Published: Tuesday, Feb. 14 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Thanks for writing Scott. I alays appreciate a man willing to state the honest
and difficult truth. That's what you did and I, for one, appreciate it.
Besides your great points, the Romney "strategery" includes a whole
lotta lyin'! Google 'fact-check Romney' if you don't believe me. I'm guessing
this is a moot point for Romney Faithful.
It's interesting that someone would try to tie negative advertising to religious
intolerance or religious bigotry. Is there a connection? Must
Romney, or any other candidate "tolerate" other candidates telling the
world what Romney is, or what Romney thinks, or what THEY think Romney will do?
Is Romney barred from using FREE SPEECH to defend what he is, what he thinks,
and what he will do? Is Romney barred from telling the world what others have
done?Saying that Romney must turn the other cheek in a political
campaign would be saying that he is NOT running for President of the United
States, but that he is somehow trying be elected Bishop, or Stake President, or
primary teacher. Make no mistake, Romney has the same right to
speak negatively, just as the letter writer DID.
As the front runner, Romney is exposed to millions of dollars of negative
stories from the press. I have read many of them from liberal newspapers and am
appalled at the overtly negative slant they take to an otherwise neutral story.
So I consider the Super Liberal Media PAC is against Romney. Generally the other candidates have been given a free pass. I have read a few
negative stories on the others, but it is at a ratio of about 5 to Romney to 1
for the others. The only time I see a spike in news stories is when one of the
others briefly pops into first place. There was one just yesterday that said
Romney did nothing for the Winter Olympics at all. People generally
vote for those people they have heard the least negative about, assuming they
are better people. There is in reality plenty of negative history about the
other candidates but it isn't talked about. For example, Gingrich's ethics
violations. Most people don't know or recall many details about the sordid
political past of this man. When people find out who he is, they don't vote for
him. I disagree that Romney's ads are full of inaccuracies. I have
also read the political fact checker sites and the so called inaccuracies are
almost inconsequential compared to the main facts that are being presented. For
example, in one ad he talks about how Gingrich worked for Fannie Mae as the
housing market crashed. The fact checker sites say it was inaccurate because it
insinuates that Fannie caused the housing market crash. But the fact still
remains that Gingrich worked for the company.I don't like the
negativity either, no one does. But studies show that it sticks with people
more than the positive stuff. All of the candidates do it. Rick Santorum
hasn't much because he has no money and he hasn't been ahead, but now he has had
a taste of success he is jumping on the same bandwagon. He lashed out at Romney
on the news yesterday calling him "desperate." Ron Paul's negative
ads are legendary and Gingrich's 30 minutes attack movie against Romney was
called "The biggest hoax since big foot."Obama will be 40xs
worse. His PAC's ads against Romney won some of the awards for the most
dishonest PAC ads in ANY political race this year. A wise friend
once told me, in politics you vote for the lesser of all the evils. I would
vote for Santorum if he had ANY experience in business or marketing. He is to
me, the evangelical anti-Mormon candidate. I see absolutely nothing going for
him besides the fact that he isn't Mormon, and I have studied his political
history to a good extent. The best of the bunch right now is
Scott, you forgot the punch line. The 5% of positive ads run by Mitt's super
pac were in Spanish!With Santortum polling well in Michigan, we'll
have to sit back and wait and see if the Romney pac ads turn negative.
I think you know the answers to your questions. There is no way
that Utahns and this paper would support an East coast moderate (at best, and
perhaps tends liberal based on his public statements) who hails from
Massachusetts, raised with a silver spoon, and had no clue about the middle
class, if the guy was not Mormon.
Ok, just what did Romney say about Newt that was a lie? And what did Newt say
about Romney that was the truth?
If Scott were to ask his question to Mitt face to face, the answer he'd get
would be "Yes, I've noticed many negative ads, but all of them come from
the Super Pac which happens to support my campaign. The Supreme Court bars me
from communicating with them in any way, and they have this huge pile of money
(I have no idea where it all came from) that they have to spend. I'm sorry, but
I just can't help you because THEY are independent." Thus we see the world
SCOTUS created with "Citizens United". Scott will have to take his
question to Scalia. He shouldn't expect a sympathetic answer.
We have examples of Romney using quotes about a John McCain aid...
as Obama's words: **'First Romney TV ad blasts Obama' - By Mercedes
White, Deseret News - 11/22/11 It appears that in that instance,
Obama was quoting an aide to then-2008 opponent Sen. John McCain (sic) That
might be beside the point though because...' - article Romney's very
first ad! We have examples of Mitt Romney making bets:
**Taking heat over his $10,000 bet, Mitt Romney responds with the story from his
LDS mission By Jamshid Ghazi Askar Published by DSnews - 12/12/2011 And yet this is all considered 'acceptable' by some Mormons I have spoken
with in regards to Mitt Romney... but does NOT reflect the belief
structure of the LDS church. So, which is it? Is Romney
following Mormon teachings... or is he getting a free pass because
he is running for President? Scott nailed this one. And
no one can present a valid defense as to 'why' there is a Double. Standard.
