« i'm in for $10 at 10 | Main | answering the charges »

Tuesday, 15 January 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


#1 On MLK he could have seen his dad on TV marching with King,which he did and helped organize in Michigan. The NRA thing was a gaffe for sure but minor, it could have been a local chapter. He is not a gun-grabber.
#2 It was Mittcare or socialist care in Mass, the uber-liberals were about to pass state paid care. He had nothing to do with the abortion provision and does not want a federal mandate.
#3 Gun control, he was overridden by the uber-liberals. He understands assault weapon to mean a fully-automatic machine gun not a semi-auto deer rifle. He believes we have the right to protect our homes and families.
#4 On judges, he didn't have much choice in the way they were selected.
I believe there have been more lies told about Mitt than any other candidate that I can remember. I can spin Fred's record on the issues as well, he wrote McCain-Feingold and voted for it for one. Mitt has lived the most conservative life of any of the candidates in family, business, politics, action and deed. That is where I look to find out their first principals and how they deal with them not at well spoken words on the campaign trail. I have been looking hard at Mitt for years and while I disagree in places, overall he is our best candidate.


Oh and BTW, Robert Bork is backing Mitt and has made radio ads for him.


Remember politics is as much about emotion, energy and excitement as it is about policy and policy especially sound policy is none of those. SC is much more important to Fred than Michigan was for Mitt and losing to Ron Paul in three of the first four is not good. When do y'all vote? If Fred does not last, will you support Mitt or Rudy? If Mitt had left before 2/5 I would get behind Fred or Rudy and I would vote for Dr.Paul before Huckabee.

heidianne jackson

wow, goat, i believe i hit a nerve. however, let me address your comments

1. if he saw him on t.v. marching with mlk, why didn't he say so? in every source i've been able to find he has only said that he meant it figuratively. from the free press archives (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071220/NEWS07/712200442) there is this: Romney's campaign cited various historical articles, as well as a 1967 book written by Stephen Hess and Washington Post political columnist David Broder, as confirmation that George Romney marched with King in Grosse Pointe in 1963.

"He has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb," Hess and Broder wrote in "The Republican Establishment: The Present and Future of the GOP.

"Free Press archives, however, showed no record of King marching in Grosse Pointe in 1963 or of then-Gov. Romney taking part in King's historic march down Woodward Avenue in June of that year.

George Romney told the Free Press at the time that he didn't take part because it was on a Sunday and he avoided public appearances on the Sabbath because of his religion.

Romney did participate in a civil rights march protesting housing bias in Grosse Pointe just six days after the King march. According to the Free Press account, however, King was not there."

if you have verifiable information to the contrary, please provide it to me so i can correct my post.

2. the point is, goat, that mittcare is not very different from hillarycare. if it was a forced situation that he didn't really agree with, then why does he tout it as his own? why does he state that this is what he will bring to the rest of the country? in fact, why did he sign it into law? if he disagreed with it so strongly than he should have vetoed it and let the legislature override him. the result would have been that the state would still have this horrible health care and he could say, in all honesty, that he didn't have anything to do with it.

i already said that i'm not concerned with the abortion thing. i get why it is what it is for abortion in massachusetts. don't look for an argument where i have none...

my only concern is that he, like huckabee, is in favor of a federal ban on abortion. don't get me wrong, i subscribe to the same thoughts about life as michael moriarty (http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272618241.shtml); i just don't agree with his (or anyone else's) stance that it should be done at the federal level.

3. on gun control - goat, i wrote only on what i could verify as having come from his mouth. there is plenty of video available to support everything that i typed on this (and every other topic i introduced). please point me to where, prior to deciding to run for president, mitt acknowledges the peoples' write to bear arms for things other than i mentioned. until very recently he publicly voiced his support to expand gun control.

and as for the nra thingy being a minor thing, i disagree. i believe it shows his character, again.

4. as for the judges, while it is true that there is a 9 person commission who have to sign off on the appointed judges, how is this different from having to get the nod from the senate? based on the fact that the majority of persons nominated for jugdehood during his tenure were libs why should i believe that he would behave any differently if the senate were [still] primarily liberal? additionally, his flaunting of the law in issuing the executive order for the allowance of homosexual marriages in massachusetts is a deal closer for me. it is just further indication of where his heart and mind tend to wander.

i'm not spinning mitt's record, goat, i am simply reporting only that which i have been able to verify. i did not print any innuendos or meanderings from the blogs. i painstakingly went through every charge i could find to make certain i presented as truthful a post as possible. but you're right, anyone can spin anything - but videos and state records aren't subject to spin when you watch the whole thing.

as for fred authoring mccain-feingold, source please. i have been unable to find anything from a reputable source to indicate there is any truth to this. i have found several bloggers for other candidates who are alluding to this, but none list their sources.

as near as i have been able to ascertain, fred was a sponsor of mccain-feingold. i don't like it and there is no way to spin that to a positive or change the record. however, it is something i can live with and i sincerely hope that someday it will be overturned. kind of the same view i have on roe v. wade.

i, too, have looked at mitt for years. more than half my family still lives in massachusetts, are registered republicans, all are politically active, all are gun owners and are also reagan conservatives. with the exception of one cousin, a law student, they all believe that mitt sold them out and have stated they will NOT be voting for romney even if he gets the nomination. that carries a lot of weight with me. i would hope you could understand that.

i too look at how people conduct their lives and in terms of being conservative, even in a liberal state, with the exception of abortion, mitt headed left way too often for my likes.

heidianne jackson

i know about bork, goat. i acknowledged it above: "i'm still trying to figure out why, when romney has embraced judicial activism so strongly bork endorsed him."

i have read all that bork has written on the subject and i have listened to everything i can find and i STILL don't get the endorsement and neither do a lot of others. no matter, bork DID endorse romney and that's that.

heidianne jackson

as i said above, goat, i honestly don't know what i'll do if fred doesn't get the nod. i may just sit it out, let the dems get in and hope that in 4 years people will be ready for a real grownup and a real conservative in the whitehouse. i can't see myself voting for rudy or huck for 100% - but between romney and paul, i just don't know at this point. i'll probably vote for romney if he gets the nomination, but if one of the others do, i just don't know.

Patrick Joubert Conlon

That was excellent, Heidianne. Mitt's got big faults but, if Fred picks him as VP, I will not be unhappy.


Hillary care is paid for by the government, Mitt's plan expanded private insurance to allow individuals and small businesses to group together for the smae rates as large buyers, a huge difference. He wants tort reform and investment in technology to lower costs not the single-payer gov;t plan that Hillary wants and he wants it to be state by state not federal.
I support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of responsible citizens as does he.
He has said he would love to see a day when abortions don't occur but acknowledges that is wishful thinking. Why would Bork support him if he didn't think Mitt had a solid constitutional conservative approach to the judiciary? Remember he had to deal with a legislature easily able to over ride his vetoes so he should not get blamed for that. Romney blasted judicial activism on the gay marriage issue and fought to get a measure on the ballot the uber-liberals blocked.
I will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is and support them because even Huckabee would not be as bad as a Clinton or Obama win in Nov. I consider myself a Constitutional Federalist and Fred is damn good on many issues but so are the rest except Paul and Huckabee. You said actions speak louder than words, look at Mitt's life, is there anything unconservative about it? I like Fred alot but his life story while darn good isn't as good as Mitt's. What other candidate has accomplished what Mitt has? A big happy robust family, a successful business career, and zero ethical problems not to mention taking a couple years out of his young life for missionary work, what other cadidate has done that?


