A Reader Responds.

mitt.jpg     On Monday some political hack posted a cheap shot on Governor Mitt Romney. Several people posted comments contradicting the story. A reader sent us the following response.

I was disappointed today when I read Another Romney Flip Flop. This sends an incorrect message to Republican voters that Romney cannot be trusted. Nothing could be further from the truth. I had a chance to meet Mitt Romney last month and I must say that I couldn’t have been more impressed. He is the genuine article; a man of conviction; a true “Reagan” conservative.

The term Flip-Flop was used to describe John Kerry changing his mind on issues depending on his audience or without explaining to the public a change of heart. He was hoping that they would not remember what he had said earlier. Such has not been the case with Mitt Romney. He has publicly stated that when reviewing his position on abortion and after much research and soul searching that he has changed his mind and realized that we as a nation must defend all innocent life. Is Ronald Reagan also guilty of ”Flip-Flopping” because he was once a Democrat? He, like Romney, also changed his viewpoint on the sanctity of life. I thought that we Republicans agreed after the last election that we were not going to put negative labels on fellow Republicans, eating our own so to speak.

We should not criticize our candidates, but let the voters decide who is best qualified to represent them according to their experience, view on the issues, and how well they communicate with the public. Stick the “Flip-Flopping” label where it belongs, squarely on the Democrats. Having met Mitt Romney personally, listened to what he believes in his heart, and having learned of his many accomplishments, I am firmly convinced that he is the obvious choice to be our next President.


Comments

  1. I agree with the phrase, “We should not criticize our candidates, but let the voters decide who is best qualified to represent them according to their experience, view on the issues, and how well they communicate with the public.” However, from a blog perspective an honest discussion of the issues and personal position cannot be withheld but the blatant purpose of degrading is destructive to the party more so than the candidate.

    It is clear two of the contributors to this site have vastly different views of their purpose and role as part of the “Sonoran Alliance”. Now I must ask the question, is the moderator responsible for content? Also, is this standard to be held to by all contributors and if so, what will be the McCain factor in future posts? Or, is every contributor free to post whatsoever they desire and let the public respond?

  2. When I read the description, “some political hack” I feared the readers would attribute the posting to me because of a recent Arizona Republic editorial. For the record, I had nothing to do with it and do not know who posted the article.

  3. Senator Harper,

    Thank you for commenting.

    Rest assured we would never refer to you in those terms no matter what the Arizona Republic may write. Have a great day.

  4. Keen Observer says

    Have no fear, Senator. Few of us consider you a “political hack.”

    And, as to the line of questioning you used during hearings on the dire situation at the AZ Veteran Home: Seems as though drawing a corollary between the long-standing relationship Alan Stephens has had with his boss, Janet Napolitano, was an entirely appropriate line of questioning.
    The point was to establish the basis of his desire to give her cover on this hot issue.

Leave a Reply