Another side of Mitt Romney?
M. Mason has been fiercely opposing Romney at VFR over his Mormonism. VFR has been open to all sides of the issue. Now Mr. Mason says that Romney also ought to be opposed by conservatives because he’s not honest. I personally think the conclusions stated below are somewhat overheated, especially when we remember that, if Romney were the nominee, the choice would not be between perfection and Romney, but between Hillary/Obama/Edwards and Romney. Nevertheless, the views brought forward by Mr. Mason ought to be considered.
M. Mason writes:
Even laying aside for a moment the issue of Romney’s disqualifying anti-Christian Mormonism, his political record as governor has been appalling. Read John Haskins’ concise summary of “Mitt Romney’s Legacy in Massachusetts.” Then take a look at this one page column at Townhall by Sandy Rios about Romney’s actions during the fight over homosexual “marriage” licenses being issued in Massachusetts by a rogue court.
M. Mason writes:
I just wanted to thank you for giving me a fair hearing at VFR about Romney. I’m finished with him for now, and while I’m strongly opposed to his being President, the other current Republican front-runners are also unacceptable as far as I’m concerned; Giuliani for the reasons you have already cogently stated and Huckabee because he, too, is a walking liberal train wreck. Unless Thompson is somehow able to light a fire under himself, firm up his conservative credentials and his stance on immigration—and it would help if at least privately he let leak out that his participation in the Univision debate was a serious mistake—I can’t see voting for him either. As far as being President is concerned, though, my sense is that Thompson can either take it or leave it, so he’ll probably leave it. Unless the ideological dynamics of the race shifts in a significant way, I’ll most likely have to settle for a write-in vote next November for Tancredo.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 14, 2007 11:54 AM | Send