Patrick, I think Fred and Mitt would make an excellent team. I will say this in that scenario I would prefer Fred to head the ticket on the age issue or we'd be back here in 8 yrs without a direct nominee.

heidianne jackson

just noticed one more thing, goat. you made the comment that paul has beat thompson in three of the four states - this is untrue. thompson beat paul in both iowa and wyoming. additionally, as far as delegates go is in 4th place and paul is fifth with 2, followed by giuliani and hunter with 1 each.

heidianne jackson

patrick, i couldn't agree more :-)


I will say alot of what I know about Mitt has come from long form radio interviews, mainly on Hugh's show, so I don't have direct quotes to back me up. I don't have time to dig through radio archives to find them.


Good post, Heidianne. I was going to remind you of the same as Goat, however, on Fred's participation with McCain/Feingold. It used to be called McCain/Feingold/Thompson when it was originally passed and Fred was on many tv interviews taking credit for it, too. I don't have a specific at my fingertips but until he began running for president, he was happy to claim participation.

No one is a 'true' conservative this time around and it's unrealistic to expect any candidate to meet all requirements for everyone. I also think Fred went negative first on the national stage - remember the debate where the candidates produced short videos? His went first and shocked everyone in the audience as it was a negative attack on Mitt, I think, when everyone else's spoke to the candidate's stong points. In the last few days, he has also been short with the interviewers on Fox. Just sayin'.

I've got no particular problem with Fred. I don't think, however, he's any better than the frontrunners. Just my two cents.


Did a quick research scan and find these two examples right off the bat. Reference to the 105th Congress, Jan. 21, 1997, text of S.25, lists Thompson as a sponsor of campaign finance reform with McCain/Feingold.

A lengthy article in the June 23, 2007 edition of the Washington Times listing Thompson's record as compared to other Republicans/conservatives. As the Senator from Tennessee, for example, he is consistently listed as more 'liberal' than the other Senator from Tennessee, Frist, on social issues and domestic issues.

It's an interesting article. I googled Thompson's senate career and found it. I knew his connection was out there but was too lazy to do the legwork. Hope this helps you.

Robert (ConservativeCommentary)

Fantastic post. I have linked it.

I am fully supportive of Thompson, but he isn't getting any traction. His campaign has been lackluster and I just don't even see a well reasoned strategy. At this point I still have him as my candidate, but I am looking for the alternate.


awesome work Heidi!..at least Romney can bump McCain!...thanks for the vis to my humble abode and yes u were number one!.Heh!:)

heidianne jackson

goat and karen, i'm writing a new post to address these remarks about fred and frist. goat another post is coming to explain my points with mittcare.

robert, thanks for the links, great to see you here again...

angel, yea me!!! and yea romney!!! i was so happy to see him beat out mccain.


Wow, Awesome post! I also support Fred completely. He is the only true conservative in my eyes, and I really dread what will happen if he doesn't get the nomination. Thanks for all the effort you put into this, it really shows and was very informative.


Remember Mitt had to work within the confines of an uber-liberal Mass. legislature when you write that on Mittcare. I am sure his personal approach would have been far more free-market and conservative if he had the choice. I am not anti-Fred just pro-Mitt and would love for Fred and Mitt to be the last two standing then we could get some real meat and potatoes policy debates. I could think of nothing better than a roundtable with them and Newt moderating either of them will make chopped liver of the Dems in a policy debate.

Shaw Kenawe

"...all of the rights delineated in the bill of rights are granted to each of us by god and not by government."

WRONG. Where exactly in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it say we receive these rights and laws from god? Nowhere.

Now you may believe this country is blessed by god and god especially loves the US above all other countries--fine. But that's not what the Constitution states. And our laws are based on the Constitution, not the Bible.

You contradicted yourself in the very next sentence where you wrote "...in america government is of the people, by the people for the people. Nowhere does it say "of, by, or for god."

Another contradiction: Our government is elected by the people and it represents us, we the people. If government is the problem, then it is WE the people who elected it, who are the problem. It's not Them vs. Us. The government is US.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner