The EFM Feature
Screen Shot 2012-05-09 at 11.16.50 AM

What do you guys think about this Robert Costa article?

The conventional wisdom about Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential short list, according to a handful of Romney insiders, may be wrong. Instead of picking a straitlaced Midwestern senator such as Ohio’s Rob Portman, or an outspoken northeastern Republican governor such as Chris Christie, there is a chance Romney will tap an evangelical from the South.

And the name on the lips of Romney friends and supporters isn’t a rising southern senator or a current Dixie governor. He has been out of office for five years, resides on a beach in the Florida panhandle, and hosts a television show.

In other words, Mike Huckabee, the bass-guitar-playing former governor.

Yes, according to several sources close to the Romney campaign, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the vice-presidential search, the 56-year-old Arkansan may be included in the veep mix. 

To many Republicans, a ticket with a Mormon bishop and a Baptist preacher isn’t far-fetched. “In a way, it’s almost a dream ticket,” says Ed Rollins, the chairman of Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. “He’s substantive and knows domestic policy, and his personality wouldn’t overshadow Romney’s.”

Read it all here.

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.

57 Responses to Huck for Veep?

  1. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    Unlikely, I think. He might draw the die hard Evangelicals and Tea Partiers but would probably not be viewed favorably by the Independents and Moderates which is where this election will be decided. Besides, after the last election, I don’t see how they could possibly be reconciled to each other but I also believe that forgiveness is a true principle so who knows?

    • RC says:

      I agree with you Mike. This election will be decided not by the right or by the left – it will be by the independents and moderates. In other words, those that are in the middle. I’m sorry to be the one to tell my fellow citizens, Romney will not become President because of the Evangelical or Tea Party voters. This Presidential race will be strictly determined on the centrist’s and the middle – (aka independents and moderates). I don’t believe it will be Mike Huckabee, even though he would probably do a good job. Romney needs to select an individual who will be a magnet for the independents. That’s my two cents worth………..

      • Larry says:

        I certainly hope that he doesn’t tap Huckabee for the VP slot … they’re birds of a feather. He would do well to select an experienced, proven and authentic conservative. RC, your persistence in adopting the myth of the middle suggests that your unfamiliar with the actual numbers. Since 1972 every close presidential contest was lost … by the candidate enjoying the most “independent” support.

        Elections are won with a unified party and an energized base. Which would help to explain the Dole and McCain losses as well as the squeakers of G.W. Bush (and conversely, the two Reagan landslides) . It would also explain the nail biting which is now so in fashion among GOP leaders. Aim for the middle if you want to lose … “squishy” is the last thing we need now. This election will be won if conservatives can be given something to vote FOR … not simply against. Intoning the ominous but now predictable warning that “THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION OF OUR LIFETIME” no longer works … we’ve heard that little boy cry wolf now a half dozen times. Give us something to vote for … give us a real conservative. Please.

        I own a business … I don’t want another 4 years of Obama. I’m not thrilled by the prospect of 4 years with Romney (his actual record left business owners not merely disappointed … but behind the eight ball). But it would still be better than 4 more years of Obama. The GOP elite has now placed so much in jeopardy … please choose wisely, carefully and humbly. Not every conservative owns a business and may not be similarly motivated.

        • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

          I think the question of how important are the independents should perhaps not be dismissed so lightly. As independents go, frequently elections go. So when the Republicans took back the House of Representatives, they won a majority; 55 percent of independents voted with Republicans. When Obama won the 2008 election, he won a majority of independents. Certainly, one cannot win an election in the US by simply targeting independent voters, but frequently one cannot win an election without targeting some independent voters.

          As to the question of the VP pick then, I think the trick would be to select someone who is acceptable to the base who would not turn off a good portion of the independents. Right now, according to a Politico/George Washington University poll, Romney enjoys a 10 point lead among key independent voters. Obama has good support among the Democratic base, and I would think that after his announcement yesterday, support for Romney among the Republican base would now start to solidify but it’s not quite there. So indeed, the decision may well break the way the independents go in this election.

          There are plenty of good, conservative vp picks out there who I think would be acceptable to both groups, but I agree, Huckabee isn’t one of them.

          • Larry says:

            You behave as if the interests of independents veer wildly away from the interests of average people. They do not. You’re also assuming that “independents” are a monolithic voting bloc. That is also untrue. Among those who vote (not all self described independents vote … during the 2008 elections independents comprised 40% of all eligible voters … of those only 33% voted) … of the 33% who actually voted a mere 7% were genuinely independent … the balance (26% out of the 33% who voted) held specific partisan party preference. They voted in line with that party.

            The vaunted middle is a myth. By aiming for the middle you in effect distance yourself from your base … and victory. This has proven to be true again, and again and again. When Obama won, he won with an deeply energized base … against an opponent whose base sat on their hands on election day. By your thinking Dole should have crushed Clinton … ditto for Bush I. GW Bush should have cruised to victory and McCain … “The Maverick” … who eschewed conservatives … should have won handily. Most glaringly, Reagan’s numbers should have collapsed on election day. Instead, He crushed his opponents … both times.

            That’s the math and that’s the history. Ignore it and lose … learn from it and stand a greater chance of victory come election day.

  2. pragmatic says:

    absolutely NOT. I couldn’t stand huckabee four years ago. I’m from WA – and he is aboslutely despised here. his invoked “compassion” in commuting the life sentence of an offender who went on to brutally murder four police officers in very cold blood. (the fifth would-be victim shot him first.) the guy would have been in jail, except for huckabee. He pardoned/commuted the sentences of more convicted felons than the governors of ALL the states surrounding arkansas combined!

  3. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    I think we should all take a moment and give thanks to Joe Biden who “Forced Obama’s hand on gay marriage.” according to the news reports. I think Obama just handed Romney the election. Good old Joe and his mouth, the gift that keeps on giving.

  4. Deena says:

    I hope not. That choice would offend a lot of Mormons. I know, forgiveness for his 2008 behavior. Forgiveness doesn’t mean trust, however. He lost our trust 4 years ago, and it would be foolish to trust him now. And I think trust is too important of a quality in a VP to overlook. If Romney chooses him, it will show an appalling naivete, and it will come back to bite him.

    Not to mention the other flaws of Huckabee mentioned here by the other posters. Past actions as governor, and how he will turn off the independents. Please keep looking, Governor Romney.

  5. RC says:


    I am a registered Republican. But I am definitely one of those “monolithic” and “vaunted” individuals that are called Independents. You miss the mark almost every time. If every conservative voter and every liberal voter voted, neither side (right or left) would put their candidate into the White House. It is me, RC, that will determine the outcome.

    1) If the evangelicals don’t get behind Romney and come out in full swing and vote, Romney will lose. Do you want Obama for another 4 years?
    2) If the Tea party voters don’t get behind Romney and come out in full swing and vote, Romney will lose. Do you want Obama for another 4 years?
    3) Of course, any fool would know that if the base does not vote or has a less than expected turnout, they cannot blame anyone but themselves for not getting involved and trying to make a difference. The same is true with left and liberals. If they don’t turn out in record number than we have a great shot of winning.
    4) When Obama won in 2008, he energized not only the “base” but the centrist’s as well. There has got to be a defined line between voting for two individuals. The far right and the far left will vote accordingly. It’s the middle of the road that determines the sway of the pendulum.
    5) If the “base” does not want another 4 years of Obama, but yet is not enthused with the Candidate and decides either not to vote or talks negatively about the candidate, after they have been made the nominee, are complete fools. I almost voted for Obama in 2008. But I am voting for Romney in 2012. I have voted for Democrats in the past and it all depends upon what the results are in my mind at the time I pull the lever. Don’t underestimate the Independent vote…….

    • Larry says:

      RC, your comments suggest that you may need to return to my post and reread it. Furthermore, to suggest that if Romney loses it will be the fault of conservatives who don’t vote is remarkably arrogant … and silly. If Romney can’t persuade conservatives to support him … that’s his fault. If he labored to kneecap his opponents and remain the last man standing … the consequences of such a strategy are entirely his to own … and those who supported him. Outcomes are the name of the game in life … that’s why the road we travel is as important … and consequential … as the destination we seek.

      Mitt has a lot of work, allow me to repeat, A LOT of work to do to gain the support of conservatives (hint, securing the nomination is only the beginning). Conservatives have their eyes one House and Senate races currently … and they are out in force (as Lugar has discovered and Orrin Hatch is learning). To attract many of their votes Mitt will have to earn them … and overcome the ill feelings he’s gendered among them. If he appears phony … if he goes “etch-a-sketch” … well, all bets are off.

      RC, BTW … for whom have you voted since you came of age?

    • Larry says:

      RC, your comments suggest that you may need to return to my post and reread it. Furthermore, to suggest that if Romney loses it will be the fault of conservatives who don’t vote is remarkably arrogant … and silly. If Romney can’t persuade conservatives to support him … that’s his fault. If he labored to kneecap his opponents and remain the last man standing … the consequences of such a strategy are entirely his to own … and those who supported him. Outcomes are the name of the game in life … that’s why the road we travel is as important … and consequential … as the destination we seek.

      Mitt has a lot of work, allow me to repeat, A LOT of work to do to gain the support of conservatives (hint, securing the nomination is only the beginning). Conservatives have their eyes one House and Senate races currently … and they are out in force (as Lugar has discovered and Orrin Hatch is learning). To attract many of their votes Mitt will have to earn them … and overcome the ill feelings he’s gendered among them. If he appears phony … if he goes “etch-a-sketch” … well, all bets are off.

      RC, BTW … for whom have you voted since you came of age?

    • Larry says:

      YOU ALMOST VOTED FOR OBAMA?!!! RC, this brings so much into sharper …. much, much sharper view. You voted for what Democrats? I can now understand why you might find Romney conservative. I began as a liberal decades ago. I began to take note of the enormous contradictions, however, of both its claims and outcomes. I then began a study of conservatism … at its end I had abandoned the intellectually vacuous and fraudulent philosophy of modern liberalism.

      Conservatism welcomed truth … liberalism finds truth its most feared and hated enemy. I found conservatism consonant at every point in its worldview, while liberalism was a convoluted mass of self contradictions … in its aims, its means and its rhetoric. After that, I could never be persuaded to empower a liberal politically. Well, that and the defining issue of abortion disallows me from ever supporting a liberal.

      I’m eager to hear your explanation RC.

  6. RC says:

    You said to me that “to suggest that if Romney loses it will be the fault of conservatives who don’t vote is remarkably arrogant … and silly. If Romney can’t persuade conservatives to support him … that’s his fault. I am looking through a totally different lens than you Larry. 1) There is basically only two candidates for President of the United States – Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, period. 2) Do you want Obama for the next four years and what he could do or what he will do? 3) Don’t take me wrong on this next statement, I am not bringing emotion to the table, but realism – It’s all about what the country wants, collectively, and what path they want to travel, via their vote. 4) What Romney wants to do and what he says is secondary. “The People” and what they want come first. 5) So, if “The People”, collectively, in a majority, don’t want Barack Obama again for the next four years, they only have one alternative at this stage of the game, only one. 6) So what I am trying to say, in a harsh way, that Romney really doesn’t need the conservatives or the ultra conservatives backing as you put it. 7) If they don’t vote for Romney, then they will have to live with and settle for Barack Obama and all that entails. That’s all that I am saying.

    “If he labored to kneecap his opponents and remain the last man standing … the consequences of such a strategy are entirely his to own … and those who supported him. Outcomes are the name of the game in life … that’s why the road we travel is as important … and consequential … as the destination we seek.” Larry, you are spot on my man. Not only will the consequences of Romney and how he conducts himself will have an outcome, so will “The People” as well, suffer their own consequences and have a destination that they will entirely have to own – “if” they don’t vote for Romney. A two-edged sword, aye!

    “Mitt has a lot of work, allow me to repeat, A LOT of work to do to gain the support of conservatives (hint, securing the nomination is only the beginning). Conservatives have their eyes on House and Senate races currently … and they are out in force (as Lugar has discovered and Orrin Hatch is learning). To attract many of their votes Mitt will have to earn them … and overcome the ill feelings he’s gendered among them. If he appears phony … if he goes “etch-a-sketch” … well, all bets are off. To me, at this stage of the game, and this election cycle and only this election cycle, Mitt does not have to attract the Conservative vote, per say. It’s like my first home that I purchased back in 1980. I had a decision to make on which financial institution I was going to go with for my mortgage. It was either pay 25% down and 17.5% interest OR use the land as collateral, no money down and 18% interest. I chose the latter. Did I like the terms? Not especially. But, I had to suck it up and deal with it. Later on down the road, I was able to position myself into a far better situation. But, I got involved and made a difference. I believe we are at the same crossroads. We have two options. We can only blame ourselves, “The People” for allowing our country to get to this point. I don’t blame the politicians, per say, but I do blame me and all of my other fellow citizens.

    “RC, BTW … for whom have you voted since you came of age?” I am 53 years old. 1976 Jimmy Carter, 1980-1984 Ronald Reagan , 1988 George Bush 1, 1992 Ross Perot, 1996 Bill Clinton, 2000-2004 George Bush 2, 2008 John McCain.

    ” I began as a liberal decades ago. Larry, this brings so much into sharper …. much, much sharper view. I was taken back by this truth.

    Larry, all I am trying to say, is that I do not agree with Romney 100% on all issues. However, do I really want Obama again? No way on earth. No, no, no, no……absolutely not. Was I a part of the problem that got our country into the mess that we are in right now – today? Yes, I am, just like everyone else. I have to deal with the consequences just like everyone else for my apathy in the past or whatever the reason that anyone gives. But for here and in the now, I am voting for Romney, period. He doesn’t have to sway me or court me or gain my support, he already has it. I have made up my mind already. I hope my other fellow citizens will wake up and realize the same before it is everlastingly to late.

  7. Larry says:

    RC, I’m not sure if you’re reading my comments clearly. That the GOP has reduced the argument to an either/or choice is obvious. Equally as obvious is the result of not voting for Romney. What seems to elude you is both the path that brings us to such an unfortunate circumstance, the dynamics that Romney’s strategy has unleashed and the very nature of conservatism. Namely, that to ask people of conscience to continually choose the lesser of two evils is to invite just such an impasse. Not only is the law of diminishing returns in play, at some juncture people of conscience will realize that both they and their beliefs are being co-opted and compromised.

    Romney’s elevation has thrown into stark contrast conservative philosophy and ethos. Romney has run a campaign that not only failed to reflect conservative values but actually shared the deceptive and grasping practices and philosophy of the Left. This has left many concerned that a vote for Romney is simply a vote for a lesser version of Obama. While I have chosen to vote for Romney … I must admit that I feel deeply compromised in doing so.

    You clearly lack a well defined political philosophy and seem content to drift with the wind … most conservatives do not share such an undisciplined and unthinking approach to their political beliefs. Personally, I cannot imagine being so unstudied and uncertain at my age … or even 20 years ago. I find disturbing the fact people, whose approach to things political is so feckless, even step into a voting booth every four years.

    For you to lecture such people on their electoral responsibilities would be laughable … if it weren’t so insulting. That you remain unable to recognize the responsibility of Team Romney regarding outcomes is no longer surprising … but it is remarkable (as is your persistent belief that those who Romney most offended are now obliged to assist him in realizing his ambitions). You seem quite incapable of perceiving the obvious in this matter.

    Your mortgage analogy breaks down rather swiftly RC. You might have chosen to do nothing at all … simply waited for a more favorable buying environment. You limited yourself to two unhelpful choices … your mistake … my man. When Americans chose to go to war with Great Britain for the sake of freedom, they chose a difficult path … with a view to the future. Don’t be so foolish as to imagine that there are not now men and women willing to endure another four years of Obama in order to remedy the ills of a corrupt GOP now. They would prefer that, over rewarding and further empowering those individuals and groups which work against our better interests once more. I do not fault them for their conviction … even if I might … might … disagree with their method.

    You close your comments as if you’ve been a prisoner of some tide beyond your control RC … you have helped to bring this moment about. You chose to support and encourage others to support the man whose actions have formed such a divide. Your eagerness to now impose your choices on others and place blame on them is unthinking and unseemly.

    As I stated earlier, Mitt has an opportunity to earn conservatives votes. He has mine, not because I respect him. I don’t. Not because he’s earned it. He hasn’t. He has my vote because I believe he will not do as much damage as Obama. Period. But, again, there are those whose commitment to change runs deep … and the path they see to an ultimate remedy takes a different course. Romney requires their vote. Without it … he will lose. Those are the people he must appeal to. Sadly, all by his own doing, he must not merely earn their trust … but first overcome their distrust. He’s got his work cut out for him.

    You’d be wise not to make the job any more difficult. These people are aggrieved … you’ll want to avoid making them angry as well.

  8. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    I especially liked the last paragraph, “Like most elections in modern history, this one will come down to the 10 to 15 percent of voters who are truly undecided. Romney would be better off focusing on this group. If he wins, it may not be as bad as evangelicals fear; they will certainly prefer it to the alternative. Sometimes you have to eat your vegetables before you can get a taste of dessert.”

  9. Larry says:

    Taking conservatives for granted may soon be proving that they’ve taken it too far. If you can’t smell revolution in the air … may I recommend a decongestant.

    • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

      What revolution? He’s already has the Evangelical (read ‘True Conservative’) block:

      “White evangelical voters strongly support Romney over Obama (68% vs. 19%)”

      No one is saying that Romney should take conservatives for granted (He is speaking at Liberty University this weekend, after all) but it’s a question of where time and resources are better spent. What will it take to put him over the top? That’s all I’m saying. The Democrats are already trying to paint him and Republicans in general as an extremest (against women, against gays, against poor people, against dogs) and if all he does is pander to the far right it will simply reinforce that perception. In other words, he needs to do both. He needs to hold true to the principles which conservatives value, which I believe he will and he also needs to go after that 10% or whatever it is of truly undecideds by emphasizing his ability to make their lives better.

      Now, please don’t think I’m as “unstudied and uncertain”, “lacking a well defined political philosophy and seemingly content to drift with the wind” as RC for believing that.

      • Larry says:

        Mike, hopefully such counsel is not under consideration in the campaign … it would be a sure recipe for failure in November. The pollster you’ve sited is rather infamous for suggesting widespread opposition to California’s Prop 8 (which won handily). It is not considered an organization friendly to conservative causes. I wouldn’t place any stock in their “findings”.

        Sadly, what you call pandering to the far right is otherwise known as campaigning as a conservative. Reagan, who crushed his opponents in two landslide victories did just that (and governed accordingly as well … despite laboring against an overwhelmingly Democratically controlled House).

        Your language suggests that are so comfortable with Romney’s candidacy because of just how uninformed (ill-informed?) you are of actual conservatism … a trait you share with more than a few Romney boosters. Your suggestion that he attempt to appeal to the middle by deemphasizing conservatism has been the winning combination for losing Republicans for some time. Again, it also suggests a rather abiding ignorance of what actually constitutes conservatism and why, when it is unabashedly offered as a governing philosophy, is so overwhelmingly popular with a majority of voters.

        Perhaps you can offer an brief idea of what constitutes, in your mind, conservatism and what elements of it would prove so unappealing to “independents”? Additionally, perhaps you can identify why Reagan won by presenting himself as unambiguously and unapologetically conservative and why other Republicans who have done otherwise have fared so poorly. Also, how would won appeal to both if both parties are so far divided? This would, I think, be a helpful discussion.

  10. RC says:


    Your quote above states, “RC, I’m not sure if you’re reading my comments clearly. That the GOP has reduced the argument to an either/or choice is obvious. Equally as obvious is the result of not voting for Romney. What seems to elude you is both the path that brings us to such an unfortunate circumstance, the dynamics that Romney’s strategy has unleashed and the very nature of conservatism. Namely, that to ask people of conscience to continually choose the lesser of two evils is to invite just such an impasse.

    And whose fault is it that they have to “choose the lesser of two evils”? It’s not Obama’s fault and it certainly ain’t Romney’s fault. Then who is to blame for the decision of having to choose between the lesser of two evils? It is me and you Larry. We have put ourselves into this position, no one else. No one else is to blame. So don’t try to use a scapegoat on the issue. If people are tired of having to make that choice, then “The People” have the power within themselves to make the difference – if they really want it.

    If you want a true, through and through “Conservative”to be the nominee for the GOP, and then to actually win the Presidency over the other 70 million voters to clinch it and not have to “eat cake”, then the “Conservatives” had better wake up, get off their butt, be engaged and make things happen. For this election cycle, that is exactly what I am trying to do – make a difference with what we have at this time.

    • Larry says:

      RC, I thoroughly reject your claim that it is my fault as well … it is, on its face, a silly argument. Just as your earlier claim that “Was I a part of the problem that got our country into the mess that we are in right now – today? Yes, I am, just like everyone else”. Your voting patterns and political philosophy differs significantly from mine and the millions like me who’ve worked diligently for different outcomes. Approached the development of an informed political philosophy seriously and studiously.

      This year conservatives, once again, found themselves captive to a system which the Establishment has employed for its ends for some time now. Multiple conservative candidates vie for the support of conservative voters (splitting that vote … which is the majority vote) while the moderate candidate (read, unconservative) simply bides his time and racks up delegates.

      This year saw an unusual twist. Conservatives suddenly had a breakout candidate in Newt Gingrich. Mitt responded swiftly with an avalanche of not merely negative attack ads … but lies … outright, outrageous lies. Mitt lost Iowa, but so did Gingrich. By South Carolina Gingrich was back on top … and crushed Romney. Romney’s response? A tsunami of lies in Florida. $20,000,000.00 worth. TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF LIES! This was completely unprecedented in modern Republican presidential primaries. Mitt didn’t stake out his positions … he knew conservatives viewed him as unconservative (with good reason). No, he offered bald faced lies and rhetorical sleight of hand … SOP for liberal Democrats … but not for Republicans. He sought to simply suppress the vote. It was a calculated effort in deception.

      Worse, the Establishment joined in the effort. The Gingrich surge was effectively squelched. I had numerous conversations over the ensuing days with Republicans here in Florida. They were of course angry, but more often than not, they were stunned. Thoroughly. They were incredulous that a Republican could lie so brazenly, so entirely, so reflexively and so callously. They had observed the many Romney lies earlier regarding his record and flip-flops. That was bad enough. But the level of deception they had personally witnessed left them as they had never felt before. This site, Evangelicals for Mitt, mirrored both the same sad ethics and worse, a grotesque theology that found them making sport of forgiveness and redemption. I was not only grieved at such un-Christ-like behavior but embarrassed by it as well.

      In earlier elections, such as McCain’s in 2008, conservatives found themselves disappointed … but not stunned and angry. This, however, was an entirely new experience. It’s been bad enough knowing that while conservatives sought for the best conservative candidate the GOP would capitalize on their split vote … but their collusion in the defeat of a front runner left many reeling … and now seriously considering bolting the GOP.

      I recall one conversation with an older friend. George is 86. A former Navy pilot and graduate of Harvard, he is keen of mind but not deeply involved in politics. Upon observing the many commercial and direct mail pieces even he expressed sad shock over what he had witnessed and remarked that he could not recall ever having witnessed such behavior from a Republican. Mike, an attorney from Jacksonville phoned me utterly amazed at Mitt’s brazen disregard for the truth. He kept repeating, over and over, his shock … not only at Romney, but the Establishment. He has remarked that he is struggling to find it in himself to vote for Mitt … and plans on exiting the party following the general election. This is surprising coming from Mike … he is unflappable. He’s served as a prosecutor and now has his own practice … he is famously level headed. But he had seen enough to know corruption when he’s witnessed it.

      We do not acccept the blame for the dishonesty and bullying of Romney or the GOP, RC. That’s their responsibility … theirs and those who empowered them.

      Get up off our butts? Well, we have been active … it now appears that getting of our butts was not entirely enough. We’re now realizing that we need to get our butts out of the GOP and into a conservative party which will allow us to employ the primaries to secure the best conservative candidate … with no fear of splitting our vote among several while the moderate candidate simply wins by default.

      Sadly, the difference which now exists will be by degrees. We will be very much voting for the lesser of two evils. How inspiring. That, however, highlights my concern. I have never, in nearly 3 decades of participation in GOP politics, observed this sense of disenfranchisement … this willingness … no, make that eager determination … to bolt the GOP and leave it to its own sad and dishonest devices. That does not bode well for November. If Mitt loses it will be his fault … and yours … but no one else. In short, any more slights may very well find conservatives content to let Team Romney and the GOP discover just how central they are to victory.

  11. Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

    I didn’t realize I had “suggested that he attempt to appeal to the middle by deemphasizing conservatism” or that I had implied that there were “elements of [conservatism] that would prove to be so unappealing to’independents’.” I thought I said that he should continue to “hold true to the principles that conservatives value.” While also going after the 10% or so of truly undecideds and what I mean by that is focusing on states where there may be large blocks of those voters than perhaps states where it appears that he has the conservative base locked up. Also, emphasizing perhaps more fiscal conservatism perhaps than social conservatism. Don’t get me wrong, social conservatism is important but I’m thinking that there are areas of the country where someone might think what Romney will do about tax issues or the housing crises is more important to them than his views on abortion or gay marriage.

    I agree with you that the moment he veers away from conservative principles will be his undoing. I think perhaps our definitions of pandering to the right may be somewhat different as well. In my view, that would mean not acknowledging that there are large segments of this country who are not religious, there truly are people in this country who need government assistance, some taxes really are necessary to run the government, etc. I sometimes feel that candidates raise their voices against these issues depending on the crowds they are addressing.

    Notwithstanding all of that, Larry, here is the substance of what I want to express to you, and I say this with all the gentleness I can muster. Your mistrust and disdain for Romney are well known by everyone on these boards. During the primary season, you certainly had every right to express your opinion and attempt to sway people over to your way of thinking but now that the primaries are all but over and the choice has been made, can you now not see the damage that your continued belittlement of Romney might cause? You have expressed many time how conservatives will stay home if they don’t feel good about the choices they are being offered yet can’t you see how your very articulate and persuasive arguments against Romney might cause someone to do just that at this point? If just one person stays home on November 6 because of your arguments you will have contributed to 4 more years of Obama and I know you don’t want that.

    You berated Nancy for simply posting a link to an interview with Gingrich, claiming she was pouring gas instead of oil on the wounds of disappointed conservatives but in reading some of your posts it seems you are doing the same, my friend. If this should really be a time of healing, as you say, then you should honestly ask yourself if your comments are contributing to that healing process or do they continue to be divisive?

    Now I have never felt that you have treated me with anything but respect which I appreciate (I’m older than both you and RC so give me my due :) ) and I am glad to civilly discuss campaign strategy and vp choices with you as we have been (although I bristle somewhat by being called ill-informed) but I implore you to rethink what you are trying to accomplish at this point by your continued assault against Romney and anyone else who happens to disagree with you. Now I know you feel you need to be true to yourself but “a soft answer turneth away wrath.” You might find that you have more influence with your comments if you took it down a notch. Please, my friend (and I mean that with all sincerity) reconsider.

    • Larry says:

      Mike, a few housekeeping items first. You’ve just commented “I didn’t realize I had “suggested that he attempt to appeal to the middle by deemphasizing conservatism” or that I had implied that there were “elements of [conservatism] that would prove to be so unappealing to’independents” … Yes Mike you did imply that. Allow me to quote you … “if all he does is pander to the far right it will simply reinforce that perception”.

      “Pandering to the far right”? Please explain.

      I did not “berate” Nancy. I responded to her post. Or is it inappropriate to challenge the assertions of Nancy? Damage to Romney? Please, if speaking the truth and holding Mitt accountable is damaging then he’s already sunk. This isn’t a game Mike. Adults are supposed to be able to handle the truth. I’m not playing as if Mitt is anything but a deeply flawed candidate. I will not work to present him as anything other than what I perceive him to be. I will work to encourage as much pressure as possible from the right to keep his feet to the fire.

      I’m not interested in pursuing a personal relationship with Mitt. I’m not attempting to assuage his wrath so a soft answer is not in order. I’m a man whose witnessed an injustice and lies. I will work to hold Mitt accountable at least to the promises (as malleable as they might be) he’s made and to underscore his hypocrisy if he veers to the left. I will not labor to elect a man for whom the truth is of such little consequence. I’m working to advance conservatism in order to both rescue the nation from the crisis it is now enduring and brace it for the coming storm. You do realize that a much greater global economic threat is looming which eclipses what we’ve already endured, yes?

      There comes a time Mike when first principles and our devotion to them and the outcomes they promise demand vigilance and a willingness to go toe to toe with anyone and everyone who compromises them. Our founders fought a war when such a time arrived. They knew that a “soft answer” was no longer in order. They no longer contemplated turning the other cheek.

      War was at hand … it was time to fight for liberty … not yield to those who would destroy it. We have arrived at just such a juncture again. Romney has allowed his narrow personal ambitions to fuel his quest for office … and jettison ethical concerns. Fine … but don’t expect me, or those millions like me to sit idly by and pretend that we have a fine and acceptable candidate. We don’t. But we’re going to work to make the most of this moment by applying pressure to those who would seek our votes. Mute our criticism for fear that it might discourage some from voting? I’m willing to vote for Mitt … but until that moment I’ll resist every effort by some to rewrite history or Mitt’s record. If they are foolish enough to take umbrage with those Mitt has harmed … I will address myself to their arrogance and absurdity. There is a difference between “belittling” and an eyes wide open appraisal of someone’s behavior.

      In short, I’m willing to vote for Mitt … but not pretend he’s anything other than a deeply flawed candidate who, along with the Establishment gamed the system and undermined conservatives. Consequently, I intend on doing everything within my power to remind them that we will not be taken for granted. That promises mean something and that any effort to now play politics will find conservatives bidding them goodbye … before November. Said another way … I’ll be behaving like an adult and expecting the same from them. Soft answers and turning the other cheek Mike are for interpersonal relationships … not civics or national life. You should know better than that … that’s reflects rather poor exegesis. Applying your standards would have found Hitler facing little opposition, Al Qaida forgiven and Obama facing no criticism from Republicans. Criminals would likewise find court a happy place where all is forgiven and the police there simply to drive them home.

      That Mike, is what I’m trying to accomplish. I’ve no intention of becoming Idle. I’m only 50 … lot of years left here. More importantly, I’ve a wife and four children, two grandchildren with more surely to come. I’m not willing to leave the country’s future to short-sighted and ambitious politicians or to those who would empower them.

      • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

        You are long on accusations but short on examples. You have said many time how Mitt has lied but never once have you pointed to anything specific, at least that I have seen. So I’ll bite, just what did he lie about?

        • Larry says:

          Mike, this requires a detailed response (though I’ve provided it previously … several months ago). I’m leaving now for a Gator baseball game (go UF!). I will be happy to provide that response tomorrow.

        • Larry says:

          Sorry Mike … I posted the list yesterday (Sunday) but it is
          awaiting Nancy’s O.K. Not much I can do on this end.

          • Nancy French says:

            Larry, you lost a comment too? Hum… We don’t censor comments around here. I don’t know what’s going on? It’s like there was a period of time when the comments weren’t showing up… Charles? David?

          • Larry says:

            That’s the one … I don’t have any others. I’m assuming that when a post contains links or is excessively long it requires moderation.

          • Nancy French says:

            That is so weird. So, I see it in this queue, which says “approved.” But when I went to the actual site to find it, it is NOT there.

            So I unapproved it, then re-approved it.


            A. It’s too long and simply won’t go through,
            B. God is trying to prohibit you from listing a list of perceived lies of our GOP nominee,
            C. I’m technologically challenged and am doing something wrong.

            It could be ALL of the above. :)

            Can you do it in chunks? For example, you could post it in thirds? If you don’t have it saved, I can send it to you — e-mail me!

          • Larry says:

            Bit it is showing up on my computer … have you cleared the cache in your browser?

  12. Mack says:

    “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” – Edmund Burke

    Substitute the word Obama for evil. This is my plea to conservatives everywhere who are unwilling to stand behind an imperfect, but certainly not evil, Romney. It’s pointless at this point to condemn Romney because of his weaknesses. This election is about triumphing over evil and we need to remind ourselves of that daily.

    • Larry says:

      Mack, this election is about advancing causes which will remedy our crisis … Obama is only part of the
      dilemma. Statist who revel in their personal “expertise” and view government as a means of displaying their genius and wield its power (benignly of course) are enormous threats. Consequently, we will not pretend that Mitt is a conservative … we will remind him continually … as a thorn in his side if necessary … that conservatism …. authentic conservatism is in order. We will settle for nothing less.

      Holding Mitt accountable to his promises, informing him of his deficiencies and encouraging him toward courageous conservative leadership is the task of every citizen now. Not to form a cheer leading squad and suggest to Mitt that he can now taker us for granted … their are few things so dangerous as to award a politician as that.

  13. Terry says:

    Romney never knowingly lies. Does he get confused sometimes? Certainly. As an old coot myself (retired and loving it), I understand fully. Sadly, too many folks are being sucked in to the left’s charge that Romney is a habitual liar or that he lies if he thinks it will advance his march to the presidency. Romney is a genuine patriot, and I think that’s what scares the Obama campaign. You see, Mitt is not running for president for the glory of the position, but because he honestly believes he has the skills and know-how to get this country back on track financially. I happen to agree with him, as do lots of other folks.

    And Larry, I remember your supposed proof of several months ago that Romney is a liar. You posted several links to websites, most of which I checked out. All were anti-Romney in flavor. That is when I came to the conclusion that deep down, you are anti-Mormon (despite your one protest to the contrary), which naturally makes you anti-Mitt Romney. I’ve been dialogging with anti-Mormons and anti-Mormonism types for almost two decades now on almost a daily basis, and your profile fits theirs very well. That is your right, of course, and I respect that.

    Here’s a question for, Larry: do you consider Mormonism to be a cult?

    • Larry says:

      Terry, I am preparing a lengthy list of Mitt’s lies. These are clearly NOT a matter of confusion (if they are, then Mitt is clearly unfit for office given that confusion of this sort would suggest the onset of dementia). Mormonism a cult? Depends upon your definition. Heretical? Beyond any reasonable doubt, yes. It doesn’t merely veer far afield of biblical Christianity … it offers a different gospel (against which believers are adamantly warned) and a different Jesus.

      Does this mean Mormons are necessarily not Christians. No, faith in Christ yields salvation. However, while their Mormonism doesn’t preclude that possibility it also doesn’t assure it. Indeed, many who are believers are, in spite of Mormonism’s teachings, rather than because of them. However, that is immaterial to Mitt’s candidacy.

      A least with regard to me. I have never considered it a disqualification. Hence my vote for him during the 2008 primaries. So, Terry, if you’re trying to find something with which to disqualify my arguments and despite the undercurrent of anti-Christian bigotry which you’ve displayed in the past … you’ll need something more substantive with which to address my points. For instance, you might try a credible counter-point. Unless, of course, one doesn’t exist … in that case you may want to ponder the its implications.

      So again Terry, unless you wish for me to begin referring to you as the Mormon Al Sharpton … give it a rest.

      Now, I’ll begin my list soon. I had to grade my drive today and am just completing that job. But it’ll post before the night’s end.

        • Larry says:

          Noting was stated which a) I have not stated previously or b)which was not in response to Terry’s question. Terry’s question was merely a useful foil … an exit from a kitchen which was clearly becoming too hot. If you ask questions honestly have the courage to hear the answer. If you ask the question in order to exit dramatically … well, any answer will do.

          • RC says:

            The answer to my questions were not posed by anyone. The questions were merely an internal thought process on you. My unverbal questions were all answered in that post to Terry. Your verbal reponse came through – Loud and Clear.

          • Nancy French says:

            Hey Guys! I don’t see any comments awaiting approval! So sorry… Let me check.

  14. Larry says:

    While this is not an exhaustive list it does provide an overview of Mitt’s willingness to lie in his efforts to now appeal to conservatives or to elude a record which fails to cast him in a favorable light. Worse, it portrays his willingness to not only slander others for his own personal gain, but his willingness to undermine the democratic process … a process which demands the highest ethical practices if it purposes and safety are to remain unmolested.

    It is this willingness to subvert the very process we enshrine as an essential feature of our liberty that so disqualifies greatness and honor in Mitt … and ought to give any thinking man pause regarding the fitness of this man.
    There is of course the numerous lies regarding Mitt Romney’s record as governor. His attempts to present his term as successful and conservative fail scrutiny miserably … IF that is, his claims are indexed against the actual, public (and detailed) record available to anyone who wishes to know the facts. I accepted the campaigns narrative in 2008. Foolish indeed. During the current cycle I conducted the level of due diligence I was obliged, but failed to conduct in 2008. I was amazed by the degree of separation which exists between the verifiable facts and the campaign’s rhetoric. The divergence isn’t marginal … it’s cavernous. It’s not fudging the truth … its discarding it … contemptuously. This sort of myth making is NOT the stuff of conservatism. It is more at home among the Left.

    Review Team Romney’s claims. Then review the actual numbers, their context, the policies which drove them and their outcomes. As the facts emerge you’ll be left either accepting their conclusions or seeking refuge in excuses. It is not a pleasant task … but it is a revealing one. Remember, Romney’s single term as governor exists as his only real record as an elected leader. Remember that his constituents found his leadership so unappealing that half way through his single term, internal polling conducted by Team Romney revealed that he would fail in his bid for re-election. It was then that Mitt Romney began to tack right. That his positions became more conservative … not because of some epiphany but rather the calculations of a man who knew that you can win the presidency after losing re-election. It was now or never. His trips out the state were then so frequent … his rhetoric so different than before that he became known as an absentee governor. And his reputation was cemented as a phony. Of course, once again, all that is necessary to track his migration are the facts … and a timeline. The change is rhetoric aligns with his changing political fortunes and his new pursuits.

    Next we hae the numerous debate lies:
    The Morning After Pill.
    CNN Debate:
    KING (Moderator): Governor Romney, both Senator Santorum and Speaker Gingrich have said during your tenure as governor, you required Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. And Mr. Speaker, you compared the governor to President Obama, saying he infringed on Catholics’ rights. Governor, did you do that?
    ROMNEY: No, absolutely not. Of course not. There was no requirement in Massachusetts for the Catholic Church to provide morning-after pills to rape victims. That was entirely voluntary on their part. There was no such requirement.”
    While Romney did, during 2005, vetoed a bill requiring access to the “morning-after-pill,” he did,several months later, require Catholic hospitals to give the morning-after pill to rape victims. Romney had publicly claimed the bill did not apply to private religious hospitals. On December 7, 2005, Romney’s Department of Public Health exempted Catholic and other privately-run hospitals from administering the morning-after pill to rape victims on the basis of religious or moral objections. The next day, December 8, 2005 Romney reversed the opinion of his own State Department of Public Health, requiring all Catholic hospitals and others to provide the chemical Plan B “morning after pill” to rape victims. Romney said “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”
    Chronology of events:.(From BCI)
    1975. Massachusetts statute passed which allowed private hospitals to opt out of abortion, sterilization, and contraception.
    2002: When Mitt Romney was running for governor, he filled out a questionnaire for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts, and in response to a question, “…Will you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?” Romney said: “Yes.”
    2004: the Massachusetts legislature considered an “emergency contraception” mandate. It would have required all hospitals to inform rape victims of the availability of such “emergency contraceptives” and provide them to the rape victim if she wanted them even when they would cause an abortion. Maria Parker of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy organization of the state’s Catholic bishops, explained in testimony to the state legislature why Catholic hospitals could not do this.
    That bill passed in the State Senate, but not in the House.
    2005: Emergency contraception bill passes Senate and House, with veto-proof majority in both chambers of the Democrat-controlled legislature. In July, the House and Senate reached a compromise on it that would protect Catholic hospitals from being forced to act against their faith. Here is more:
    At that time, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference published a bulletin explaining what happened. (July 2005 Mass Catholic Conference Notes from the Hill) The House had included language to “expressly apply” the 1975 conscience law protections to the new emergency contraception law. The Senate had included language saying the new law should apply “notwithstanding” any existing law.
    “In the end, neither amendment was included in the bill,” said the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. “House Majority Leader John Rogers, who worked tirelessly behind the scenes to defend the hospitals’ right of conscience, made it clear during floor debate on July 21 that the House blocked the Senate amendment so that the 1975 conscience statute would continue to have full effect.”
    The Catholic Church still opposed the bill because it would facilitate abortions. But at least the religious liberty of Catholic hospitals had been preserved — or so it seemed.
    July 25, 2005: Romney vetoed the bill — even though it was clear his veto would be overridden.
    He published an op-ed in the Boston Globe the next day explaining his decision. “The bill does not involve only the prevention of conception,” he wrote. “The drug it authorizes would also terminate life after conception.” Romney said the veto kept his pledge not to change the state’s abortion laws.
    Romney made no mention of the religious liberty issue in his op-ed. But then, the bill, as the Massachusetts Catholic Conference and the House majority leader understood it, did not allow coercion of Catholic hospitals.
    Dec. 7, 2005: a week before the law was to take effect, the Boston Globe ran an article headlined, “Private hospitals exempt on pill law“. The article said the state Department of Public Health had determined that the emergency contraception law “does not nullify a statute passed years ago that says privately run hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.”
    Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. told the Globe: “We felt very clearly that the two laws don’t cancel each other out and basically work in harmony with each other.”
    Romney spokesman Fehrnstrom told the Globe that Romney agreed with the Department of Public Health on the issue. The governor, he said, “respects the views of health care facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue.”
    “The staff of DPH did their own objective and unbiased legal analysis,” Romney’s spokesman told the Globe. “The brought it to us, and we concur in it.”
    December 8, 2005: The Globe itself ruefully bowed to this legal analysis. It ran an editorial headlined: “A Plan B Mistake.” “The legislators failed, however,” the Globe said, “to include wording in the bill explicitly repealing a clause in an older statute that gives hospitals the right, for reasons of conscience, not to offer birth control services.”
    Liberals joined in attacking Romney’s defense of Catholic hospitals. But that defense did not last long.
    The same day the Globe ran its editorial, Romney held a press conference. Now he said his legal counsel had advised him the new emergency contraception law did trump the 1975 conscience law.
    “On that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “In my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.”
    December 9, 2005: Boston Globe reports, “Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law“.“Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state’s new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims. The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.”
    Lifesite News reported at the time, “Romney Does Flip-Flop and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill”:
    In a shocking turn-around, Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney announced yesterday that Roman Catholic and other private hospitals in the state will be forced to offer emergency contraception to sexual assault victims under new state legislation, regardless of the hospitals’ moral position on the issue.
    December 16, 2005: Archdiocesan newspaper, The Pilot, reports, “Romney: emergency contraception law applies to Catholic hospitals”
    BOSTON—Gov. Mitt Romney last week instructed the state Department of Public Health that Catholic and other private hospitals are not exempt from a new law that would require them to dispense emergency contraception to all rape victims. In doing so, Romney overruled the department’s finding that privately run hospitals do not have to provide contraception or abortions.
    Romney had previously taken the position that the requirements of the new law were superceded by a 1975 law that provided privately owned hospitals with conscience exemption for abortion and contraception services.
    “They’ve taken the position now that the preexisting statute somehow does not shield Catholic and other private hospitals from this new mandate. I think there is a solid legal argument against that position,” said Daniel Avila, associate director of public policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference.
    A constitutional law expert advising BCI says that the legislative intent was clearly to allow the 1975 statute to prevail. The formulation of the regulations is supposed to follow the legislative intent. Romney actually violated the law and his oath of office by NOT going with the legislative intent, and overruling the legislative intent (as well as the Constitution).
    But t was not merely a legal interpretation by the legal counsel to Romney. Romney said he personally thought it was the “right thing” for hospitals to provide access to emergency contraception for any rape victims. See this Dec 9, 2005 AP report:
    Romney: Catholic hospitals not exempt from offering emergency contraception
    By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press writer
    BOSTON –Facing opposition from women, the Democratic Party and even his own running mate, Gov. Mitt Romney abandoned plans yesterday to exempt religious and other private hospitals from a new law requiring them to dispense emergency contraception to rape victims.The governor had initially backed regulations proposed earlier this week by his Department of Public Health, which said the new law conflicts with an older law barring the state from forcing private hospitals to dispense contraceptive devices or information.
    The interpretation would have allowed hospitals operated by the Roman Catholic Church, which opposes abortion, to forego compliance with the new regulation. Opponents accused Romney, a Republican considering running for president in 2008, of trying to assuage social conservatives.
    Despite defending the Health Department regulations as late as Wednesday, Romney opened a news conference yesterday by declaring that a fresh analysis by his legal counsel concluded the new law supersedes the old law, and that all hospitals must be required to offer the so-called morning-after pill.
    “On that basis I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view,” Romney said. “I think, in my personal view, it’s the right thing for hospitals to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape,” he added.
    Romney did in fact, require Catholic hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. Regarding this matter Mitt Romney blatantly lied. If, that is, words mean anything. Romney frequently resorts to Clintonian lying when cornered in such lies.
    Always votes Republican:
    Mitt Romney “Just a — just a short clarification. I — I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. And — and in my state of Massachusetts, you could register as an independent and go vote in which — either primary happens to be very interesting. And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took. And so I — I’m…

    ROMNEY: …I have voted — I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot. With regards to the Speaker’s involvement in the Reagan years, he can speak for himself. The Reagan Diaries and the other histories that were written at that time can lay that out as well. I — I — I think, I think what he said speaks for itself and I’m proud of the things I was able to accomplish.”
    During that year’s primaries (Democratic and Republican) Romney admitted to voting in the Democratic primary for Paul Tsongas in 1992. Why? Depends when you ask him (or more precisely what audience he’s attempting to appeal to)

    In announcing his bid for the Republican Senate nomination (challenging Ted Kennedy), Romney, during an interview with the Boston Globe said, regarding his vote for Tsongas, that he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton,” (Boston Globe reported on Feb. 4, 1994). “He added he had been sure the GOP would nominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election.”
    During a 2007, with George Stephanopoulos, Romney offered another explanation for his vote … “In Massachusetts, if you register as an independent, you can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primary,” “When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, an vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican.”
    Never-the-less, during the debate Romney stated “I’ve never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot,” he lied. Again. There was a Republican on the ballot, the Republican primary ballot.
    Little lie? Yep … but another lie. Yet, like his strange lies about Martin Luther King, Jr. a reminder that Mitt really struggles telling the truth. That he offers so many versions of events he eventually traps himself in his web of lies. Sad and deeply concerning when discovered in a man who wishes to lead our nation.

    Abortion funding:
    Romney insists that Romneycare doesn’t fund abortions and, further, that the Supreme Court instituted changes leaving him with no choice but to sign the healthcare bill into law proving funding for elective abortions.
    The fact is Romneycare does provide for a $50 co-pay for any abortion. ( )

    Supreme Court requires it? Not so fast.
    In 1981 the court ruled t(Moe v Secretary of Admin & Finance, 1981) that the state constitution required payment for abortion services for Medicaid eligible women. This was re-affirmed in a 1997 ruling (Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts v. Attorney General, 1997). In both cases the court issued a “declaratory opinion” … not law, not a court order. The legislature passed legislation requiring the government subsidize healthcare plans requiring them to fund “medically necessary” abortions. Romneycare was the first legislation requiring that provision. Furthermore and more to the point RomneyCare provides funding for ALL abortions. No wonder it enjoyed the endorsement of Planned Parenthood. This is not only a substantial lie … it is a revealing one. Miit, I want it both ways, Romney betrays his very real lack of pro-life bona-fides.

    Romney believes we’re all extraordinarily stupid:
    During one debate Santorum asked Mitt, point blank, didn’t seek for re-election as Governor:
    Romney: “I think it’s unusual, and, and perhaps understandable, that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics that that’s all you wanna do. That if you’ve been elected to something, well, you get … wanna get reelected and reelected.” “I went to Massachusetts to make it different. I didn’t go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. made a difference. I put in place the things I wanted to do. I listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. There were 100 things we wanted to do. Those things I pursued aggressively. Some we won. Some we didn’t.”
    “Run again? That would be about me. I was trying to help get the state in best shape as I possibly could. Left the, the world of politics, went back into business.”
    Newt Gingrich wisely recalled a far different record:
    Gingrich: “You had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You didn’t have this interlude of … citizenship while you thought about what to do. You were running for president while you were governor. You were gone all over the country. You were– you were out of state consistently.” “You then promptly reentered politics. You happened to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy.”
    The entire remark was breathtakingly self-serving and very clearly a lie. Romney conducted polling to determine his re-election chances mid-way through his first (and last) term … when polling revealed his sharply declining chances he immediately transitioned to his next goal. This lie however is characteristic of Mitt … he is perfectly willing to lie in order to cast himself in the most favorable light and avoid painful conclusions. He did so reflexively with only a moment’s thought. Remarkable … simply remarkable. Yet his boosters continue to lecture us on his honor and character.
    Romney lies about ads:
    When Romney was challenged by Newt regarding the deceptive ads being run Mitt replied “I haven’t seen the ads” … then, seconds later he said ”The ad I saw said you were forced out of the speakership.”. He then further implicates himself by listing the additional ads.
    Next, he ran an ad against Gingrich which lifted, entirely out of context, one of Newt’s remarks from a speech … Mitt insisted he did not authorize the ad … Wolf Blitzer explained that they fact checked the ad in question … it was personally authorized by Mitt. A lie on top of another lie.

    Bain record:

    Not only is the figure of 100,000 jobs created under his leadership grossly inflated (the actual number is nearer to 60,000) Mitt’s claims regarding Staples in now being fleshed out more entirely. Romney was invited into the the Staples opportunity by another venture capital firm. He initially rejected the proposal as risky (3x) then provided only $650,000.00 in funding (comparatively small) and with later installments increased the overall investment to only 2.5 million. He had no direct involvement in the company and regularly missed board meetings. As soon as Staples went public, Bain sold all of its Staples holdings (at the time Staples had only 24 stores and employed only 1000 people (many part-time employees). One would hardly gather those facts from Mitt’s telling.


    Double standards:
    Mitt carefully excused himself from the implications of some of his investments by noting that they are in a blind trust. That statement was not entirely true because at least one fund was in no wise a blind trust and included investments in Fannie and Freddie.
    Worse, During his failed Senate campaign of 1994, he criticized Ted Kennedy for offering the same excuse when questioned about investments. He then reffered to the excuse as a “ruse”.

    Outrageous slander in order to cripple front runner:

    Mitt’s lies regarding Newt serve as some of his most damning deception to date. In order to overcome Newt’s significant lead Mitt did not wish to debate their differences (he would have not only lost but been exposed as anything but conservative) he chose instead to repeat Democratic lies which had been exposed and put to bed more than a dozen years earlier. This exemplifies not only his willingness to lie and do harm … but to mislead the American public in pursuit of his own narrow ambitions. This is utterly disqualifying behavior. It is impossible to respect a man whose opinion of himself is so high and his regard for others so low. It betrays a pathologically inflated sense of entitlement. This is so eerily similar to the behavior of Barack Obama it is genuinely frightening.

    Thomas Sowell has provided a thorough review of the matter here ( )

    These are a few of Mitt’s lie Mike and Terry. I’m curious to see your rebuttals.

    • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

      Thanks for your in-depth comments, clearly you feel very passionate about your position. I’ve seen most of the allegations you’ve mentioned before and I’ve also seen their rebuttals. However, even if I had the time and resources to respond individually to each of them, I’m not going to for a couple of reasons. Perhaps another reader might take that on.

      First, nothing I could say or present would change your mind, that much is obvious so what would be the point of trying? Second, at this point, I am going to vote for Mitt no matter what but more importantly, you are going to vote for Mitt as well so I don’t see the point of your continued attempts to come on here and attempt to portray him in as unfavorable a light as possible. What do you think you are accomplishing? Even if I acknowledged the veracity of every allegation, (which I don’t) I would still vote for him because the alternative if much worse. Finally, welcome to politics in the 21st century, brother. Is what Mitt did, any worse than what Rick Perry did? or what Newt Gingrich did? or what Rick Santorum did?

      Now if that’s not an acceptable response then so be it, I’ve got more important things to do, like getting Mitt elected President.

      • Larry says:

        Mike, that’s rather disappointing. It was you, after all, who requested the list. I took the time to do your homework, again at your request, only to find you simply (conveniently?) dismissing it with a cavalier wave of your hand and equivocation. Not impressed. Why do I address these issues? (“why did you ask for specifics?” is also another fair question) I’ve stated it clearly before … because, Mitt is, in the words of Jon Huntsman “A Well-Lubricated Weather Vane”.

        He demonstrated that once again last week. When asked about gay couples adopting children, Mitt gushed that a loving couple (gay) has the “right” to adopt. Then, following the inevitable fallout, Mitt once again revised his remarks and offered a pitifully inept effort in cya by suggesting that almost every state permits it, and that he would leave it to the individual states to decide (that is not true by the way). Rather than provide an answer that suggested a conservative worldview … a conservatism which is studied, deeply internalized and full-orbed … we have a man who hasn’t a clue as to what constitutes conservatism. He seems absent the sort of intellectual curiosity that would encourage important questions and spark the journey that would lead to real intellectual discovery. So instead, Mr. Flip Flop puts in another appearance. Worse, he then calls out Obama for the same behavior Thursday afternoon (“You don’t change your positions to try and win the states or certain subgroups of Americans, you have the positions you have”). Choosing to oppose Gay Marriage is safe … it’s not just poll tested … it wins in referendum after referendum … even in California. There was little courage in standing up for it … it was a no brainer. There are more difficult questions looming. He’s already blown a simple one (gay adoption).

        Mitt reads speeches well. He’s clearly a good salesman. It is his unscripted moments which reveal the shallowness of his conservatism, the absence of much intellectual heavy-lifting. Not only has he failed to ask the important questions … he apparently hasn’t even realized they exist. Couple that with his very real inability to connect … you’ve got a very serious threat looming in the general election. President Obama knows what time it is … time to ignite his base. That’s why his well timed announcement regarding Gay Marriage surfaced when it did. He understands what many on the right are astoundingly ignorant of. You win elections with an energized base. He’s firing it up now. Mitt, meanwhile, with blunders like that … is placing it in jeopardy. In the absence of an energized base … Romney will lose. Just ask John McCain.

        Romney needs his supporters demanding consistency. A studied conservatism, conservative advisors … a conservative approach to governing. If he, and his followers stupidly suppose that he can take conservatives for granted … well, prepare for another 4 years of Obama. Take a long hard, adult look at your candidate. He’s flawed … and he’s only got a few months to work out the kinks. He can’t continue giving speeches which say one thing (written by others) and offer, during unscripted moments, answers which suggest a radically different opinion. Conservatives … will find it very difficult to vote for a man like that.

        This is an adult moment. Conservatives are laboring toward conservative majorities in both Houses … If Mitt continues to betray a “Mr. Etch-A-Sketch” candidacy … he will insult, not inspire conservatives. Stop the silly talk of independents. That’s a myth which has been put to bed by the numbers. Team Obama knows that … that’s why their turning all their attention to their base. Romney would do well to follow suit.

        You’d do well to at least answer the questions my list provides.

        • Mike (Green Eyeshades) says:

          Like I tell my kids, get used to disappointment. I never said I was going to offer you a point by point rebuttal of your allegations. I was simply curious as to what you thought Mitt lied about and you told me. I did forget to say thank you for your effort so, thank you, really. Your response went well beyond what I thought you would do. Again, nothing I could could say to you would change your mind but also nothing you presented is going to convince me to stay home on election day or vote for Obama instead of Mitt (the only choices there are) which I don’t think was your goal anyway. So again, you would do well to answer my question. What is it that YOU are trying to accomplish? What is it that want all of us EFMers to do? Perhaps go out and canvass our neighborhoods and tell everyone we meet that Mitt is a liar but vote for him anyway? You are always laying claim to being the only adult in the room, well it’s time you manned up to the fact that Mitt IS going to be the Republican nominee and in all probability, the next President of the United States. Ain’t nobody cares (especially on these boards) that you don’t like that.

          • Larry says:

            OK … Mike … I’m going to try again. When Mitt wanders off of the reservation …
            scream like a banshee for him to get back on it. Remind constantly him NOT to take
            conservatives for granted. He’s prepared to …
            it’ll cost him (us) the election.

            So like I tell my kids (you’re advice was bad BTW) don’t like the status quo? Fight for change. Fight like you’re the only one fighting. The world is full of silly people …
            make for the difference they ought to be making.

            Mike … regarding the balance of your remarks, well they’re kind of embarrassing.

  15. RC says:

    I have a cousin who is educated far beyond his intelligence. Always “trying” to put others down through his little inuendos, such as using words as “embarassing”, “dissappointing”,”not impressed” and other big and flattering words or to put them in their place to keep himself propped up. He has to be on top – all the time, no matter what, no questions asked. I hate to be the bearer of this news, but for the most part, people do not like to be around him or associate with him. He is almost always negative in his approaches and always accentuates the negative.

    To this day I do not have a good or wholesome relationship with my cousin because of the character that he chooses to embrace. The way he portrays himself and the way he responds totally turns people off. He has no public relation skills, in which he thinks he does due to his self-appointed intelligence.

    I would love to see certain individuals who post on EFM mention things that Romney has done good or great and then taken the time to expound upon those postive traits. To be effective in public approaches, don’t forget to accentuate the positives. If you only harp on the negatives, you will be “as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal”.

    • Larry says:

      RC … or shall I refer to you as Dr. RC? Perhaps you’ve offered penetrating analysis … or perhaps, your own insecurities find you attributing to others motives and deeds which are a product of your own need to whittle them down to size.

      As for me, I enjoy wonderfully rich relationships with people who genuinely enjoy me. We talk often, whether here of by phone. No one really seems to struggle … the happy relationships are unforced and vibrant. Or maybe their just very accomplished actors.

      I’d like an adult conversation where points are responded to maturely … and with reflection. That has rarely been the case here. Indeed, it has far more in common with the sort of folks you might encounter at Huffpo or the KOS. It has been quite revealing though … and says a great deal about the candidate himself … and why so many conservatives find Mitt so unappealing as a candidate.

      This election should have been a slam dunk. Instead, we are now carefully reviewing electoral votes … what states are must win … all because of this choice. I can only hope that Mitt boosters and the candidate himself adopt a posture which doesn’t further jeopardize the prospects for victory in November.

      BTW, if your going to make disparaging remarks about someone … have the courage to say it directly. Otherwise you risk coming off as both a coward and a dweeb.

  16. RC says:

    Larry – Whatever floats your boat! I mean that in a sincere way. But as for me and my house, we will be positive for Romney, understanding at the same time that he is not perfect. I am just tickled pink that it isn’t Gingrich or Santorum. Hallelujah, praise the Lord. There is a God in Heaven. Blessed be His name. Thank you Lord Jesus.

    Romney – 2012

    • Larry says:

      I’m assuming the glaring contradictions of your post eluded you RC … again. Sometime last evening I realized that my efforts to engage in a substantive conversation regarding Romney on EFM will remain fruitless. People who found Romney a compelling candidate during the heat of the primaries are unlikely to enjoy an epiphany now. I’m looking for an objective, conservative perspective here … which is to say I’m searching for Sasquatch. Can’t be found because he doesn’t exist. Best to give the search up.

      I am rather amazed at the similarities I’ve observed among Romney supporters (and Romney himself) and Obama apologists (and Obama himself). Facts are immaterial. When facts are requested, then provided … they are ignored. In the fashion scripture addresses pearls and swine. Facts, precious to many, are here, despised when they intrude upon the myth. Here, the myth is nearly worshiped. The myth is not only preferred to reality … it becomes an alternate reality. Honest dialogue doesn’t have a snowballs chance here.

      We’re lectured regularly on the need to be positive … while eviscerating opponents. We’re urged toward kindness … while insulting those who disagree. Again, this ball of hypocrisy and self contradiction is ordinarily the province of the Left … but with amazement I’ve observed it as a prominent feature of this site and Romney supporters (and, again, in Romney himself).

      Even now Obama boosters vainly imagine their hero to have rescued the economy, championed democracy around the world, and promoted real liberty here at home. Why? Because the facts merit it? No, because Obama and his merry band of myth makers have declared it to be so. Well, that and the simple fact that they have a deep need to believe it.

      Why has Mitt continued to struggle among so many thinking people? Well, I just gave the answer away I think. If you don’t need Mitt to be conservative … well you’ll be hard pressed to imagine him as such. If you do labor under that need, however, the myths are just seductive … their not even irresistible … there absolutely essential. Like a fish needs water … Romney supporters require the myths. In that environment facts are dangerous … they threaten to drain the pond of water.

      If Romney wins I hope he does well. If he fails miserably though, I know there’ll be at least one group who will continue believing, one group who will continue to place the blame elsewhere … it’ll be here. In this Temple … the myths will continue as sacred and unassailable. All reality aside.

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>