The EFM Feature
Stake, from Flickr user Pig Monkey, used under a Creative Commons license

No, not that kind of stake. This kind:

A few years back, a hive of hornets decided to make its nest on top of a second-story swamp cooler outside my cousin’s Boston-area home. My cousin made an ill-fated attempt to remove the hornets, which resulted in a two-story fall and a broken arm.

“This looks like a job for your home teacher,” said my cousin’s home teacher.

The home teacher brought over his own ladder and clothed himself in homemade beekeeping gear. He then made his way to the hornet’s nest and gathered the whole thing up in a garbage bag, avoiding any stings or the more severe injuries that had beset my cousin. He did this with no public fanfare, no accolades, and no thought of collecting payment for his efforts.

And who was this noble home teacher? A man by the name of Mitt Romney.

Now, unless you’re familiar with Mormon lingo, you probably got lost when I introduced the phrase “home teacher,” or you may have conjured up images of some kind of private educational tutor who was taking care of my cousin’s kids. That would have left you wondering why a tutor thought it was their responsibility to wrangle hornets.

But if you’re a Mormon, the phrase made perfect sense, as did the rest of the story. You would know that every month, every member of a Mormon congregation receives a visit from two “home teachers,” who share an inspirational message but, more importantly, are charged with the responsibility of looking out for the family’s welfare. So if a family is struggling, the home teachers are the spiritual “first responders,” and a good home teacher jumps at any opportunity to be of service.

Among other things, Mitt Romney is a good home teacher.

That post, sent to us by reader Kitty, goes on to explain what a Mormon “stake president” is and how Gov. Romney’s role as one is telling as to what kind of U.S. President he’d be.

For me, here’s the upshot:  I don’t like Mormon theology, but I do like Mitt Romney’s values.  The former would prevent me from voting for him as my pastor, but the former is what matters when voting for my president.

About Charles Mitchell

EFM's resident Yankee, Charles Mitchell, works in the non-profit arena in his native Pennsylvania. He and his wife, Charissa, live near the state capital of Harrisburg with their daughter, Adeline, and are members of a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

98 Responses to Vote for the Stake President!

  1. Jenny B says:

    Great story :) And so revealing of him as someone who sees a problem and fixes it- not for his own benefit but to better someone else’s life. It seems those who are closest to him know how much he cares.

  2. Terry says:

    Just One of Many Acts by Mitt

    Excellent illustration for the point you were making, Charles. As a LDS person myself, and knowing somewhat of the various church positions Mitt has held in the past, I can state without reservation that the hornet nest adventure is just one of many, many selfless acts of service that Mitt has performed throughout his life (though you’ll never hear about them from him–only if someone directly asks him about one of them).

    I subscribe to the theory that someone who attends to the “small” acts of service like that in their life (though no act of service is really “small” in my opinion), that person can be eminently trusted to also take care of the bigger things. My point is that contrary to what the MSM and his opponents have been saying about him not being able to connect or relate to ordinary citizens of the country because of his wealth, all the acts of genuine selfless service he has performed for others, proves the naysayers wrong. Whether it’s removing a hornet’s nest from the swamp cooler of a fellow church member’s home (two stories up, by the way), or shutting down Bain Capital for a few days and moving his staff to New York to help find the missing daughter of an employee, it’s those kinds of acts that prove to me Mitt Romney relates very well to the “common citizen”. Ever watch the TV program “Secret Millionaire”? The basis of the series was that millionaires (single, or a husband-wife couple in some cases), were taken to a slum area in some city, given the equivalent amount of welfare money that the local poor people had to live on, and told to find ways of helping them. All the millionaires had basically the same experience. They had to make the money last for a week. All of them found several charities (free food kitchens, half-way houses, etc) that they then volunteered at. The reaction of all of them throughout the series was the same: “I had no idea some people had to live like this.” Tears were not uncommon as they said it. The experience was life changing for every one of them.

    My point? If Mitt had been asked to be a participant on the show, he would not have had the same “I had no idea” reaction of the other millionaires, because he already knows! He’s been doing what the other millionaires did for his entire adult life. Just because he is rich does not mean he is unable to have genuine compassion for those less fortunate. His many acts of selfless service prove that he indeed does have that compassion. Now, couple that with his unquestioned financial expertise, his proven leadership in other endeavors, and you’ve got the formula for a man who is exactly the type of person we need serving in the White House come next year.

    In my opinion, no one else comes close to measuring up.

    • Brandon from NJ says:

      So to Charles, thanks for the article, as for Terry thanks as well, as someone who comes from outside the faith, I would comment that you do an excellent, and great job of explaining things about Romney’s faith and how it translates into things for others to know. It’s most interesting to me how your church seems to have offices with terms, if that makes any sense to you. It’s not the only case, but it’s interesting, despite having differences to how some things work, but it’s interesting, as both yourself and Charles do point out, how Romney served in previous offices with terms. What kinds of people get the Stake Presidency in your church?

      • Kevin Young says:

        @Brandon You are right about the offices having terms. There are no actual “term limits,” but typically a person is called to the office of Bishop for 4 or 5 years and Stake President for about 12 years. When it is time for a new stake president, two “General Authorities” (Apostles or Seventies) of the church come to the stake (a geographic area with about 3,000 members) and spend two days interviewing men who have been faithful in other offices and were recommended as possibilities. One stake has about 10 wards, each presided over by a Bishop. Every Bishop is automatically interviewed. Every Stake President has two counselors who serve with him in the stake presidency, and 12 “High Counselors” who help him carry out his duties. All of these men are automatically interviewed. Any of these bishops or high counselors may recommend any other man in the stake to be interviewed. Nobody nominates themselves or seeks a nomination. During and after the interview process the general authorities pray for inspiration and they counsel with the current stake president. A choice is then made. I have served as a high counselor so was personally involved in this process one time. I might also add that the former stake president then accepts the next calling, whatever that may be. In our stake, the prior stake president accepted a calling teaching 7 and 8 year old children with his wife in their home ward, and he was thrilled to be doing that!

        • Kevin Young says:

          Maybe I did not answer the question the way you wanted. When you asked “what kinds of people,” I could have said honest, faithful, prayerful, charitable, scripture-reading people with a very strong personal conviction of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. Typically they have served in other offices of leadership, but that is not a requirement. It may also be worth pointing out that none of the “callings” (offices) within the LDS church are paid positions, so to serve as a Bishop or Stake President, which takes a lot of time, requires also that you are meeting your family’s financial needs and that you can be available (you don’t need to be wealthy, but you must be fiscally responsible).

      • Derek says:

        A Mormon “bishop” is the leader of a group of a few hundred people in a congregation called a “ward”. The “stake president” is the leader of a half dozen or so wards, which taken together are called a stake. Faithful church members become stake presidents, usually (but not necessarily) after significant amounts of service in other positions in the church. It’s not just a title; the job entails lots of work in administering to the spiritual, temporal, and administrative needs of the stake. As I grew up in the church, my stake presidents were always devout married men; one was a mailman, another an accountant, a farmer, and an anesthesiologist. When the leaders above the stake president in church hierarchy decide his time is up, the stake president may go back to being a church member at large, a Sunday school teacher, nursery leader, chorister, or greeter.

      • David Walser says:

        What kinds of people serve as Stake President? In terms of their professions, all kinds. I’ve had Stake Presidents who were school teachers, dentists, attorneys, bankers, business owners, and farmers. In many cases, I haven’t even known what the Stake President did for a living. In terms of the qualities of the individual, most Stake Presidents share a lot of virtues: they are willing to serve long hours with little or no thanks, they are compassionate, loving, men who care about those in their communities who are suffering (whether that suffering is spiritual, physical, or financial, and without regard to whether the person brought the suffering on himself and without regard to whether or not the person is a member of the LDS church). Some Stake Presidents are better at delivering a sermon than others, but all know how to minister to the needs of those they’ve been called to serve — whether that ministering is done one-on-one, or in small groups. They also know how to lead. They inspire people to join together for a good cause — whether that’s to clean up a neighboring community after a tornado or to gather bottled water to re-roof the home of a senior citizen.

        In short, Stake Presidents are very similar to the very fine men and women of other faiths I’ve been privileged to work with on the PTA or the Boy Scouts. My neighbor in the Dallas area was a great guy and would have made a great Stake President (were it not for the fact he was of a different faith).

      • ccr says:

        @Brandon, callings….or opportunities to serve and sometimes lead…..are not sought after or “auditioned” for. Callings follow this principle: We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, by the laying on of hands, by those who have authority to administer in the church ordinances. The Bible has examples of such a pattern.

        Those who serve in such leadership positions as a stake president have responded to previous opportunities (often as a local bishop (paster/preacher) to serve, show a love for the Lord and serving others, an ability to “lead” in making decisions and receiving inspiration as to how others could best serve. They are responsible for leading 8-12 other bishops (pasters/preachers). Since the Mormon church is a lay leadership, these men (and women in other types of leadership) serve without pay anywhere from 20-40 hrs. a week in addition to employment.

      • Terry says:

        Brandon…thank you for your kind comments.

        Re: Office with terms. If you are referring to the fact that few positions in the LDS church are held for life by those who occupy them, you are correct. I personally have been a Sunday School president, a scout leader, an organist (disclaimer: any similarity between me and a REAL church organist is purely coincidental), a financial clerk (which means that I know how to operate the computer program that keeps track of the donations from members of our ward (congregation), a substitute choir director, a Sunday School teacher (several times), an Elder’s quorum instructor, a High Priests group instructor (my current “calling”), Stake Mission secretary, Seventy’s quorum president, home teacher (for most of my church life), missionary for two years (in Scotland), and probably a few others positions that I’ve forgotten. My case is not the least bit unusual. Most LDS church members have the opportunity of serving in multiple callings (not all at once, of course) over their life in the church. Mitt Romney undoubtedly has served in more positions than just Bishop and Stake president. We LDS see it as an opportunity to grow, both spiritually and intellectually.

        • Brandon from NJ says:

          Well Terry, ccr, David, Derek, and Kevin, thank you to you all as well. I come from the United Methodist Church myself, which does have differences, but we do have Council Positions, so if you can sort of understand where I am coming from, you probably understand the curiousity a little bit.

          As far as myself, I have been involved in scouting, as a scout, and later as a scoutmaster, it’s great as a program that encourages, fitness, discipline, and good conduct. I am glad to have been involved in such a program, and still am always ready to be involved in it at any time.

    • Lucinda Craven says:

      Thank you so very much for your well thought out remarks. I agree with everything you have said here. Again, thank you.
      Lucinda

  3. Liz says:

    Oh great. The MSM is going to twist Romney into some sort of monstrous bee killer.

    Lds people can sure be decent in spite of all the nutz-o stuff they believe, right? Sheesh. It’s amazing.

    :)

    • Terry says:

      Liz…and you can “bee” sure that PETA will have something to say about Mitt’s bee-havior with the wasp nest!

      (Okay…that was pathetic.)

    • Brandon from NJ says:

      Being involved with lawn, garden, and tree work, sometimes you just have to lose some insects, trees, vines, weed, or whatever else is coming up in your lawn, for long-term success. Not everything is made to prosper in nature, however, sometimes you have to make sacrifices to achieve a state of equilibrium.

  4. Larry says:

    What a nice, heart warming story. I wonder what sort of stories we might hear about the other candidates should they have elected to sell themselves via anecdotes. Who knows. Mitt sounds as if he might be a great neighbor (though to be frank, his slanderous attacks against his opponents suggest to me that he’s a great guy … as long as you don’t have anything he wants or get in the way of his ambitions … in that case … look out … the hammer will fall hard).

    However, what interests me is the political context of Mitt’s life. That is, his actual, unvarnished record and the effects of that record. His speeches, his promises and the manner in which he conducted his campaigns. 4 years ago, many couldn’t be bothered with such pedestrian facts … and so voted for Obama. We were shocked by such apathy, by such indolence. Until now, that is. For Team Romney and it’s boosters they are preferred over facts. Just as we are told that all current speeches trump earlier ones.

    Instead, we are force fed a mythical treatment of Mitt’s record and policies. Their effects? Ignored or given an apologists treatment. His speeches? Ignore them … they merely track his evolution. His lies? What lies … you misunderstood his intent. Facts are never permitted to speak for themselves and history is conveniently ignored or rewritten.

    In their place we’re urged to remember Bain … well, the good part. Ignore anything unflattering. Or the Olympics … where federal funding played an enormous role. BTW, the Olympics was not going to fail … even communist countries can pull that one off. It was no Herculean effort. That claim is rather like his claim to balancing the budget while governor. Big deal … he had to. It is constitutionally mandated. Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years … want him as President?

    Save the anecdotes for home teacher of the year. Right now we’re voting for a president. What matters most now are real records, speeches and philosophy. On that score Mitt’s at the bottom of the list. Just as Obama was.

    4 years ago we announced as foolishness their truancy from facts and truth. Well, friends … that sword cuts both ways.

    P.S. Please don’t offer me the kool aid version of Mitt’s record dispensed by the campaign. You show me real numbers and their context … their complete context and then we can have an adult discussion. Obamalike renderings of the past are for those addicted to them.

          • Larry says:

            The Obama presidency owes its existence to the willful ignorance of the electorate and to the singularly deceptive nature of his campaign (and of course, his accomplices in the MSM and DNC). His administration has overseen a shocking and swift erosion of liberty. More concerning yet is the Executive Branch’s arrogation of those power’s rightly belonging to Congress. This encroachment has been attended by a general lawlessness which only serves to further undermine the general intent of Constitutional government and the restraints it imposes on itself.

            So egregious have been its actions and apparent designs that this administration has itself nearly become an existential threat to the nation it supposes to lead. The only adequate and wise response to its threat is an authentic, bold and decisive conservative administration. Consequently, I cannot support the candidacy of Mitt Romney who labors to obscure his past record and positions with the same vigor and duplicity I observed in candidate Obama. A man who cannot afford to be honest about his record is not a man we can afford to elect as president.

    • Terry says:

      Larry m’man!!! Where you been? I can always count on you to cherry pick the facts, ignoring those that would do in your argument. Let’s pick two things.
      1. The Olympics. They were very deep in debt and scandal BEFORE Mitt was invited to take over. Also, the federal funding for the security had been arranged for before Mitt stepped in–a fact that folks like you conveniently ignore. Mitt’s leadership literally saved the Olympics.
      2. Governor Romney. Just because having a balanced budget was constitutionally mandated, does NOT mean that it will be. When Mitt took over as governor, the budget was in terrible shape, something you never acknowledge. Obviously, the previous governor did not balance it.

      Face it, Larry. Despite your protestations to the contrary, your main problem with Mitt is that he’s a Mormon. I know, because I’ve been dealing with anti-Mormons and anti-Mormonism types on a daily basis for a couple of decades now. I spotted your real self after your first post or two on EFM. No offence to you, because I understand the mentality. It’s just that a little self-honesty would be appreciated.

      • Larry says:

        Terry, your Romney “facts” are as divorced from reality as is your self-serving
        paranoia. I think it is quite likely that you are an anti-christian bigot. A bigotry that blinds you to the obvious and fuels a crazed need to indict everyone who opposes Mitt as anti-Mormon … facts not withstanding. It’s as sad as it is ugly Terry. It also makes impossible intelligent dialogue.

        You clearly need to believe this silly delusion … it shields form the responsibility to objectively consider another point of view.

        • Terry says:

          True to form, Larry. True to form. As I stated before, I know the anti-Mormon mentality like I know my own religion. “Anti-Christian bigot”? For your information, there’s not a bigoted bone in my body. For years, my personal policy has been to treat other’s faith’s the same as I would like mine to be treated. For 99.9% of those who post here on EFM, I’ve found that such has been the case. You, sir, are the lone exception. You accuse me of having a “crazed need to indict everyone who opposes Mitt as anti-Mormon”. Amusing, m’man. I challenge you here and now to find anything, anywhere, on my EFM posts where I’ve accused someone of being anti-Mormon (other than yourself). And good luck, because you won’t find anything. The reason I say that your accusation is amusing is because you are following, almost to the letter, tactics that other true anti-Morons have used against me in the past.

          So I post two rebuttals in defense of Mitt Romney (re: the Olympics and a balanced budget)—and suddenly I have a “self-serving paranoia”? If that is what you choose to believe, that is your right. I just never expected you to get that wound up over my defense of Mitt. So, I’ll tell you what. To save you any further irritation, I’m going to absent myself from replying to any more of your posts. You’ve more than proved my first impressions of you anyway. And, honestly, I hold absolutely no ill will. Just a touch of amusement lingering in the trailing wake of our discussions.

          • Larry says:

            Yes, Terry, self serving paranoia and anti-christian
            bigotry. Despite a lengthy effort at explaining my position with regard to Mitt’s Mormonism and the fact that I voted for him (uninformed and fecklessly) you persist in both calling me a liar and an anti-Mormon bigot.

            It is clearly your default position for fending off questions regarding the veracity of Romney’s claims and the questionable conservatism that marks his candidacy.

            I have been restrained in the face of your regular insistence that I am both a liar and a bigot … so man up my friend … if you dare to behave like a bigot, brace yourself for the inevitability of being identified as one.

            Or in the words of Mitt Romney “You Gotta Have Broad Shoulders, You Can’t Spend Your Time Whining”

    • Dan says:

      You want “real numbers”? How about this:
      Massachusetts: Romney 72%. Second Place Santorum 12%. Everyone else even less than that.

      Those who have been governed by Romney like Romney. Those who have worked with Romney like Romney (try asking that about Newt). Those who have hired Romney (like voters are being asked to do now) have LOVED Romney. Those who have gone against Romney haven’t necessarily loved Romney, probably because they got plastered by Romney. The guy just gets results.

  5. Phil says:

    Larry, it’s pretty obvious that you don’t like Romney. I don’t think there’s anything we could say that would convince you otherwise. To me, what a person does behind the scenes, when there is no fanfare or publicity, without trumpeting their acts, shows what a person’s true character is. Political rivalry is rarely a pretty thing, and politics itself is a subject open to lots of different opinions, but many good people on both sides of an issue. I wish that the candidates would spend more time explaining their agendas, and why such agendas are superior to that of their opponents, and less time attacking their opponents previous records and positions. Mitt is no exception. Have I been happy with everything he has said or done? No, and I would not expect to be, as no candidate reflects my views perfectly, and none should be expected to. I also firmly believe that it’s important for a candidate to be flexible enough to change his or her opinion on specific policies, when new information becomes available that trumps their earlier position (i.e Romney’s pro-choice to pro-life switch). A candidate that is so stubborn and inflexible as to never be open to changing his views on any subject is in my mind not a good candidate. Neither is one that readily changes his core positions based on which way the polls are going (i.e. Clinton, Obama). I don’t see Romney as either of these extremes. He has changed position on some things over the years, but I think he does a pretty good job of walking the often fine line between being strong enough to stick to his guns on things that really are basic and cannot be compromised vs those things that are often open to compromise and/or subject to interpretation when new knowledge becomes available. I don’t agree with everything Mitt says, but I agree with him on more things than I do the other candidates, and I also like him personally alot more than the others, based on what I’ve seen in debates, what I’ve read about them, etc. Mitt is always the gentleman in the debates, whereas I have not seen that from Santorum. I was very unimpressed with both Santorum and Perry in one of the early debates where both of them were very rude to Romney, by interrrupting him during his time slot. With Gingrich, I have not been impressed with what I’ve heard of his private life. With Romney, I’ve been impressed with both his debating style and his private life.

    • Larry says:

      “I also firmly believe that it’s important for a candidate to be flexible enough to change his or her opinion on specific policies, when new information becomes available that trumps their earlier position (i.e Romney’s pro-choice to pro-life switch). A candidate that is so stubborn and inflexible as to never be open to changing his views on any subject is in my mind not a good candidate. Neither is one that readily changes his core positions based on which way the polls are going (i.e. Clinton, Obama). I don’t see Romney as either of these extremes.”

      Are you aware the context and timelines of his changes? If so, how can you view them as flexible rather than opportunistic and duplicitous?

      “He has changed position on some things over the years, but I think he does a pretty good job of walking the often fine line between being strong enough to stick to his guns on things that really are basic and cannot be compromised vs those things that are often open to compromise and/or subject to interpretation when new knowledge becomes available.”

      For Pete’s sake, what do you consider issues which are “basic and cannot be compromised “? Romney has traveled the spectrum on every major issue and remains unpersuasive to vast swaths of the electorate.

      “I also like him personally alot more than the others, based on what I’ve seen in debates, what I’ve read about them, etc. Mitt is always the gentleman in the debates, whereas I have not seen that from Santorum”

      Clearly you have not watched every debate. He interrupted repeatedly, lied and impugned the records of his opponents. Are we discussing the same man?

      This goes specifically to the point I was making earlier. The revisionism of Team Romney isn’t new, its just that I’m accustomed to observing it among Democrats … not conservatives. Among liberals facts and truth are desperately feared and so ignored or revised. This typifies the Romney campaigns entire approach to this election. If he wins, voters will, as they did with Obama, have elected a fictional character. The real man will emerge after the votes are counted … by that time … its too late to undo the damage.

      Again, this is why the actual record of Mitt Romney’s term as governor and the effects of that term must be examined. That is why his current rhetoric must be viewed in light of his past rhetoric. That is why his changes in position must be scrutinized for opportunism. On short, after Obama, anyone would be a fool to ignore such essential basics.

      • Kay says:

        Who said it???

        “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress,” he said.
        “But it had never been something I thought about.”
        “So why did you change/” I asked.
        “I sat down and read the literature. Scientific literature.”
        “So religion had nothing to do with it.?”
        “Oh, well, of course,” he said. “And religion too. It was both of those,
        science and religion.”

        Santorum December 1995 Philadelphia Magazine article from Temple University
        achieves

        • Larry says:

          Kay, can you explain the difference between an unstudied position and a clearly articulated and precise position? Can you also explain why Mitt’s touted faith so failed to inform his position of abortion.

          Of course that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Mitt has changed positions on virtually every topic of major concern to conservatives … all when suddenly requiring their votes. Care to explain that?

          • Kay says:

            Santorum’s quote
            “I was basically pro-choice all my life, until I
            ran for Congress.”

      • jrobertoviveiros says:

        Larry … I have one question .. as you find faults in anything that Romney does … and I am sure you find faults in others … With all your knowledge … Why is it that you do not offer yourself as a candidate,??? that is, if you do not have any faults of your own … ! ” The mouth of the just, bringeth forth wisdom: but the froward tongue, shall be cut off ” …. !!!!!

        • Larry says:

          JB … in the absence of a credible argument you offer a child’s jibe? Is an adult discussion to much to expect on this forum? A simple discussion of Mitt’s actual record and its effects, his speeches over the years and his conduct as a candidate are all that’s required. Anyone? Anyone?

          • Jesse Bardsley says:

            You should read Mitt’s book “Turnaround” about the Olympics. As best I can tell, it really was a disaster and he helped save it by changing the culture, and making hard cuts and decisions. After reading a book about him, and while reading this one by him, I believe that he is much more simple than most of us suppose. He was a businessman who got into politics, without always knowing what he was doing (and thus he took some positions he later changed). He has learned and become better as time has gone by. Nothing in his personal life suggests a desire to be dishonest; rather, it is my opinion that a.) His positions are very nuanced and thus the media over simplifies them and falsely identifies some of them as flip-flops b.) he has changed over time. It is true, he has shifted to the right–but I think that is because he was never a politician in the first place and so I think that is ok. I think we need someone like Mitt who is nnot so dogmatic that he can’t unite the country, and who also very clearly is a man of principle.

      • Hannah Rebekah says:

        Larry,
        You are a living example of what ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’ is all about….we all are. If a person believes a person is a certain way they will find anything to prove their view point. So if you believe a person is hard to get along with, moody, dishonest or whatever, you will look for those examples that prove your point. The opposite holds true as well, if you find a person to be kind, good, honest and to have a good character, you will find those examples that prove this point. And to think that no one is perfect…ah…that human condition.
        The facts you seem to go by about Romney you have declared as absolute truth and therefore we are idiots for not seeing things the way you do. The problem is, Absolute Truth is “Something true for all people, at all times and in all places” So…sorry…you lose your arguments about your facts or ‘your truth’ about Romney.
        In the end, people judge the facts and establish truth by their own feelings and life experiences. Now I doubt a rational like you would stand for a statement like that about feelings but the truth is no one can have a rational thought without feelings. It’s been proven.
        “What science demonstrates is…without emotion we can’t make choices…we can’t even think rationally without feelings…they go hand in hand. Rationality requires feelings….rationality requires emotion.” Antonio Damasio and Oliver Sacks, world-renowned neural physiologists have demonstrated this with their patients..
        “For instance they had a group of people who had some brain damage in an area that effects their emotion to intertwine their emotional states with their cognitive states. They couldn’t make any decisions. They were completely incapable of decision making. The reality is without their emotions, without their feelings they have or we have no way of evaluating what’s better and what’s not. Or in making any decisions at all.”
        And for the record, I and the others here prefer to go about judging Romney by weighing it out and in the end by using how the scriptures teach us to be. To look for the good in others…by their fruits you would know them. Matthew 8: 16-18.
        Good luck with your negative ‘self-fulfilling prophesy’ drama about Romney. Drama because of where you are posting it.

        • Larry says:

          Ah, psychoanalysis in place of relevant facts. Why the fear of an
          honest discussion of relevant facts. The pseudo-psychology you’ve offered in place of reasoned argument suffers from the same disregard for intellectual accuracy as the pro-Romney arguments that litter these pages. What is so difficult or frightening about an open, honest exploration of relevant facts?

          Before you apply to others a clinical diagnosis you may wish a
          firm grasp on these concepts … your remarks suggest anything but.

          Is an honest, intelligent, adult conversation just to darn much to ask here?

  6. Paul says:

    Larry,

    Ronald Reagan moved from liberal positions to more conservative positions throughout his life. He became one of our most conservative presidents.

    Mitt Romney has also moved from some more liberal positions to conservative positions. Many of us don’t believe that he governed as a liberal. His record of vetoes and fiscal responsibility are just a couple of things that he did as governer. His strong support against abortion is just another. You can say that he did all of those things for votes, but most of us here believe he did those things because he was becoming more conservative.

    You can offer all the child’s jibes you want to people here or accuse everyone else of child’s jibes. I think, however, that this is one forum where there is actually quite a bit of discussion that is grown up. And I believe discussing someone’s character and acts of service when they are out of the lime light isn’t necessarily a childish thing to do. Character is an important part of filling any role in leadership.

  7. Jenny B says:

    LOL! Why can’t we all just get along?!?!? Hehe :) Just trying to throw some light-heartedness into the conversation. As I said before, that’s a great story about Mitt! Let’s smile and be happy at the fact we learned about a random act of kindness he performed. It’s nice that anecdotes like this are shared by people who’ve known Mitt personally over the years- because we know he would never have shared this about himself. We are truly blessed to have someone with such character (built over a lifetime) as our candidate of choice and, as far as I’m concerned, next president.

  8. Canda says:

    Thank you for a very informative and might I add uplifting article concerning Mr. Romney. It made me stop and think about how often, or maybe not so often I’ve gone out of my way to be of service to my neighbors. If Mitt wasn’t running for president we wouldn’t know about his selfless acts unless we knew him, or knew someone he had assisted. I think perhaps as president he might inspire us citizens to be more giving, and yes kind. I know America has a well earned reputation of being a generous and giving nation. Maybe a President Romney would enhance that nature that seems to reside in the majority of us. I believe his life experiences have prepared him to be president, and in spite of the rhetoric that naysayers and bigots like to spew forth about him personally, about his religion, his record as governor, as an Olympics CEO, or his business career my extensive research has proven all accusations to be fruitless. Mitt is who he is and who he portrays himself to be. I feel bad for those who can’t, or won’t look beyond personal prejudice to see the truth.

  9. RC says:

    Larry

    I see that you have popped your head up again. The only thing that I will say is that “you” are the “hornet” lodged in the second story. The brothers and sisters here at EFM (all faiths included) are the owners of the home and want the “hornets” removed. Mitt Romney as a “Stake President” and a “Home Teacher” is going to come and remove you after he is elected President of the United States of America and put you with your own hive, while the rest of us live in peace and harmony.

    You see, Larry, we have a brotherhood and a sisterhood here at EFM, of all faiths, building a great cause. You appear to be very uncomfortable when coming to this site. If you are that uncomfortable, and you aren’t going to “sway”any of us from our goal, shouldn’t you just like go your merry way and join others who are like you, and who prop you up! Because if you don’t go your merry way, and you continue, then let it be known by all men everywhere that you are an antagonist.

    Go Mitt – President Romney 2012

    • Larry says:

      RC … I suppose the irony of your post escapes you entirely, yes? Have you any notion just how eerily anti-intellectual and tribal your remarks sound? Rather than respond with relevant facts you attempt to smother
      dissent with insult and threats. Some brotherhood … do you keeps stakes and kindling handy?

  10. Ryan in Georgia says:

    Mitt meets the three things I want in a president; business experience to turn around the economy, history of cutting spending, and be a good moral person. This story is a perfect example of the latter. Santorum is 1 for 3. Gingrich is 0 for 3.

  11. Matt says:

    Larry,

    We all concede. Only you are smart…We all are dumb….No adults here. Just mind numbed robots willingly doing what master Mitt tells us….Satisfied? Larry, you aren’t interested in facts. You simply want to argue, cut down, and belittle. No matter what is presented, it’s wrong…according to you. Your call for “adult” debate and dialogue is a condescending load of crap. The facts as I (and most “boosters” here) see them are fantasy in your convoluted world. So why continue to lay them out before you? I have done hours and hours and research on this good man. Do I think he is the perfect candidate? No. Do I think he would make a good President? YES! To me, the facts are clear. Arguing w/ someone who clearly has NO INTEREST in conceding even a single point of discussion is pointless. Go ahead, I know the insults are coming….give it your best shot. Bye Larry.

    • Larry says:

      Matt, really? Is anyone here willing to lay aside their churlish insults and engage in a substantive discussion? Are you? Please, if you’ve conducted such extensive due diligence, provide for me an accounting of Mitt’s term as governor. What about it qualifies him to ask for my vote or persuade me that he is conservative? Why should I dismiss his earlier speeches or ignore his changes in position?

      Simple questions. I’m quite prepared to listen and respond. Are you? Or is insult and assertion all you’re really able to offer? I am indeed interested in facts and am perfectly willing to alter my opinion in the face of convincing reason. Question is … are you?

  12. Chris says:

    People need to stop and realize what Larry’s purpose is here. He’s not interested in learning and his opinion about Mitt Romney is never going to change. He’s what we call a ‘troll’, in the internet blogging world. His only purpose is to aggravate and irritate, and incite arguments. Masked behind the seemingly calmness of his tone, he’s not being civil. Every time you directly address him and attempt to argue facts, gain clarity, or clear an apparent misrepresentation, you’re just feeding the troll, and drawing him back here even more. He’s a bitter loser with no life who doesn’t deserve your direct attention. Stop feeding him.

    • Larry says:

      Uhmm … Chris … really. I’ve asked repeatedly for just such a discussion. One centered in verifiable facts and reasoned arguments. You know, when you read between the lines its generally imprudent to insert whole paragraphs.

      What you refer to (foolishly and rudely) as bitterness is the desire to avoid the catastrophe of 2008 again. I take my franchise seriously … so your stunningly inane “insight” is so far afield from facts you may want to simply take me at my word.

      Are you prepared to offer a compelling, verifiable argument regarding Mitt’s actual record, the effects of his policy initiatives and leadership, his past speeches and political positions and any other relevant matter upon which he bases his claims and candidacy? Furthermore, are you prepared to offer a reasonable, adult response to arguments which challenge those claims?

      It seems my agenda couldn’t be clearer. I’ve made no secret of my intention of persuading others of Mitt’s disqualifications. I’m quite prepared to be persuaded otherwise should someone offer compelling proof.

      My request will require a mature and thoughtful response though … not the rude, baseless and accusing rhetoric that has been offered in its place.

      Any takers?

      • RC says:

        Sorry Larry, you have got to go, from my vantage point, you are gone. No more replying to your posts. Have a good life. No more feeding the “troll”.

        • Larry says:

          Hmmm … declining an intelligent discussion and leaving yet further insult in your wake. This seems to remain a constant among those who favor Mitt. Problem is, I’m accustomed to observing this behavior among liberals … not conservatives. Oh sure, disagreement, even flashes of anger … but not the constant stream of ad hominem attacks. Not the rancor and acrimony. Not the churlish insults.

          It figures then that most conservatives are simply not attracted to Mitt … if they were it simply would not be so difficult to have a reasoned discussion. Those who find Mitt so irresistible are largely unfamiliar with conservative thought and practice.

          A simple discussion in which unmolested fact, accurate histories and objective, informed and reasoned argument can occur should not be feared. Indeed, there is only reason to welcome it … if you’ve nothing to fear. If truth is your real aim.

          • Matt says:

            Larry,
            Sorry to “feed the troll”, but I just couldn’t let this slide. You said earlier: “That claim is rather like his claim to balancing the budget while governor. Big deal … he had to. It is constitutionally mandated. Dukakis balanced the budget for 10 years … want him as President?” To use one of your regular responses, Really, Larry? This is really unintelligent. Dukakis, while in office might have balanced the state’s budget as is mandated by the constitution of Massachusetts, but did so by increasing taxes. In fact, he authored the largest tax increase in the history of Massachusetts. To be sure, in his first term as governor, he took Massachusetts from the 22nd to the fifth highest tax burden in the country earning his state the nickname “Taxachusetts”. And last, he opposed all attempts in ten years to cut taxes in Massachusetts. The difference? Mitt balanced the budget w/o raising taxes, each of 4 years. And no, a fee is not a tax…just in case you were tempted. He also lowered taxes 19 times as governor. What Dukakis did = Liberal. What Mitt did = conservative….and he did it w/ a largely democratic/liberal legislature. Did you really try to say that the two were the same? Larry. You made it sound like you actually did your homework. Nice try.

      • Larry says:

        Matt, first allow me to congratulate you in coming forward with a few relevant issues for discussion (sadly though, you seem unwilling to drop the nasty insults though … oh well). Now perhaps we can begin a real discussion.

        “Mitt balanced the budget w/o raising taxes, each of 4 years. And no, a fee is not a tax…just in case you were tempted “ Hmmm … well, we’ll revisit that last assertion in a moment (hint, just because you insist that a fee hike is NOT, effectively, a tax does not in fact make it so) however, your assertion that Mitt did not balance the budget without raising taxes is simply, Romney Campaign doublespeak aside, incorrect.

        Allow me to explain. Upon taking office Gov. Romney began stripping out corporate tax “loopholes”. “Great” you say? “Loopholes are unfair!” you say? Not so fast. Loopholes provide relief for companies struggling with large (and often unfair tax burdens … a case especially true in “Taxachusetts”) and are NEVER stripped out by conservatives in the absence of corresponding tax DECREASES. In the absence of tax decreases the removal of loopholes becomes an effective tax INCREASE. Don’t take my word for it though, Peter Nicholas (chairman of the Boston Science Corporation) stated flatly “Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

        He (Nicholas) further stated that “Romney’s tax policies were not helpful for many small businesses…when Romney took many IRS subchapter S businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation”. That remark goes to the heart of the issue with regard to Romney’s conservative bona fides. Tax policy is central to fiscal conservative thought. Onerous tax schemes are anathema to conservatives not only because they fail entirely to restrain the size and scope of government and effectively discriminate against success (impinging upon personal liberty) but they recognize the debilitating effect of such tax rates upon economic outcomes.

        Romney’s failure to conceive of a stimulative tax policy which would incentivize economic growth and thereby a)drive job creation, b)stimulate economic growth, and c)INCREASE government revenues is perhaps one of the single greatest indicators of his decidedly unconservative political philosophy. He relied on the same static models which lay at the heart of Democratic tax policy.

        The net effect? A grossly hobbled private sector which plagued Massachusetts with chronically high unemployment rates. Before you shout about the 4.7% rate of unemployment near the end of his SINGLE TERM as governor bear in mind this essential data. First, the unemployment rate was one of the nation’s highest (including among his New England neighbors). Additionally, the figure of 4.7% was effectively higher if you factor in a second essential figure … Massachusetts ranked SECOND in the nation for number of citizens fleeing their state IN SEARCH OF EMPLOYMENT. Had citizens remained in their home state the rate would have been much higher.

        WORSE yet, the industrial sector suffered enormously under Gov. Romney with some jobs never returning to the state. Year after year, Governor Romney put the squeeze on corporations leaving Joseph Crosby (Council on State Taxation) to remark, “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations”. In so doing, he wrung jobs, economic growth and opportunity out of Massachusetts. He increase business property taxes, gasoline taxes and sought, retroactively, to tax out of state commuters. Romney the businessman sought additional revenues for his new enterprise, the state of Massachusetts, and secured them through measures which would ensure continued anemic economic growth and high rates of joblessness.

        The nexus between economic growth and tax policy was lost entirely on Mitt Romney and continues to do so till this day. His proposed economic plan (released last year) was found wanting by the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. In particular, his treatment of both effective tax rates and capital gains taxes betrays a tone deafness to the issue that is puzzling for someone who presents themselves as a conservative. Even now, in an effort to appear as conservative as his opponents, he has revised his tax plan yet again.

        Not only does it continue in its failure to address key tax incentives, but the very fact that he provides the changes now, in the face of mounting pressure, suggests that they are both insincere (and so without conviction) and that they will also not guide tax policy once elected. They are, in short, another set of empty promises. Worse, the act suggests that the entire matter of conservatism continue to remain a second language to Mitt Romney. A second language he speaks badly and with little comprehension.

        Now, on to fees. Yes, Matt … despite your insistence otherwise, fee hikes are taxes by another name. Why? Well, first of all they fail entirely to stimulate growth … they are simply sucked into that growing black hole called government. Secondly, they increase the cost of being a citizen or doing business in the state (remember, because of the most unconservative actions of Gov. Romney Massachusetts’ was ranked as the 4th most expensive state in which to do business by the Public Policy Institute of New York). And finally, they reduce further the availability of disposable income (and discretionary income) for average citizens … thereby further crippling an already struggling economy.

        Balanced the budget? Yes. But not by significant spending cuts (he did make cuts to municipalities which in turn resulted in higher property taxes and excise taxes across the state), but rather by balancing it on the backs of businesses … and by increasing the overall budget. Yes, you read that correctly … each year of his term Romney increased the size of the budget.

        Was Gov. Romney evil? No. Was (is?) he conservative? No … not by a long shot. Not b y any reasonable measure. This is especially relevant to a discussion regarding his fitness for office today given the very real economic downturn and jobless rate currently plaguing our nation. We need an authentic conservative who enjoys a deeply embedded, full-orbed authentic conservative philosophy. We do not need another President who simplybeleives in himself … but one who believes in the principles that guide liberty and economic success.

        I look forward to your response and to further discussion regarding candidate Romney.

        • Larry says:

          BTW, Reagan (an authentic conservative) drove taxes down from a high of 70% to a low of 28% even though he labored alongside a Democratically controlled House of Representatives. Additionally, he drove down the capital gains tax to its lowest rate in 50 years … also in the face of a Democratically controlled House. He led with conservative principle. The net effect was the greatest and lengthiest economic expansion since WW2. Quite an achievement … especially against the backdrop of House Democratic rule.

          He fought hard for these gains because a) he understood the tenets of conservatism, b) he believed deeply in them and c) he was willing to lay it all on the line for their implementation into policy and law. Reagan didn’t believe in himself nearly as much as he believed in principle … and it showed.

  13. Barb says:

    Yers ago when my husband was a student in Boston, Mitt Romney was our spiritual advisor. On many occasions we had the opportunity to be in church related meetings, and witness first hand the qualities Mitt represents.
    If I may add one more to the list, it would be Mitt’s respect for women. I remember attending large and small gatherings of women, and having Mitt address us on a variety of spiritual and temporal issues. What most impressed me was the admiration and appreciation he expressed to us for the service we provided to the youth in our congregations. You knew that Mitt understood your concerns, and the challenges we as women face. I saw that same appreciation for the contribution of women displayed during one of the earlier GOP debates. As I recall the moderator asked each candidate to name something they admire about another candidate. After Newt’s, and the two Rick’s love test, it was Romney’s turn, and he chose Michelle Bauchman. He complimented her on her patriotism, her values, and her ideas for improving our country, but it was the sincerity with which he spoke that touched me. Once again I it was apparent that here is a man that sincerely respects, and admires the
    contributions of women.

  14. Abbygale says:

    Dear “Last Word Larry”,

    It seems you’ve been up late with your thesaurus again… not that there’s anything wrong with it. I certainly wouldn’t want you to mistake my comment as a churlish insult. I’m a word nerd myself, and love to peruse the dictionary in my spare time. No really, I’m not kidding… it just tickles my brain.

    Anyway, you requested a mature and thoughtful response to your last diatribe, but I’m not sure that’s really what you want. Those who have attempted a thoughtful response have been accused of being: (In your words Larry), foolish, rude, inane, eerily anti- intellectual, tribal, churlish, ignorant, pseudo-psychologists, intellectually dishonest, childish, lacking credibility, fearful of truth, paranoid, anti-Christian, divorced from reality, self serving, blind, silly, delusional, lacking objectivity, and (my personal favorite) kool-aid drinkers. You are very effective at shutting down the debate.

    Larry, you’re verbosity (I had to look that one up) is making me tired all over. However, one thing I’ve learned about you, Larry, is that you are not a quitter. I fully expect a rebuttal with some eloquently framed verbiage.

    This is where the fun begins. I intend to fully embrace the idea, “If you can’t beat em, join em.” Since I can’t possibly measure up to your standard of intelligence, honesty, and political acumen, I have decided to make a game of your posts. It’s going to be called, “Last Word Larry’s” Favorite Words. Today’s post gave me the following: churlish, egregious, arrogation, fecklessly, veracity, duplicitous, impugned. I looked them up Larry. Great words.

    I’m giving myself 10 points for every word I have to look up. I now have 70 points. Of course, this means that I need you to use different words in your future posts. I’d like to reach a score of 1000 before the convention. Don’t disappoint me Larry.

    I’ll post my score as often as I can – not all the time, mind you… I have a life, you know – when I’m not perusing the pages of Webster.

    I heartily invite any EFM readers to join me.

    Any takers?

    • Abbygale says:

      oops. major grammar violation third paragraph down. Your – not you’re. One of many, I’m sure. My bad.

      • Abbygale says:

        What a productive day! I’ve cleaned out my closets, scrubbed the toilets and floors, and visited with friends. I thought my day couldn’t get any better, but then I noticed that Larry posted again and realized I just scored another 20 points! Thank you, Larry, for adding rancor and acrimony to my growing list of words. I feel smarter already. For those of you keeping track, I’m up to 90 points!

        In the interest of full disclosure, I must point out that after a little research, I found that rancor and acrimony essentially mean the same thing (bitterness and deeply held resentment), so the question is should I give myself 10 or 20 points? I did look up both words… just say’in.

        Oh, I almost forgot… go Mitt!

  15. Mark Arnold says:

    Interesting story on the wasp nest. Several years ago, my brother’s house burned down in the devastating fires in north San Diego. A few weeks later my brother called, and told me that Mitt Romney and his son were at his property, helping to clean up and salvage. Apparently Mitt’s son lives in north county San Diego, and Mitt was visiting his son. They had shown up with chain saws and tools, willing hands and cheerful hearts–but with no TV cameras. My brother said they left after several hours of hard work, with no fanfare, nothing asked in return.
    At the time, I had heard of Mitt Romney, but did not know anything about him. As my brother described the selfless service rendered, I thought “what manner of man is this”.
    What politician does this? None. Politicians are not public servants any longer. They are self-interested leaches for the most part. However, Mr. Romney and his son were not there as politicians, but as citizens and neighbors. I have been a fan of Mitt’s ever since.

  16. Ryan Thomas says:

    So Terry posted two intelligent rebuttals concerning the Olympics and the Massachusetts budget. The one invitation to intelligent discussion and Larry has nothing to say.

  17. Larry says:

    Matt, first allow me to congratulate you in coming forward with a few relevant issues for discussion (sadly though, you seem unwilling to drop the nasty insults though … oh well). Now perhaps we can begin a real discussion.

    “Mitt balanced the budget w/o raising taxes, each of 4 years. And no, a fee is not a tax…just in case you were tempted “ Hmmm … well, we’ll revisit that last assertion in a moment (hint, just because you insist that a fee hike is NOT, effectively, a tax does not in fact make it so) however, your assertion that Mitt did not balance the budget without raising taxes is simply, Romney Campaign doublespeak aside, incorrect.

    Allow me to explain. Upon taking office Gov. Romney began stripping out corporate tax “loopholes”. “Great” you say? “Loopholes are unfair!” you say? Not so fast. Loopholes provide relief for companies struggling with large (and often unfair tax burdens … a case especially true in “Taxachusetts”) and are NEVER stripped out by conservatives in the absence of corresponding tax DECREASES. In the absence of tax decreases the removal of loopholes becomes an effective tax INCREASE. Don’t take my word for it though, Peter Nicholas (chairman of the Boston Science Corporation) stated flatly “Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney.”

    He (Nicholas) further stated that “Romney’s tax policies were not helpful for many small businesses…when Romney took many IRS subchapter S businesses in Massachusetts and almost doubled their tax rates, it was an important disincentive to investment, growth and job creation”. That remark goes to the heart of the issue with regard to Romney’s conservative bona fides. Tax policy is central to fiscal conservative thought. Onerous tax schemes are anathema to conservatives not only because they fail entirely to restrain the size and scope of government and effectively discriminate against success (impinging upon personal liberty) but they recognize the debilitating effect of such tax rates upon economic outcomes.

    Romney’s failure to conceive of a stimulative tax policy which would incentivize economic growth and thereby a)drive job creation, b)stimulate economic growth, and c)INCREASE government revenues is perhaps one of the single greatest indicators of his decidedly unconservative political philosophy. He relied on the same static models which lay at the heart of Democratic tax policy.

    The net effect? A grossly hobbled private sector which plagued Massachusetts with chronically high unemployment rates. Before you shout about the 4.7% rate of unemployment near the end of his SINGLE TERM as governor bear in mind this essential data. First, the unemployment rate was one of the nation’s highest (including among his New England neighbors). Additionally, the figure of 4.7% was effectively higher if you factor in a second essential figure … Massachusetts ranked SECOND in the nation for number of citizens fleeing their state IN SEARCH OF EMPLOYMENT. Had citizens remained in their home state the rate would have been much higher.

    WORSE yet, the industrial sector suffered enormously under Gov. Romney with some jobs never returning to the state. Year after year, Governor Romney put the squeeze on corporations leaving Joseph Crosby (Council on State Taxation) to remark, “Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations”. In so doing, he wrung jobs, economic growth and opportunity out of Massachusetts. He increase business property taxes, gasoline taxes and sought, retroactively, to tax out of state commuters. Romney the businessman sought additional revenues for his new enterprise, the state of Massachusetts, and secured them through measures which would ensure continued anemic economic growth and high rates of joblessness.

    The nexus between economic growth and tax policy was lost entirely on Mitt Romney and continues to do so till this day. His proposed economic plan (released last year) was found wanting by the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. In particular, his treatment of both effective tax rates and capital gains taxes betrays a tone deafness to the issue that is puzzling for someone who presents themselves as a conservative. Even now, in an effort to appear as conservative as his opponents, he has revised his tax plan yet again.

    Not only does it continue in its failure to address key tax incentives, but the very fact that he provides the changes now, in the face of mounting pressure, suggests that they are both insincere (and so without conviction) and that they will also not guide tax policy once elected. They are, in short, another set of empty promises. Worse, the act suggests that the entire matter of conservatism continue to remain a second language to Mitt Romney. A second language he speaks badly and with little comprehension.

    Now, on to fees. Yes, Matt … despite your insistence otherwise, fee hikes are taxes by another name. Why? Well, first of all they fail entirely to stimulate growth … they are simply sucked into that growing black hole called government. Secondly, they increase the cost of being a citizen or doing business in the state (remember, because of the most unconservative actions of Gov. Romney Massachusetts’ was ranked as the 4th most expensive state in which to do business by the Public Policy Institute of New York). And finally, they reduce further the availability of disposable income (and discretionary income) for average citizens … thereby further crippling an already struggling economy.

    Balanced the budget? Yes. But not by significant spending cuts (he did make cuts to municipalities which in turn resulted in higher property taxes and excise taxes across the state), but rather by balancing it on the backs of businesses … and by increasing the overall budget. Yes, you read that correctly … each year of his term Romney increased the size of the budget.

    Was Gov. Romney evil? No. Was (is?) he conservative? No … not by a long shot. Not b y any reasonable measure. This is especially relevant to a discussion regarding his fitness for office today given the very real economic downturn and jobless rate currently plaguing our nation. We need an authentic conservative who enjoys a deeply embedded, full-orbed authentic conservative philosophy. We do not need another President who simplybeleives in himself … but one who believes in the principles that guide liberty and economic success.

    I look forward to your response and to further discussion regarding candidate Romney.

  18. Larry says:

    BTW, Reagan (an authentic conservative) drove taxes down from a high of 70% to a low of 28% even though he labored alongside a Democratically controlled House of Representatives. Additionally, he drove down the capital gains tax to its lowest rate in 50 years … also in the face of a Democratically controlled House. He led with conservative principle. The net effect was the greatest and lengthiest economic expansion since WW2. Quite an achievement … especially against the backdrop of House Democratic rule.

    He fought hard for these gains because a) he understood the tenets of conservatism, b) he believed deeply in them and c) he was willing to lay it all on the line for their implementation into policy and law. Reagan didn’t believe in himself nearly as much as he believed in principle … and it showed.

  19. Phil says:

    Larry, you know full well that there is no way that we can convince you of anything regarding a positive view of Mitt Romney as a candidate, so it is a complete waste of time. You accuse us of ignoring facts, but to all of us, you are doing the same. It is alot like when I try to argue with either an anti-religion person or a person who is anti-Mormon or both. When a person can only find fault with something, and can only be critical, they are not in any frame of mind to be convinced otherwise. I’m certain that anyone who has spent as much time as yourself in trying to find fault with Romney, who is as intelligent as yourself, can find similar or even worse arguments against any politician, and anyone who is a fan of such would similarly find it impossible to try to convince that person otherwise. I also find your condescending attitude very offensive. You seem to think that we are not as smart as you because you think you have studied the issues and Mitt Romney’s “true background” out more than we have, so you think you are more informed and thus more intelligent and logical than we are. This is the same attitude I have seen with anti-religion and anti-Mormon folks. They treat the groups they attack with a very condescending attitude. I don’t think of you with a condescending and accusative attitude. I just think that you are being overly critical, and too intently focused on the negative rather than any positive, or for some reason just intent on seeing things a certain way that I have a hard time understanding the reason for. I’m all for intelligent argument, reasoning, and conversation, but there is a difference between that and between endlessing arguing over topics when both parties are completely diametrically opposed.

    • Larry says:

      Phil, first of all you’ve offered no facts, instead you accusingly argue from assertion. Bad form. Next you insist that because I find fault with candidate Romney that I therefore cannot be convinced otherwise. Thats a Non sequitur. I’ve simply not evidenced an unwillingness to be persuaded otherwise. I have demanded proof that I’ve cause to … none has yet been offered.

      Next you write “I’m certain that anyone who has spent as much time as yourself in trying to find fault with Romney, who is as intelligent as yourself, can find similar or even worse arguments against any politician, and anyone who is a fan of such would similarly find it impossible to try to convince that person otherwise”. Your assertion lacks any actual fact … it is nothing more than unsupported and biased opinion.

      Next I’m treated to this gem “I also find your condescending attitude very offensive. You seem to think that we are not as smart as you because you think you have studied the issues and Mitt Romney’s “true background” out more than we have, so you think you are more informed and thus more intelligent and logical than we are”. Phil, you betray very real insecurity here. I’ve done my homework (this time round), I’ve reflected on my findings and finally reached objective conclusions. After challenging what is presented on this site with those conclusions I am not offered fact based, reasoned argument … but again and again am treated to churlish and frankly immature insults. Yet I am accused of condescension. That is priceless.

      I’m not “overly focused on the negative”. I am deeply focused on the truth. I’m weary of cheap politicians motivated more by their own narrow ambitions present themselves as whatever the electorate demands in exchange for their votes. I’m weary of ignorant voters who simply have no business in a voting booth, whose sole understanding of their candidates qualifications are provided not by research and critical thought … but spoon fed to them by the campaign operatives.

      I’m 50 years old. I intend on living for a good deal longer. I’ve 4 children, 2 grandchildren with more certain to follow. I wish very much for my wife and I, our children and grandchildren to live in a free and prosperous nation. Consequently, I take the matter very, very seriously. Period.

      Want to talk politics. Talk facts … I’m not interested in anything else.

      • Johnny says:

        Please Larry,

        I read Phil’s post 3 times. Where did Phil insult you? He made an observation based on his opinion. What was “churlish” or “immature” about what he said? You’ve got really thin skin brother.

  20. JL Fuller says:

    Charles doesn’t like LDS theology but I bet you a dollar to a donut hole he knows little about it. He doesn’t have to of course but maybe if he actually had some of his problems with our theology properly addressed his views might be made a little less negative. So let me invite Charles and others to go to http://www.mormon.org, http://www.lds.org and http://www.fairlds.org to see for themselves. If the more adventuresome are interested, I suggest http://www.fairlds.org provides the other side of the story on a lot of otherwise thorny issues some traditional Christians have with Mormons. Just don’t believe everything you hear and read from non-Mormons.

  21. David says:

    Larry, I seem to remember someone asking some time ago who you support for President. I didn’t see the answer, but may just have missed it.

    Who do you support?

  22. Abbygale says:

    Thanks “Last Word Larry” for adding to my weekend total with the words: onerous, anathema, impinging, and non sequitur. That’s 130 points for me now. If you don’t mind, I’ve noticed that “churlish” seems to be a favorite of yours… you’ve used it at least three times in this post. If you could just change it up a bit and find some other related word to describe the cranky EFM readers, it would help my score immensely!

  23. Larry says:

    Matt, I do hope you’re able to reply soon. You offered a specific set of issues which I’ve addressed in some detail … indeed, at this point I hope any of the rather vocal members here will simply reply to the information I’ve offered. If it’s incorrect you’ll have no difficulty in refuting it. If it’s correct … well, please explain your continued insistence that Romney is in fact conservative and why, if he is, his record reflects both the facts which it does and the outcomes that they yielded.

  24. Alecia says:

    I loved when you wrote that although you might not like Romney’s theology, you do like his values.

    Thank you for highlighting the qualities that Romney has rather than focus on misunderstandings you might have about his faith. Mitt Romney is unquestionably a man of good moral character, guided by strong values and driven by integrity. But more relevant to this presidential fight, Mitt Romney has remarkable experience. He is different from the others not because of his faith, but different because of his resume.

    Our country will undoubtedly benefit from the skills he has developed in his years of repeatedly making weak companies and structures stronger. I have no doubt that he is the right leader who has emerged at just the right time. (Feel free to check out my thoughts about his candidacy here: http://yesmittromney.blogspot.com).

  25. Matt says:

    Larry,

    Yes, you did offer a specific set of issues that wanted me to respond to. However, you effectively dodged my challenge to one of your earlier posts: that Romney’s balancing of the Massachusetts budget was analogous to Dukakis balancing the budget for 10 years. The two are NOT analogous and I gave very specific reasons as to why that was an inaccurate comparison. I’d love to hear your justification for trying to put Dukakis and Romney in the same boat.

    • Larry says:

      Matt, no I was not “dodging” your point … nor was I suggesting that the two were analogues. However, for the sake of argument (and to speed us ahead to your response to my post) let’s examine your thesis.

      You say that Dukakis balanced the budget by raising taxes. Agreed. He was following liberal orthodoxy in so doing (I lived there during that time). So did Mitt Romney. True, not in as obvious a fashion … but nearly as damning. In so doing he was following the reasoning so favored by the Democratic Party … not conservatism. It was not simulative tax policy, indeed it retarded growth and increased the size and scope of government. Indeed, Romney grew the budget annually during his term as governor.

      I did not conflate the two candidates as you’ve suggested (it was merely a rhetorical device), never-the-less, there do appear to be similar (though different by degrees) approaches between them.

      Now Matt, on to my comments … perhaps you can now address those? Thanks …

  26. David says:

    Larry, while you’re waiting for Matt to reply, perhaps you could address my question:

    Who do you support for President?

    • Larry says:

      Edmund Fennington. His platform is compellingly conservative and his record … well, it’s peerless. He has simply shined during the debates and has proven himself a formidable candidate.

      ;-) … just a bit of levity. I’m watching closely to see if Newt Gingrich can regain momentum. Santorum? I’ll support him though he was not my first choice. Rather petulant … reminds me of the kid who took names when the teacher left the classroom. That’s unfair … but I do hope Newt is able to recover from the mugging he received here in Florida … it was a shameless, ruthless and, in my opinion, disqualifying piece of skullduggery by one very desperate and unscrupulous candidate for whom winning was to be achieved at any cost … to his honor and the reputations of others.

      • Abbygale says:

        A little jocularity from “Last Word Larry”… I didn’t know you had it in you! Edmund Fennington… Compelling! Peerless, Formidable! I’m still chuckling. That was really funny.

        Thanks for the use of the words: conflate and skullduggery (loved this one… it’s really delightful to say… just rolls off the tongue. I’m going to try and use it in a sentence tomorrow). That brings me to 150 points. Not a bad tally.

  27. Michelle says:

    Newt Gingrich, Larry, Really? Really?! Honor and reputation are words I would ever associate with Newt. With all your pontificating about being the only person on the EFM site worthy of stepping into a voting booth, I would have expected more. Why not Ron Paul? He is the most honorable and honest candidate available. Even if you disagree with some of his policy, Paul is the most constitutionally sound, and I would have thought a man like you would vote for a man like Paul on principle alone.