While lies are universally reprehensible, there is some question about the label
"negative" concerning political ads. Often the simple act of pointing
out an opponents's voting record or statements is labelled "negative."
What really constitutes a "negative" ad -- lies? Taking statements
out of context? Stating facts about personal history? Scary music? A
deep-voiced announcer?Before decrying a "negative"
campaign, we should all first define what "negative" includes.
Statements of fact should not be included, nor should direct quotes taken in
full context.And when making assertions about lies, as in this
letter, one should always include the offending statements and explain how they
are untrue. Evaluation by "third parties" is not necessarily
reliable, as all humans are opinionated, biased, and fallible.
Amen, Scott. As an unaffiliated (partywise) LDS voter, I have been troubled by
Mitt's willingness to lie and grossly misrepresent reality. Unfortunately, this
is the nature of politics. To be elected to the highest office in the land,
apparently you have to be willing to say ridiculous things that the extreme (and
controlling) element of your party believes. It's sad that the greatest casualty
of presidential politics is the truth. Too bad Mitt is willing to say just about
anything to win. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his next temple recommend
interview, when that question about being honest in all your dealings comes up.
It would be even more fun if his bishop happened to be a Democrat.
Has anyone noticed that on the DNews website there is no way to comment on
Thomas Friedman's marvelous editorial about the Republican Party that appeared
in today's paper, or even to read it online? Is there some restriction by the NY
Times on Friedman's columns, or is this just another ploy by the DNews to
restrict access to anything left of center? Just curious.
Once again we have Mike Richards saying one thing one day and another the next.
The letter is clear. Deseret News and other publications have asked (yet again)
for civility. None of the candidates hold any punches in their ad
campaigns around the country.The Deseret News and other Utah news outlets
conveniently forget that Mitt does this just like other candidates, and they
cast the negative light on the others but not Mitt. A clear and tangible double
standard. No one said Mitt doesn't have the right to do this. Although
many might ask why someone who is supposedly following the teachings of Christ
would need to resort to this type of campaign.Has anyone ever TRIED
running a campaign that didn't involved negative ads about your opponent?
Wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air?
Great point.WWJD?Jon Huntsman dropped out, rather than
go negative.Who's the better Mormon?============== @Mike Richards | 6:16 a.m. Feb. 14, 2012 South Jordan, Utah It's
interesting that someone would try to tie negative advertising to religious
intolerance or religious bigotry. Is there a connection? ---- Mitt
Romeny is HARDLY a good example of Mormonism.YOU might think he is a
Saint, others of us don't.But - whatever's good for the
"Party", justifies the means.
Scott, which of Romney's opponents religions did he attack?I pity
Romney, actually. He has Fox News openly campaigning for any republican but
Romney and every other news media outlet openly, actively, and vigorously
campaigning for BO.
Mr. Midvaliean,Isn't it clever that you think that you can attack
others and at the same time defend yourself by saying: "Although many might
ask why someone who is supposedly following the teachings of Christ would need
to resort to this type of campaign."?Bad-mouthing other posters
is nothing more than negative campaigning.Just what did you mean
when you said, "Once again we have Mike Richards saying one thing one day
and another the next."? You did not tell us what your problem with Mr.
Richards is. You left it up to us to guess you mind. It is not hard to see that
you use every opportunity to attack Mr. Richards. What is surprising is that
when he responds, he makes the issue perfectly clear. That is
exactly what Mitt Romney also does. When he is attacked, he does not make some
absurd remark and then run and hide. He gives enough details that anyone
reading or hearing can see for themselves that he is speaking the truth.You might try following Mr. Romney's example.
This whole line of discussion demanding that Romney lives up to some level of
zero attacks BECAUSE he is Mormon seems a little backwards.Gingrich
- CatholicSantorum - CatholicPaul - BaptistRomney - MormonObama - Christian? (and Pagan don't freak out I honestly am not sure
which religion he belongs to)To my knowledge all of these religions
preach "do unto others" sentiments. Why act like all of Romney's
supporters should run away because he goes negative AND he is Mormon.My question is ... where should we run to?
It's only wrong if you're not a republican, or in this venue, a mormon
Don't worry about Mitt Romney, he's done.So to are these fools:Gingrich - CatholicSantorum - CatholicPaul - BaptistI guess the Democrat's are fixing this election when the voting system
is in confusion, with about 1.8 million dead people listed on the rolls, some
2.8 million with active registrations in more than one state and 12 million with
serious enough errors to make it unlikely that mail, from any political party or
election board, can reach the right destination. In all, some 24 million
registrations contain significant errors.Obama2012In a land-slide.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments