Comments on: Romney explains ’92 vote for Tsongas

By: 511 pants

511 pants — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:28:45 +0000

Thank you very much for the great information.
Thanks
511 pants

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:11:37 +0000

To those who keep deriding William Mayer as a liberal democrat biased against Romney, let me tell you he is anything BUT a liberal.

By: jeff

jeff — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:27:48 +0000

“I just wish we could give the Veep a new ticker, a diet and some charm school lessons. Cheney really is what this nation needs in 2008.
Posted by: Romney Wrong-O | Feb 17, 2007 3:01:40 AM”
If Cheney ran the democrats would win in a landslide that made Reagan’s win in 1980 seem like a close race.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 11:04:58 +0000

http://privatesnapshots.com/

By: DemWin

DemWin — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 00:55:51 +0000

Romney’s explanation is wrong on many levels. Firstly, I think to vote for the weakest candidate in the other party’s primary is pretty immature and does not uphold the principles of democracy.
Secondly, Romney didn’t even apologize for it. He acted like this was normal voter behavior.
Thirdly, I am a registered Democrat because I believe in the ideals and philosophy of the Democratic Party. Romney, on the other hand, was a Republican (we think) but didn’t want to declare himself as such, even though he says he has always voted Republican. There is a word for this: coward.
Fourthly, his explanation for voting for Tsongas wasn’t even honest. Why didn’t he just say, because he was the best Democrat in the field, so I voted for him because Bush ran mostly unopposed. Not a great explanation–but better than lie he chose to tell, not to mention choose to dishonor a person who can not defend himself.
If I were a political animal, I would vote for him because these flip-flops will catch up with him and make him weak in the general election. I prefer to keep my integrity intact and vote in my own party’s primary. And wish for a better Republican candidate than Mitt Romney.

By: Steve Carpenter

Steve Carpenter — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:08:11 +0000

Wait a minute… The endorsement of Paul Tsongas may have had more significance, possibly positive significance, to ‘true’ fiscal conservatives than the original story or comments indicate. Mike hinted at it (above) when he researched Tsongas’ economic postions and found he was the “Democrat that he could most live with”. Tsongas was centrist and fiscally conservative — MUCH more so than the current Rebublican President. Check out the organization Tsongas co-founded with REPUBICAN Warren Rudman: The Concord Coalition.
What’s unfortunate is that Romney, rather than use this opportunity to embrace the fiscal conservative philosophy of Senator Tsongas, choses to distance himself from Tsongas and use an obviously a lame explanation for his past support for fear that the electorate and press aren’t smart enough to understand a ‘real’ explanation. It backfired. Certainly John Kerry’s failure can be attributed in part to not dealing with such issues in a positive, head-on way. Romney should take pause, contemplate that lesson and try respecting the electorate a bit more. Apart from this political error, I actually find Romney more interesting knowing that he supported Tsongas at one time.

By: Beau

Beau — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 02:32:31 +0000

In response to the statement above that Mormon elected officials get their marching orders from the President of the Church, I would like to know where the individual who made this comment got his information. Everything I have ever learned about the Mormon Church flies in the face of that statement, and the fact that the above individual referred to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as the “Councel [Council] of the Twelve” lends me to believe that this person does not possess a deep knowledge of the Mormon Church.
The above statement is also contrary of the fact that the First Presidency of the Church issues a letter of political neutrality that is read from every pulpit before every election. While church members may lean one way or another, the church does not endorse any candidate or party. There are also members of senior church leadership that affiliate themselves with different political parties. Once again, the church is neutral regarding candidates and political parties.
My response is this….if every elected Mormon official receives his marching orders from the President of the Church, what is the President’s advice…is it something like this….”Harry Reid, you support the democrats and their platform, and then you Mitt, you support the Republicans.” I fail to see how this makes any sense.

By: Mike A.

Mike A. — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:04:10 +0000

Dave wrote: It is said; “Once the prophet has spoken, there is nothing more to be said” and “Every year all elected mormon officials meet with the Councel of Twelve and the Prophet to get their instructions for the new season.” What a joke, every major politician for the past 50 years has met with the Mormon prophet as well. He leads a church with 12 million members, of course politicians will meet with him. The Mommon church does not tell it’s members how to vote or coduct public policy, it tells it’s members how to live good “spiritual lives.” Things like; Wait until marriage to have sex, don’t drink alchohol or do drugs, read the scriptures, pray. Every year the church comes out with a political nuetrality statement. It seems ok for a democrat to speak from every black church pulpit in the south without being accused of following their leaders but a Mormon cannot say antyhing without being accused of pandering to his church. Harry Reid is a Mormon, Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Which one is going against the teacings of his church and if he is why has’nt the church excommunicated Harry Reid, the answere is they don’t care.

By: Chet

Chet — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 23:45:51 +0000

So far it’s a sure thing for liberals in 08. They have Hillary, Obama, McCain, Giuliani, and Romney…

By: Darek

Darek — Sat, 17 Feb 2007 22:17:30 +0000

Hmm, so let me get this right. Someone in the media is concerned about a vote cast in 1992? Is it just me, but I seem to recall Hillary Clinton making something like $100,000 dollars on a $1,000 purchase of cattle futures? Now, if I remember correctly, the media didn’t seem all that interested in the story, despite the fact that it was well documented. But we are concerned about a vote, yes a VOTE! back in 1992. One seems rather trivial, the other seems quite serious. And they say the media isn’t biased.