The EFM Feature
Screen Shot 2012-05-04 at 11.23.54 AM

Now this?


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.

8 Responses to Newt Calls Gov. Romney a Liar

  1. Larry says:

    Surprised? Huckabee, Giuliani, McCain all noted Romney’s proclivity for lying previously. Indeed, they called him a “phoney”. Tell, me should Newt have lied when Wolf asked him the question, or did he do his best to put a positive face on what Mitt Romney did repeatedly.

    You behave as if Romney should get a pass for lying … repeatedly. He lied. A lot. Not anyone’s fault but his own. He needs to man up and you need to own up to the fact that Mitt behaved badly when it came to telling the truth. When it was convenient, when it was advantageous, when it allowed him to look good or his opponents bad … Mitt lied.

    Reflexively and repeatedly. Everyone who has run against Romney has experienced it. It’s very public knowledge. Of course, any thinking adult who actually followed Mitt’s campaign knows this personally. No one had to tell me. I read and heard, repeatedly, the lies which flowed like water from Team Romney.

    Now you behave as if his opponents, about whom he lied, are doing wrong … rather than taking to task the man who lied and slandered them. That’s rather odd behavior … particularly from a site touting Evangelicalism as its basis for existing.

    You’ve repeatedly excoriated Evangelical’s for what you perceive as anti-Mormon bigotry. Where is your zeal for honesty. For the truth. Or do such matters wane in importance when your chief aim is securing the nomination. Selective righteousness applied conveniently … not very evangelical.

    This is precisely the sort obtuse behavior that will push conservatives away from the voting booth come November Nancy. Let’s set aside the fundamentally wrong nature of it and focus instead on its practical effect. Want to win come November? Then realize that Romney made a lot of enemies because of the unethical manner in which he ran his campaign … and do your level best to pour oil on the wounds … not gasoline.

  2. g says:

    Only a liar really feels comfortable calling another person a liar. ( I am not referring to anyone in particular, by the way)

    • Larry says:

      By that reasoning Jesus was a liar. Prosecutors are similarly compromised … indeed, anyone who issues a moral judgement is guilty of the same. Nancy has offered more than a few pixels remarking on Newt’s past adultery … by your reasoning she’s clearly been unfaithful to David.

      You may want to apply a bit of critical thinking before you attempt to advance silly arguments. BTW, what makes you think I’m comfortable making these remarks … I’m not. But I am a rational responsible adult … that’s my obligation when someone is asking for my vote. Capeesh ?

  3. Terry says:

    Larry–you continue to amuse me. You seem always to engage in a “my logic can beat up your logic” game. Your decision to think of Romney as a habitual liar is your choice, of course. However, you seem to have ruled out entirely the possibility Mitt’s “lies” are actually distortions put together by those who don’t want Mitt as a president. And I still believe that, despite your previous protestations to the contrary, Mitt’s religion is playing a large part in your dislike of him. A Mormon in the White House is anathema to a lot of so-called Christians. We both know that.

    • Larry says:

      Terry, I refer to lies as those remarks which exist in contradictions to the truth … delivered knowingly … intentionally in an effort to manipulate people or events for personal benefit. Lies aren’t subjective. They’re not dependent on our perspective.

      You either communicate facts accurately … or you don’t. If you don’t and you do so knowingly … you lied. Mitt lied repeatedly. During interviews and debates he did so reflexively. When he chose to do so through slander he did so maliciously … clearly motivated by a disturbingly inflated sense of entitlement.

      That he lied is verifiable. That he lied is widely known. That he lied is undeniable … unless the truth is meaningless and facts, when proven inconvenient, are purposely ignored (also deceptive).

      If Mitt did not lie, it would not be possible to prove that he did. However, his lies have been verified repeatedly and historically. This is old hat for Mitt. Your choice to ignore it … your choice to hide from the truth … your choice to provide cover for him … doesn’t, in any degree, mitigate his dishonesty.

      That you continue to obsessively, and frankly, immaturely insist on a motivation of anti-Mormon bigotry suggests both your need hide from the facts and the very clear possibility of a deeply engrained anti-Christan bigotry.

      What is increasingly apparent as well is that Mitt’s Mormonism is what chiefly qualifies him as president in your mind … and why you labor so diligently to mock the opinions and motivations of those critical of Mitt. For you, it all boils down to Mormonism. Huge numbers of Mormons clearly find Mitt appealing because of his Mormonism … every other consideration is unnecessary. Rather like African Americans who found all opposition to Obama the consequence of latent or outright prejudice.

      In that environment, facts and truth are the first casualties … and those who find them central are the first and greatest enemies.

  4. Terry says:

    Larry claims: “What is increasingly apparent as well is that Mitt’s Mormonism is what chiefly qualifies him as president in your mind…”

    For your information, Larry, what a person’s religious preferences are plays absolutely no part in my decision as to what kind of president he would make. If I leaned heavily on Mormonism being a chief qualifier for political office, I would be an avid supporter of Harry Reid, whom I personally believe to be an embarrassment to the church. When considering a person for office, I look at that person’s character, not what church he belongs to.

    Wouldn’t hurt you to do the same.

  5. Larry says:

    Not convinced Terry … you deploy the charge too frequently and too easily. You’ve referenced his Mormonism and its effects with predictable regularity. And of course, you lob the Anti-Mormon bomb at the first mention of Mitt’s deficiencies.

    I was serving a racially mixed congregation as an interim during the 2008 election. My views on race were known and respected by white and black members alike. Never-the-less, when privately pressed, during a phone call to my home, by a black member regarding the approaching election, I finally explained that I would be voting for McCain … and explained, in no little detail, why.

    I was assured that Obama was not liberal … speeches were cited. I cited his record and explained the fundamental difference between the two candidates positions. As the conversation drew to a close, this black member, who previously had nothing but the highest regard for me, firmly declared that I was a racist.

    I was noticeably surprised. I asked which of my statements betrayed my prejudice. The member could cite nothing specifically. End the end, it was my opposition alone which served as sufficient evidence of my bigotry.

    I was stunned. However, in the ensuing weeks, that encounter became the normal, expected experience. Nothing I could say, nothing of my past, nothing of my character …. nothing would persuade these omniscient interlocutors that I was not, in fact, a racist. They were decidedly and irrevocably convinced that I would not, no, I could not support Obama because of his color … period.

    That their position betrayed their own deep-seated bigotry never occurred to them. I was encouraged when, more than a year later I received another call from this same individual during which they apologized for their remarks and attitude. They were embarrassed at both the ugliness and the stupidity of their charges against me.

    I have observed the many remarks on this site regarding alleged instances of anti-Mormon bigotry. While there are certain to be some … it appears to more often than not be a convenient boogieman … and an expression of your own anti-Christian bigotry. The absurdity and hypocrisy of your remarks and position remain invisible to you. It’s more comfortable that way I’m sure.

    Particularly frustrating for you, however, is the fact I’ve cited before. Namely, that I voted for Romney during the 2008 primaries. Of course you handily dismissed that as a lie. Rather like “G” above. Well, as I noted earlier, inconvenient facts are denied or dismissed. Anything to protect the narrative.

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>