This article says:
"...As a candidate for governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported gay unions; now he opposes them ..."
How many times do we have to keep going over this? When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Click here for an article from 2002 showing this FACT. Here is a message to the main stream media. Stop saying lies. Especially things that can easily be shown as lies.
~ Mike
WASHINGTON - The most liberal member of Congress running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination isn't Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.
It's Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
And the Republican candidate who's grown less conservative over his years in Congress? Sen. John McCain of Arizona...
The study, released this month by the National Journal, a respected inside-the-Beltway research report, will help voters cut through the spin and hype of TV sound bites in coming months and judge these candidates for themselves.
Unlike TV commercials that focus on a single vote, these rankings are based on comprehensive voting records. The 2006 scores, for example, were based on as many as 95 votes on such issues as federal spending, tax cuts, the war in Iraq, embryonic stem-cell research and border security.
On the Democratic side, the analysis of "lifetime" voting records shows Obama as the most liberal with a score of 84.3 after two full years in the Senate. The most liberal score possible was 99...
The rankings differ if you look only at their 2006 scores. That year Kucinich edged Obama by one point as the most liberal, and Clinton was the least liberal, as she sought re-election and prepared to launch her presidential campaign...
The year-to-year scores can reveal consistency or change. McCain, for example, grew increasingly less conservative in recent years...
McCain got a 46 for social issues - left of center...
I've blogged about it, and links to the new 527 web sire are in the
post. So be aware.
http://capecodporcupine.blogspot.com/2007/03/fox-and-some-grapes.html
(apologies for any duplicates)
--
Yr. Obedient Servant,
Peter Porcupine
Well there is a new entry to my list of Romney speeches. Click here to go directly to see the latest CPAC speech . As always (on my site), clicking on the word Education from the text of his speech will bring you to all the Romney "Education" Press Releases and quotes and stuff that I have found so far.
Today I also added something to my criticism of Romney page. The new addition is the accusation that, " Romney raised fees in Massachusetts." Have you guys heard this? You never hear people say what fees he raised. But aren't consumption taxes better than income taxes? Besides was Romney the person who raised fees or did cities raise fees? You never hear specifics...
Besides Romney's record on taxes is the best of the 2008 candidates by far. You need to go no farther than here to see that. Look at his record from 2002 on through today. It is awesome.
Contrast that to Rudy's. NYC debt rose by $16 billion during his tenure in office to a total of $43 billion, and by the end of his term New Yorkers were paying around $6 billion a year in interest alone. His record on debt screams incompetence.
As always, I am looking for additional info! Please help me if I forgot something...
~ Mike
This article says the following:
-In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.
Why does the media keep repeating this lie about Romney? When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney declared his opposition to both same-sex marriage and civil unions. Click here for a link to a 2002 article that explains this.
There is no change. Why is it that the media attacks Romney over non existing flip-flops, but does not attack Hillary of her support, and now opposition to the war?
It often seems that journalist would rather cause problems, than fix them . They don't even try to give an accurate portraits of what Romney believes. But this is not new. Journalist tend to over simplify things. Else why do they summarize the president's speech, when you can read the whole thing online. Why do they have to put it into their own words? Ego?
Edward R. Murrow said; "The line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one ." I actually disagree with this. I think it is obvious when you have crossed the line into persecution. When you don't follow journalistic standards. When you don't treat all the candidates the same. When you oversimplify someone's position, when you misrepresent someone's position... these are all examples of persecution.
Thomas Jefferson has said; "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle." This is, of course, an exaggeration, but what would motivate TJ to say this? Newspapers are not motivated by finding truth. They are motivated by selling adds. Controversy sells readers. Newspapers promote controversy (just like Eminem). But it is more than just saying, journalist will have more stories to write about if there is more conflict is in the world . Ads are sold by conflict, but they are also sold by reassuring the reader what they already believe. Thus newspapers in liberal areas tend to attack conservatives, and newspapers in Red States tend to attack liberals. But which came first? The chicken or the egg? Did the liberal newspapers cause liberals to become liberal, or does the newspaper follow the liberals?
Others have observed that the media likes to start fights. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956) has said; "All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else."
So the newspapers will not help us figure out who we need in 2008. They will never sit down and do a thorough analysis of both sides of each issue. They will just miss-quote and misrepresent each side just enough to keep both sides angry. So what are we to do? We should go around them. We should sit down and figure out for ourselves.
Is Mitt Romney a flip-flopper? In the next two years, you will never see the media try to figure this out. You will just hear them use whatever names they can get to stick. So lets figure it out ourselves. Please help me compile all the reasons to agree or disagree that Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper. I will, unlike the media, present both sides.
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/flip-flop
I look forward to your comments, and will add whatever people tell me to add. I won't silence you, by ignoring your logic (like the media). I will silence you buy bringing up good reasons to disagree with you.
~ Mike