    Wow, Gingrich. I’m stunned. I mean, the affairs alone will destroy him in a national election. Can you see the main stream media now? The contrast will be too stark – even for the ignorant masses. The MSM will juxtapose Obama with his beautiful family and lovely wife that he’s been faithful to all these years with Newt’s serial adultery and narcissistic behavior – first mistress by his side. Do you honestly think the media & Obama machine won’t do that? Then add to that the hypocrisy of Newt denying the rights of marriage to Gays and Lesbians by standing behind the banner of the sanctity of marriage. Ouch. This might fly with some who seem bent on justifying supporting Newt based on redemption, but there are far too many who will reject him outright. I love redemption – it’s all the hope I’ve got, but disqualifying Newt based on his affairs isn’t about redemption. That would be an emotional decision that isn’t grounded in critical thinking. Rejecting Newt is about principle. The same principles you use to reject Romney. When John King brought up Newt’s affair at the SC debate, Gingrich gave him a great slap down, and talked about his own personal pain. My teenager turned to me and asked, what about his ex-wife’s pain? Are you smarter than a 7th grader? I was still trying to wrap my brain around the excuse that Newt gave years ago that his affairs were caused partially by his great love for this country. Sigh. The principle is that Newt’s cheating is only the symptom of the real problem. This is ONE of about 20 major problems with Newt. If you don’t believe me, I have a moon colony I could sell you – or perhaps you would prefer a kosher meal.

    Don’t waste your time writing back and defending Newt. I won’t bite. I’ve said my peace, and I’m not changing my mind. I could have respected your rejection of Romney based on support for Ron Paul, but not Gingrich. Go to Redstate and commiserate with Erick Erickson. You quote most of his talking points anyway.

    • Larry says:

      Long on acrimony, the tried and true ambiguous collective, a dash of ad hominem topped with an Archie Bunkerish “There, I’ve said my piece now shut the hell up”. But wait there’s more … with aplomb, you sanctimoniously dismiss notions of redemption as lacking in critical thought and insist that such a perspective is held by a majority (you don’t get out a lot do you?).

      Well! (offered with my best Jack Benny impression) … I’m sure glad you got that off your chest. Hang on a moment while I spray the room with deodorizer and then I’ll respond.

      O.K. …. I’m back. Wow! Two cans of deodorizer later we can now talk. Gee, where to begin … well, here’s a good spot … now where’s my shovel? Ah, yes. Here we go.
      First Ron Paul. Do you really consider him honest and honorable or did you pen that tongue in cheek? Constitutional fealty? Which constitution? He has some wonderful ideas … like diamonds … mounted on a setting of steaming BS. Kind of lose their appeal. Making a lot of noise about constitutionality doesn’t necessarily equate to constitutionally sound ideas. But the ever avuncular Ron is not the focus of this discussion is he?
      It began with highlighting Mitt’s decidedly unconservative record as governor, and at that juncture it veered suddenly away from Mitt and toward Newt (that little maneuver is known as changing the debate, Michelle). Clearly I want to return to our discussion of Mitt but I’ll join you for this diversion … it is relevant after all.
      Newt’s affairs will destroy him in a national election you insist. There’s a fellow, you may have heard of him … ah, let’s see … oh, yes. Bill Clinton. Had his affairs not come to light it’s nearly certain that he would have been elected president. Oh … wait. He was elected president wasn’t he? And without any claims of redemption … just a 60 Minutes interview … and in the absence of a crisis.
      Newt on the other hand has very publically discussed his sin (calling it sin). Discussed the regret of causing others pain, of doing things “he’s ashamed of”. He’s sought forgiveness and discovered redemption. He has enjoyed an apparently faithful relationship with his wife since (oops I mean mistress … once a mistress always a mistress, right? Just like that lowlife Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon) and spoken widely on his faith and the importance of religious faith in American life.
      Clearly though your piercing insight has seen beyond that façade and deep into his dark and tormented soul and found at least 20 other besetting sins (do you also administer Rorschach tests?). There you found the serial adulterer (did you mean serial or cereal … I’ve also heard he switched from Cheerios to Frosted Mini-Wheats) driven by a narcissistic streak that runs wide and deep … too deep for real change to ever take hold. Anyone but a dolt knows this … it’s just so obvious. Darn I feel stupid now.
      For you, redemption apparently requires the balance of one’s life to prove out. Until then … you’re a lying bastard who can’t trusted farther than a box of condemns can be thrown. Fortunately for Newt and the others for whom redemption is meaningful, there are so many more, beyond the religious, who are willing to give them a hearing. You seem to share with others here what appears to amount to either a deeply impoverished understanding of redemption or a strikingly convenient and selective manner of applying its truths (or some of both).

      Michelle, if you want me to take you seriously you’ll need to stick to facts and some reasonable line of thought. If you have evidence that Newt has been unfaithful to Callista “the mistress” Gingrich please provide it. If you have evidence that Newt’s been less than candid regarding his faith … offer some reasonable proof … I mean something more than the remarks of a 17 year old. My 21 year old daughter and 18 year old son and Beth, my wife, and I have all grappled with Newt’s past. We’ve explored it together … his remarks, his possible motives, his more recent past, the unique election cycle we find ourselves in and especially the theology of redemption.

      Observing Newt during the GOP primary debates, when they began so long ago, I remarked that Newt was the guy you most wanted to vote for but knew you couldn’t. Then, while observing him in debate after debate, I realized that I was allowing my distaste for his past sins to disqualify him from consideration without actually thinking through either the implications of my position or the prudence of that decision.

      I was an enormous Newt fan. I watched him resist his party’s lurch away from conservatism as George Herbert Walker Bush assumed the presidency. I listened in dismay (but not shock … I expected as much and worked against his nomination) as Mr. Bush announced in his inaugural address that he was going to refashion us unto “a kinder, gentler nation” (upon hearing those words Nancy is said to have turned to Ronny and whisper “kinder and gentler than who?”). This man who had dismissed Supply-Side Economics as “Voodoo Economics” began retreating from the lines Reagan had drawn, surrendering to the grasping Left. Who withstood those efforts? Who opposed his own president in his efforts to raise taxes (in violation of a promise)? Who made enemies within his own party for such efforts? Newt Gingrich. If Reagan led the revolution it was Newt who consolidated its gains.

      The 104th Congress … a congress comprised of a majority of Republicans and led by a Republican Speaker of the House … the first such congress since 1955 … was not coincidental. It was largely the effect of Newt’s planning, strategy and very hard, tireless and imaginative work. It was an effect of, more than anything else, conservative principles championed tirelessly by men who believed deeply in them, offered them without compromise or shame to the American people as an alternative to the vision cast by then President Bill Clinton. Newt’s role in that effort wasn’t coincidental or marginal … it was a driving force in that stunning upset and victory.
      He oversaw some of the most dramatic reforms witnessed in that House in a generation. He converses so easily and so convincingly in matters pertaining to conservatism because he has long studied them, internalized them, understood them … and fought for them … sometimes against members of his own party. To be sure, Newt is not perfect. He has a great deal of baggage … even if he flew Southwest he’d pay a hefty fee for extra luggage. But he the most conservative candidate currently running. A proven conservative. An articulate conservative. A passionate and convincing conservative. A conservative whose earned his stripes and wears his scars proudly.

      84 ethics violation charges were lobbed at him … 83 were immediately dismissed. The last charge was, after long review, proven unsubstantiated. He was cleared from wrong doing by none other than the Internal Revenue Service. For a full treatment of the subject read here (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/what-really-happened-gingrich-ethics-case/336051) . BTW, Romney knew this … yet chose to lie viscously and slanderously. Newt was enduring payback for turning back 40 years of Democratic rule and for failing to play with the “team” when they wanted him to go along.

      Can Newt win? Absolutely. When Newt addresses the issues which are now so pressing people listen … and find his words inspiring, instructive and believable. In a normal election cycle Newt’s chances would probably not be nearly as great. But this is not a normal election cycle. A far left radical has been dragging our nation down a road most Americans do not wish to travel. Newt exists as champion for another way. A visionary leader who offers tried and true principles which he’s championed before and won with.

      On the other hand, you have Mitt. A man who cannot even run on his record because it is so uninspiring. We are instead treated to talk of Bain Capital and the Olympics, efforts which preceded his term as governor. If they were to affect his leadership it should have been revealed there. Instead we have a man who depressed an already struggling economy and jobs market through effective tax increases, ran as a Pro-Abortion candidate distancing himself from Reagan and even the Bush Tax Cuts (George W). Worse his signature political effort was the implementation of Romney Care. The precursor to ObamaCare.

      What justification does he offer? The states constitution allowed it. That’s a dreadful argument. Conservatives oppose it not because provisions for it don’t exist in our constitution but because its very existence opposes the essence of the Constitution … liberty. Romneycare and its progeny Obamacare is a form of soft tyranny. Worse, he trumpets the “fact” that he achieved it without raising taxes. How? By passing that burden on to taxpayers across America, that’s how. Some achievement. No mention is made of the skyrocketing insurance premiums which are a direct result of his “achievement”.
      The moment Mitt tries to bring up the idea of repealing Obamacare he will be clobbered with the obvious. His plan provided the architecture for Obamacare, he recommended it (as late as 2009) as a national model, and most damning, his own team assisted Obama in the development of Obamacare and state flatly that they are essentially the same. Mitt will fold on that issue, the most defining issue of this election, like a cheap suit.
      Mitt doesn’t “get” conservatism … it’s a mystery to him. That’s why his economic plan is so mundane and uninspiring. That’s why gaffes like his recent comments regarding the minimum wage occur so frequently. He’s not a conservative. His dad was not, he’s not. He’s a politician who foolishly believes that government is the solution rather than the problem.

      Newt, however, could not only win against Obama by offering a clear and compelling conservative message and vision … but enjoys the boldness and bigness of thought to change the course we are currently on once elected. A course leading the nation at break neck speed, toward the cliff’s edge. He’s a fighter … and has the scars to prove. If you imagine that the Left is going to roll over and allow significant change … you have no inkling of their nature and character. A blood bath is approaching … Mitt wants to bring a letter opener to a gunfight.

      Well, that’s my pitch for Newt. I had to think through the implications of my bias to reach the conclusions that I did. I found myself revisiting facts, making informed, unemotional choices. Thinking things through logically (I hope), reasonably. Discussing it with others. Just as I had earlier when I reconsidered my support of Mitt Romney. As to Erick Erickson, I’ve heard the name but am not sure I’m familiar with him. I do not follow Red State … I think for myself Michelle … I prefer that to allowing others do it for me.

      One more note … challenging a candidate’s qualifications and claims in dialogue is not pontificating … it’s an effort to persuade people to rethink their positions. Now perhaps you can address the issues I’ve highlighted for Matt. I’d be very interested in hearing them.

      • rich says:

        get a life man!

        just admit that you are using your considerable skills of analysis and debate (not to mention verbosity), not to arrive at an informed decision, but to defend an emotional decision you have already made

        your lack of objectivity is highlighted by your inability to find a single good thing to say about a man of great accomplishments and integrity

  28. ALS says:

    How we love the bee story! If only voters could know the heart and soul of Romney. If only they could understand that Romney saw his father, George, serve others from the time he was a child. In the Mormon culture we strongly believe that when we are in the service of others we are in the service of God. Romney is not running because of ego, or for prestige, and power or reasons that his challengers display. He was raised by parents who strongly believed and exemplified honesty, integrity, and living the golden rule. They also taught him that America is a choice land and we should love and serve this great nation and obey the God of this land. It makes us sick to hear the lies told about Romney and know that Romney has got up in the middle of the night to assist others and to comfort them. He has the background, education, experience, insight, and ability to turn the economy around and right many things. We have had a hard time understanding why some Christians hate Mormons because Christ said in John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” So if love is the hallmark of a disciple of Christ how can some Christians hate Mormons? How grateful we are for evangelicals who don’t hate Romney because he is a Mormon but support him! We sure love you evangelicals and reach out to you with love and we will be there to assist you and stand by your side any time or in any place that we can because you are our brothers and sisters in Christ!

    • Larry says:

      Romney’s Mormonism is entirely irrelevant to me … E.N.T.I.R.E.L.Y. We are regularly lectured on importance of disallowing religion to exist as a factor in the consideration of a candidate … and yet, Mormonism is offered, again and again, as an important feature of his appeal. Please, one side or the other. It either is a factor or it is not, right?

      One more thing, please stop conflating hatred with honest difference and concern … that’s unhelpful.

    • Larry says:

      Yes … I greatly disagree with Gov. Leavitt … along with many, many others. For the reasons I’ve listed (there are more BTW). Care to address any of those issue ALS?

  29. Larry says:

    Well, here we are, days after posting a comment which touched upon only a few issues regarding Mitt Romney’s oh so unconservative record and … no one has stepped forward to offer a reasoned rebuttal. Only distracting efforts to change the debate.

    That is extraordinarily revealing. You wish to support Mitt? OK, base it on immaterial anecdotal snippets, or the fact that he’s Mormon, or an Ivy League buddy … or whatever. But not because he’s conservative … that’s a lie … or a myth … or something other than the stone cold truth.

    Mitt Romney is not conservative. Never has been. In fact, he used to make much of the fact that he wasn’t … until he began courting conservatives … which is why he can’t secure conservative support. It has nothing to do with his religion … it has every thing to do with his phoniness.

  30. ALS says:

    We have far better things to do than waste time and breath when the facts of Romney, the Oympics, his past etc are unregonized and distorted. Hope you can find some peace and happiness in your life because your words reveal such great unhappiness and discontent that we pity you and will pray for you!

    • Larry says:

      Please ALS … I’m a wonderfully happy man enjoying an enormously full life. There really is no need for such a silly little remark simply because you disagree with me. I have real disagreements with Mitt’s candidacy and happily discuss them here with others who disagree just as heartily, yet I feel no need to suggest that they endure small, unhappy lives.

      So please, dispense with that nonsense.

  31. Steve Foster says:

    This whole exchange has been hard to believe. Larry, your one-sidedness is totally obvious. You fool nobody by walking back into your pretended objectivity. As little further attention as I want to give your inflexible views, and while your practice is not restricted to Newt-voters alone, I’m sorry to say you’ve done nothing to separate yourself from the mass that, with complete sincerity, whips out five or ten partially true “successes” of Gingrich and defines him thereby — as if your vetting has carefully avoided his huge, growing list of negatives — but you take the exactly opposite approach with Romney, having allowed yourself to hear or believe nothing of political value about the man, but having instinctually swallowed every bad interpretation. Look what you do with the MA debt that Romney’s running on: rant on and on about the share he put on the shoulders of businesses, but scarcely notice the result: he successfully balanced a huge budget, using a multifold approach, most of which you deny the effect of. Mitt campaigned on achieving balance without hiking income tax. He succeeded. “Dukakis did it too!” So what? Dukakis took a comparable approach at first, resulting in increased sales tax and higher property taxes. In his second term, with the state having capped property tax, Dukakis left the state right back in debt. Mitt’s predecessor also left a debt. Mitt, like Dukakis 1, did the necessary thing to balance the budget, but you choose to view him as an unconservative failure, showing us that you prefer method to success, and think a “conservative” will leave his state in debt if only he can do so conservatively. Nationally? You’ll see a correction requires a similar shift of tax burden to states and so on — but Mitt will get the job done, leaving the naive surprised to find out that every solution costs something else.

    Your vocabulary does nothing to mask the blatant partiality you’ve actually convinced yourself you have. You Newt-voters have been suckered into throwing away your own moral code because the situation demands it. Now you’re even excusing Clinton of the very thing your hero squandered his own poltical capital fighting against (while doing it himself). You may have begun to allow yourself to stop caring about adultery, when one of Newt’s defenses is simply that he’s too old to be likely to repeat it a third time (is that really your idea of repentance?), but I feel condfident you’d never offer Romney such grace, if he had such problems. Your morality is opportunistic, and America disagrees with you, that all faults must be forgiven just because a man says he regrets them. That’s not holiness; that’s your own gullibility.

    Your one-sidedness goes on and on and on… but then, every voter is partial in one way or another. A studied Democrat could walk in here and just as easily, verbosely, self-righteously, and deceptively defend Obama against every complaint, quote a bunch of “expert” critics from his side, and refuse all other reasoning, making everybody else instantly sick of his inability to comprehend his own subjectivity as he keeps making false challenges but ignoring them when they’re answered (that Olympics comment? did you ever get around to that?). It would go nowhere. In the end, we’ll have to let the numbers talk, as you spend the rest of your life imagining the false paradise that WOULD have come about if your man had won… a natural response that you can be forgiven for. While Gingrich perhaps “could have” won, we can no longer say about him that he “can win”. There’s only one person we can say that about — the one against whom you’ve chosen to prejudice yourself and militate..

  32. Steve Foster says:

    This whole exchange has been hard to believe. Larry, your one-sidedness is totally obvious. You fool nobody by walking back into your pretended objectivity. As little further attention as I want to give your inflexible views, and while your practice is not restricted to Newt-voters alone, I’m sorry to say you’ve done nothing to separate yourself from the mass that, with complete sincerity, whips out five or ten partially true “successes” of Gingrich and defines him thereby — as if your vetting has carefully avoided his huge, growing list of negatives — but you take the exactly opposite approach with Romney, having allowed yourself to hear or believe nothing of political value about the man, but having instinctually swallowed every bad interpretation. Look what you do with the MA debt that Romney’s running on: rant on and on about the share he put on the shoulders of businesses, but scarcely notice the result: he successfully balanced a huge budget, using a multifold approach, most of which you deny the effect of. Mitt campaigned on achieving balance without hiking income tax. He succeeded. “Dukakis did it too!” So what? Dukakis took a comparable approach at first, resulting in increased sales tax and higher property taxes. In his second term, with the state having capped property tax, Dukakis left the state right back in debt. Mitt’s predecessor also left a debt. Mitt, like Dukakis 1, did the necessary thing to balance the budget, but you choose to view him as an unconservative failure, showing us that you prefer method to success, and think a “conservative” will leave his state in debt if only he can do so conservatively. Nationally? You’ll see a correction requires a similar shift of tax burden to states and so on — but Mitt will get the job done, leaving the naive surprised to find out that every solution costs something else.

    Your vocabulary, and your ability to find everybody’s logical gaps but your own, do nothing to mask the blatant partiality you’ve actually convinced yourself that you lack. You Newt-voters have been suckered into throwing away your own moral code because the situation demands it. Now you’re even excusing Clinton of the very thing your hero squandered his own poltical capital fighting against (while doing it himself). You may have begun to allow yourself to stop caring about adultery, when one of Newt’s defenses is simply that he’s too old to be likely to repeat it a third time (is that really your idea of repentance?), but I feel condfident you’d never offer Romney such grace, if he had such problems. Your morality is opportunistic, and America disagrees with you, that all faults must be forgiven just because a man says he regrets them. That’s not holiness; that’s your own gullibility.

    Your one-sidedness goes on and on and on… but then, every voter is partial in one way or another. A studied Democrat could walk in here and just as easily, verbosely, self-righteously, and deceptively defend Obama against every complaint, quote a bunch of “expert” critics from his side, and refuse all other reasoning, making everybody else instantly sick of his inability to comprehend his own subjectivity as he keeps making false challenges but ignoring them when they’re answered (that Olympics comment? did you ever get around to that?). It would go nowhere. In the end, we’ll have to let the numbers talk, as you spend the rest of your life imagining the false paradise that WOULD have come about if your man had won… a natural response that you can be forgiven for. While Gingrich perhaps “could have” won, we can no longer say about him that he “can win”. There’s only one person we can say that about — the one against whom you’ve chosen to prejudice yourself and militate..

  33. Scott says:

    That’s it? March 18th? No more posts? Am I too late or am I missing the “more posts” button? I wanted to see Abbygale’s point score increase (or should I say the aggrandizement of her abacus appraisal?) I needed to see Larry continue to impugn any point every poster had to predicate. I have been given so much material by this gracious man that I have decided to collect his cogent impressive and telling thoughts and put them to song. It is going to be titled “Larry, the lost leprechaun” and I will post a link to the song when I am done. Or maybe it is completely unnecessary as the title of the children’s show, theme song and feature length movie say it al, ie, “Land of the Lost.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>