the opportunity for the American dream.
Of course, Romney took on businesses and worked with them and had to cut jobs. He admits that openly. He also turned around many failing companies and got them on the road to some sort of prospect for competitiveness in the marketplace – not all stayed profitable. So what? It’s how business works. Real people work in those businesses. Romney, though, from his critics will get NO credit for doing tough deals like Staples, investing money that he and his investors could LOSE big time ($600,000 to start), looking at the data and the market potential, and being there before the opening to stock the damn shelves and encourage the hopeful businessman and new employees – which he did. It’s all public record. Has McCain done that? Huckabee? Giuliani? Any of these politicians? Actually done it, over and over again? That single company alone employs about 80,000 people today.
If you’re willing to give Huckabee, or Giuliani, or McCain credit on their life and accomplishments, Romney surely deserves the same and a little bit of respect rather than contempt for what he has done.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
This is all giving me a headache. I’m never reading these types of posts again. Everybody fighting and mud-slinging!
Romney will most likely get the nomination. I will not vote for him. I will, however, anticipate the Hillary verse Mitt fest. Ought to be quite entertaining in a sad sort of way.
Just remember this people: Two great people once said: “A House Divided Against Itself will be ruined.”
God help us all.
Pam
January 24th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
#138 bobrocky
You were doing just fine until you combined these two sentences in the same argument:
“He seldom gives a straight answer to a question…I want a candidate who is true to his core values as Ronald Reagan was. I truly believe that Mike Huckabee is that man.”
LOL
January 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
#139- if hillary hadnt married a president, she wouldnt be considered on her merits. if obama wasnt black and propped up by media he woudlnt be considered on his merits. If huck didnt pimp his religion out, he wouldnt be considered. if 9/11 hadnt of happened, rudy wouldn’t be considered.
Now heres where it gets different. if john mccain hadnt been a POW and if Mitt wasnt right, they wouldnt be considered. However, the above mentioned examples are from luck or exploitation. Mitt’s money, and mccain’s war experiences are a result of admirable things they did. McCain served well, and mitt ran a business well. the fact that those now make them eligible for president shouldnt be held against them the way that hil, BHO, and Huck’s happenstance should.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I’M SHOCK….MIKE HUCKABEE IS STILL ALIVE?…..I THOUGH HE WAS IN COMPANY OF WAYNE DUMOND, I MEAN DEAD AFTER SC.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Brett, why are you worried about Mitt Romney? Your guy Huck just got the endorsement of Duncan Hunter? Cheer up!
January 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I come to this blog because:
1. You often post the polls before RCP or MSM
2. There are some highly informed and intelligent bloggers
3. Many bloggers link to information that I could not easily find on my own
4. I love the passion you have for your candidate.
That being said, we have a saying about Las Vegas that applies to some of the bloggers.
Beneath the tinsel lies the real tinsel.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Wow, Brett.
I wish I had time to even read your entire post, let alone to respond to it. You obviously put some serious effort into it.
In short, my response will be this: Rush Limbaugh and the other conservative talk radio shows, National Review and other newspapers/journals, and millions of Romney supporters aren’t being hoodwinked, you are.
January 24th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Brett, I know you didn’t post the “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” comment. I should have been more clear about that. My apologies to you in that regard.
However, it is a nice analogy of how things can be twisted against someone, either intentionally or not.
#136 Its called responsability for your claims. When the same can be said of any candidate. I believe its the accomplishments that matter. Measure a man according to what he has accomplished, not by the negative remarks.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
#141 – Too true. Will you vote for Mitt in the generaL?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
January 24th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
#139 – Those are not “facts” – they are one person’s spin. You are welcome to your opinion. But don’t confuse your admiration for a candidate with cold, hard truth. You actually say:
“By principle he will not attack you unfairly, be disingenuous, abuse people, etc.”
Do you want some of us on here to post quote after quote after quote, directly from Huckabee’s mouth, in which he makes unfair characterizations or low-class comments directed at his opponents, including Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney? It’s not disingenuous for a former Baptist preacher to say he knows little about Romney’s religion and then slime it in a clearly veiled anti-Mormon swipe in a news interview? Do we need to go on?
It’s politics, and everybody gets a little heated and a little dirty, and nobody is clean and pure in the process. It sucks if you’re a total idealist, but it’s reality. At least acknowledge it. I believe Governor Huckabee is generally a good and decent man, but so is most everyone else in this process, including Mitt Romney. There is a large pool of people who know Mitt Romney personally and have plenty of stories about the man’s generosity and goodwill toward others, but don’t fly those things out on the campaign trial because they are generally personal, and get made fun of in a political context as contributing too much to his “Leave it to Beaver” image.
Damn. A man who actually spends time with and loves his kids and grandkids, taught his sons how to work, adores his wife and walked with her through the diagnosis of a serious disease, is active in community affairs and charities . . . and we have to tear the guy down? He’s not perfect, but neither is anybody’s chosen candidate – we’d all be best not to romanticize them but rather accept them as they are and vote for who we think will get the job done.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Steve #139
That is the funniest thing I’ve read, especially the one about Huck being electable, that one made me lauph so hard beer came out of my nose. You should be on SNL or National Lampoon, man your funny
January 24th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
A couple of things here:
1- “is abortion murder?” That is a trap question. If you believe abortion is murder, then you should accept the punishment of murder, right? Do you as a candidate send a person to prison for life because that’s the normal prison sentence for a murderer? A candidate would be crazy to answer yes to that question because it forces you to accept the logical arguments that will naturally follow. For most people I’d say there appears to be consensus that the later stages or pregnancy would suggest it’s murder to have an abortion. But for the very early stages, people are generally less confident in their position. So it’s a political trap to answer yes to that question, and Romney’s answer is right…it means different things to different people.
2- “Mitt’s health plan”. First of all, it’s not Mitt’s health plan. It is the plan that he worked out with the Democratic State legislature in Massachusetts. Mitt didn’t author it. He worked hard with both sides of the aisle to come up with a plan. Romney has stated numerous times that this is not a model of a national plan. States need to come up with something that fits their state’s needs, but here’s how Massachusetts did it. Other states aren’t as blue, so you could certainly expect other versions of a state’s health care plan to look quite a bit different. To even think that Romney himself is the principal author of it is ludicrous. He got it done, which is a lot more than anyone else running for president can say.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Oh Brett, thank you for all the “new” info. It has really opened all our eyes. It’s no secret that avid Huckabee supporters are almost automatically RomNots. And that religious competition lies at the root of it all. Why else would Republicans uphold a non-Republican like Huck as a candidate? He has nothing more than a couple of social conservative values to tout.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Sometimes I wonder where all this bickering gets us. Brett throws out a bunch of crap against Romney, everyone gets pissed off. But when it comes down to it, we’re all on the same team. Most of us want to see the economy stabilized and then strengthened. We want conservative principles to be used to govern and choose judges. While we disagree over who we think will do that best, we’re still on the same team. I hope there’s really no one, despite their convictions, who wouldn’t choose the Republican nominee no matter who he is. ANYONE of those men are better than Hillary or Obama. We all know that. Is there anyone here who wouldn’t?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
I don’t blame brett for not backing up his post or responding to the facts mathew miller murphy and others laid out in response to the rhetoric posted. it is hard to defend huckabee, very hard, in fact his press guy in charge of defending flat out quit last month because you can’t defend and pretend like huck is conservative.
you can’t defend over a thousands pardons and commutations. you can’t defend begging for tax hikes. you can’t defend all those crazy statements he makes and putting floating crosses in his ads. very hard job. at the end of the day, huckabee’s defense is one that you just can’t argue with. I am God’s candidate, just ask him.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
actually romney was the ‘architect’ of the ma health care plan. of course there was compromises made but he was the main author pretty much.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
ROMNEY IS A FLIPFLOPPER. PERIOD. I TOLD ALL YOU NERD HEADS ALL ALONG.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
to follow up to my 153 post:
“I’m a life-long hunter”. Look, I think I’m in the same boat…I grew up hunting, but honestly, never killed anything more than a rabbit and birds, though I attended deer hunting trips as a kid. As a kid, I’ve tracked down deer with my Dad after he’s hunted them. I have gone on an unsuccessful boar-hunting trip as a kid. I haven’t gone since, though I’d love to, and I have a 30-30 rifle for the day I go with some friends. I would consider myself a life-long hunter, simply from the fact that I have hunted, and though I haven’t hunted in a really long time, I have been in support of hunting, still support hunting, and am willing to go hunting given the chance. So no, I haven’t hunted every year, and I haven’t hunted big game personally, but my mindset is the same as a more earnest consistent hunter. There’s a difference in the frequency of hunting, and someone else may certainly have more guns than me, but I think we’re in the same club of people that like to hunt.
So Romney may not be the same life-long hunter that other self-proclaimed life-long hunters are, but the attitude, interest, and support of hunting is the same. Who cares that he didn’t hunt anything bigger than varmints?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
http://therealmccain.com/
http://www.trueromney.com
McCain and Romney have more in common than you might think! Both are full of shite!
January 24th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Sean, I appreciate your comments. I’ve been around for a while, and I understand your comment about romanticizing ones favorite candidate. No, I don’t think Gov. Huckabee is perfect or sinless. But I do stand behind the facts as they are laid out, particularly if you will look again at the context of what I was saying.
I live in the Cleveland, OH area. WTAM is our big talk radio station. I called in to comment on the election last Saturday night. I was treated respectfully and given a fair amount of time. The host had thrown some verbal jabs against Mike to get calls earlier and said he supported Mitt Romney. I gave my perspective, answered a question or two he posed, and hung up to listen. His only rejoinder was, Steve must be a Christian (to the best of my knowledge I said nothing with a moral or religious connotation, but I did try to be fair to Gov. Romney). Then he launched into a tirade about “How can we elect a president who really believes the Bible, that two people started the human race….”, etc. This is not very convincing arguing, and a McCain supporter called in and called him out on it. If you’re on these kind of sites much, you’ve seen the same thing in the comments sections.
You’re paragraph about Romney’s family ties, etc. could almost verbatim be about Huckabee. My problem is not with his devotion to his wife, but my gut instinct and heart are troubled with what I think Gov. Romney would do as president in the tough decisions. I don’t see someone with rock-solid beliefs to lead a nation in the face of serious peril. I believe his views are at variance to my core values, or at least soft. And frankly, I think Gov. Huckabee’s ideas would be far better for the economic well-being of our country.
Thanks for your perspective.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Here’s the long and short of it:
It may be that the Republican Party has our collective heads so far up our asses that we end up nominating Romney in the end instead of the man who is truly the best candidate. Stranger things have happened.
But even if that comes to pass, have no fear. Mitt Romney will never be President of the United States. The “conservatives” may have lost their way, but the moderates and independents have not.
It’s a sad day when they have to be the ones to save the Republican Party.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
My two bits about this thread…
1) This isn’t even a contrast ad as it was all anti-romney. Guess it makes it a full out attack ad.
2) I have looked into every candidate and EVERY candidate (for someone to tell me this isn’t true is fooling themself) has a list of “imperfections” equal if not worse than the list Brett has given. I have seen all the lists on all the candidates.
3) At some point people have to take all those imperfections and decide which candidate has the areas or strengths they want. So far in the primaries Mitt has the most popular votes and delegates with John in second. That leads me to believe that Mitt’s actions in business, the Olympics, and as governor out weigh the MSM attacks and half truths in peoples minds. That leads me to believe that John’s tough approach gives confidence to people that his maverick past is exactly that, the past.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Steve
You said “I believe his views are at variance to my core values”
So you must be an athiest bent on the destruction of the country?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Assuming Romney is nominated, any vote for someone other than Romney will be a vote for Hillary. I find it hard to believe that the nation won’t learn from its Ross Perot mistake and allow another Clinton to take office. Seriously, anyone here who thinks a Republican candidate is so bad that they wouldn’t vote for him needs to remember who we’re running against. Hillary.
What more can be said?
When all is said and done, we need to pull together and support the candidate. Swallow pride and help the Republicans defend the nation against the liberal communism of the Democrats.
January 24th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Patrick
It is McCain who will never be the President because most of us conservatives will not kiss the rear of the moderates again and vote for a non-conservative (ie. both Bushes)
Moderate is a lossing ticket, did you happen to notice the 2006 election?
January 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Folks,
A. Brett does a good job here.
B. WND along with Farra and his minions, are crap sources.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I saved this website because I thought it was unbiased…
Wikipedia? Thank you, but no thank you!
January 24th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
166,
Are you calling GWB a “non-conservative”? Where were you 8 years ago then when the conservative establishment rallied around him? You guys are in such denial it’s comical.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
168,
Oh, we’re biased – but as a whole our individual biases tend to cancel each other out.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I got home, looked for something interesting on the site, didn’t see anything, so I decided to read Brett’s post. About a thousand things occurred to me that really needed to be said about it, but I took the time to read the posts….only to find that Murphy said pretty much everything I wanted to say. Is this guy sharp, or what! Good job, man.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Wow, that’s quite a post. I guess you’ve had a whole lot of time on your hands with the complete lack of positive news for Huck’s campaign. I’d be frustrated too, if my candidate had tanked, I suppose.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
#165 Ohio Repub
I’m sorry but slick Mitt is just as bad as Hilary is, if Romney is nominated I hope that Obama is the Democrat nominee so that people are not forced to vote for this fraud. I’m a conservative and I see absolutely nothing about Mitt that represent those values, what’s the point in voting for a republican that really doesn’t share you values. I’m not to worry because Mitt will never be president, to many conservatives out there like myself that can’t stand Mitt and we will never under any circumstance vote for him.
http://www.trueromney.com
January 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
#161 – Nice response, measured and balanced and pretty thoughtful.
I think you can make the case that the current top 4 candidates, Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee, all have a record of being in situations where they have truly had to make “tough” decisions. Each has been the guy at the center of the storm in one or multiple settings, whether it’s sponsoring a piece of legislation, running a large city or prosecuting criminals, executing the death penalty, or working to save troubled financial enterprises. It’s possible to disagree with some of the decisions made, certainly, and I think that is up for legitimate discussion, though some of that even turns into negative mudslinging. If you’ve been in such positions, you know that such decision making takes into account a lot more than just “core principles.” Principles to guide decision making are important, but so are things such as pragmatic reality, opportunity cost, relationships with others, and much more.
It’s fine to say abortion under all circumstances is wrong, for example, and then be faced as the decision maker with a 14-year old girl who is pregnant by her abusing stepfather due to incest. It happens. It’s real. You have to face it, and then the principle must be weighed in the balance with the horrendous violation and imposition on an innocent life by a criminal and immoral power abuser. I am not making this a discussion on the abortion question here, just pointing out that public policy decisions are not as simple as we all make them out to be, at times. And a slavish adherence to core principles in every circumstance can blind you to other moral principles at stake, in some cases.
I do not believe Romney has no core principles, not at all, but simply a high-level awareness of this reality and an unwillingness to commit himself on every issue to hard-and-fast positions that he knows may meet with the hard bedrock of real conditions in the public policy arena. Some might call this wisdom (and I know plenty of you will call it something else). Giuliani, I think, is pretty similar in some of his approaches.
We could go through and do case studies of making tough decisions. What did Romney do from the beginning on the Big Dig project – really, on the record, what did he do? He pushed for authority over that project for years due to wanting to fix its problems, and was fought at every turn, till it went south and a woman was killed and then the legislature was more than happy to wash its hands and give him the authority he sought to try and move forward on making the best of a complete and total mess that dated back three to four MA adminstrations before him. Look at Huckabee on trying to fix the terrible education situation that was handed to him in Arkansas. Or Giuliani on the failing city of New York and its crime conditions. All of these guys did an excellent job in these particular cases, I would suggest, and deserve a lot of credit – not constant potshots about lack of principle.
January 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Wow Murphy….you shut down Brett’s “assessment (aka falsehoods)”. Kudos to you.
Brett-I’m sure your a nice guy but you lost some serious credibility.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I echo Tommy Oliver’s Comment #168
Folks,
A. Brett does a good job here.
B. WND along with Farra and his minions, are crap sources.
I don’t think Brett P.’s post should be shut down. I was foremost in the calling for the previous Huckabee blogger’s dismissal from this website, and Brett’s post don’t even approach the former blogger’s ill will and prejudice.
That being said, Brett should respond to Murphy’s good retorts to his post. I know one can’t respond to ALL challenges to your arguments (due to time), but the fact that Brett answers NONE of the valid replies to his WND and CBN propaganda (yes, there is quite a bit on WND that is propaganda, which I personally wouldn’t associate myself with).
January 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Brett,
You seem like a nice guy, but I must admit, that your silence regarding murphy’s counter-arguments is deafening. Thanks murphy for some very-well thought out and very FACTUAL counter-arguments to Brett’s less-than-stellar post.
I agree with #177 – Let’s leave this post up, so that people who read it can get the facts right from murphy, and they can see the unfortunate mistake that led to quite a loss of credibility for Brett. At least as far as I am concerned.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Out of context quotes, mixed with distorted numbers, plus off base paraphrasing = True desperation.
Now I know Huckabee’s campaign is dead.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Yawn…
January 24th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
It’s nice to see people desperately trying to defend Romney’s refusal to say that abortion is murder. The overwhelming majority of pro-lifers oppose abortion due to the sole belief that abortion is murder. Romney is flat-out wrong, anti-conservative, and out of touch on this issue. Thank you to all who have tried to defend Romney — I will now respond:
Wiseguy, late term abortion is murder – that I know. Do I believe that forcing a fertilized egg to pass through eh uterus and be discarded is murder? NO. Sorry, but I just don’t feel it.
Now, how about going in a cutting out a fetus, however old? It’s absolutely wrong, with a few exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother). So I guess I don’t think it’s “murderâ€, in all cases.
Pro-lifers believe that killing a fetus is murder.
The fact that many of you can’t comprehend that gay marriage/civil unions and abortion are such non-issues is hilarious
That you would say abortion is a non-issue is not funny at all.
Here is what Romney actually believes about abortion. SORRY ABOUT FACTS GETTING IN THE WAY OF A HIT JOB.
“While a young bishop, for example, Romney got word that a woman in his ward was considering an abortion. This was the sixth pregnancy for the woman in her 40s, who had four teenage children, and she developed some medical complications.
Romney arrived at the hospital and forcefully counseled her against the procedure. She felt Romney misunderstood and mistreated her. The woman later wrote about the experience in Exponent II, a national newspaper for Mormon women that was published in Romney’s Boston stake. Though she didn’t use her name, many church members knew who she was.
The episode came back to haunt Romney when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 1994 as a “pro-choice†candidate. It also reflected some of the ongoing tensions he had with some Exponent II writers during his tenure.â€
All you have proven is that Romney has flip-flopped multiple times on abortion.
More misrepresentations from Brett,
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. Abortion is legal. LEGALLY SPEAKING, ROMNEY IS RIGHT.
As Governor, Romney fought to have the legal definition of life extended to the point of conception. He clearly believes that abortion is killing, but also recognizes that it is currently LEGAL.
The question is not one of legality but about morality. Everybody has an idea of what murder is, independent of what the government says.
1- “is abortion murder?†That is a trap question. If you believe abortion is murder, then you should accept the punishment of murder, right? Do you as a candidate send a person to prison for life because that’s the normal prison sentence for a murderer? A candidate would be crazy to answer yes to that question because it forces you to accept the logical arguments that will naturally follow. For most people I’d say there appears to be consensus that the later stages or pregnancy would suggest it’s murder to have an abortion. But for the very early stages, people are generally less confident in their position. So it’s a political trap to answer yes to that question, and Romney’s answer is right…it means different things to different people.
That’s why pro-lifers want to ban abortion — because it’s murder. Ronald Reagan openly believed abortion is murder, and he won in landslide fashion two times. It’s no political trap.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Huck is desperate. Oh well.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’m about as pro-life as you get. I think abortion is wrong in almost all cases, including rape, incest, and most cases of saving the life of the mother. I think it’s wrong to kill embryos that still haven’t begun developing. I consider the legal status quo a despicable moral outrage.
Yet there are a number of things people mean by ‘murder’. One has been noted above. People often use ‘murder’ as a legal term, and abortion is not murder in that sense. Maybe it’s the moral equivalent of murder, but that’s not the same thing, not in the sense of the term that many consider the primary sense. I know people who are very pro-life who regularly correct their pro-life allies when they call abortion murder, for this very reason. I usually let it slide, but I’m more careful when I present my own views. It’s nice to see that Romney is as well. That’s pretty clearly the most natural way to read what he’s saying.
I don’t, however, accept the claim that calling it murder means you have to assign the same penalty for it that you do for other cases of murder. We already distinguish between first-degree, second-degree, and third-degree murder, and we distinguish between various other factors that influence penalties involving murder and manslaughter that might also apply in abortion cases if they become illegal. We also could add further distinctions for abortion if necessary to capture further nuances. I can fully understand why someone who is fully pro-life would hesitate to call abortion murder, but I don’t accept this reason for such hesitation.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
# 183:
Maybe it’s the moral equivalent of murder, but that’s not the same thing, not in the sense of the term that many consider the primary sense.
Absolutely bogus. Most people think of murder independently of what any legal system says. Even if we lived in anarchy, we would have a good idea of what “murder” is.
January 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Let me just add that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers would characterize abortion as murder. Take a look at the following polls (a little dated):
* A CBS/New York Times poll of January 1998 tallied 50% as having the opinion that “abortion is the same thing as murdering a child,” while 38% agreed that “abortion is not murder because the fetus really isn’t a child.”
* In the Los Angeles Times poll of June 2000, 57% agreed that “abortion is murder,” while 36% disagreed.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL06/pres.html
January 25th, 2008 at 2:00 am
I guess this “abortion is not murder” thing is gonna be Romney’s weak spot for the near future. Let’s get those ads rolling, Huck!!!
January 26th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Anyone pushing “Romney said abortion’s not murder” would be outright lying. Hesitation at affirming something (due to an ambiguity in the terms involved) is not affirming the opposite.