Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Commentary by Joseph Farah of World Net Daily criticizing Mitt Romney appears more personal opinion than anything based on fact. The first five paragraphs certainly are. While Farah asserts Romney has one chance to become President that assumption could apply to anyone. Further asserting that one chance is due to his wealth and successful campaign efforts in early states is probably half right. While his personal wealth is of limited value to the campaign beyond what personal loans he has submitted, all candidates have the choice to campaign in early states. To offer this as Romney’s one chance to win applies to other candidates as well. So what’s the point?

While Iowa and New Hampshire traditionally influence candidate success and performing poorly may spell disaster, assuming success in these two states might be enough for nomination is presumptuous at best. The subsequent insults to Romney in the next two lines supports the view that this commentary is primarily personal opinion or a simple attempt to sway opinion of Romney with nothing more than opinion and insults from the author.

The fifth and final paragraph of this initial rant of Farah’s almost made a valid point. It the intent was to compare a candidate’s history with campaign messages and the like, that would be useful. But again the valid point almost made is damaged by an opinion that Romney is attempting to re-invent himself and his record contradicts his words. To suggest the comparison is reasonable. But to omit the very real problem of sifting through available information and the need to make a concerted effort to check the validity of that information is unfortunate. The tendency to use unsupported claims and conclusions in the remainder of the commentary is quite clear.

Farah’s conclusion, ‘For instance, Romney today claims to be pro-life. Yet he ran for governor as a staunch supporter of abortion on demand ‘, uses the words ’staunch’ and ‘on demand’ without any proof. Here is a quote from a piece at NewsMax on this topic.

When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney pledged not to change the state’s abortion laws, despite his personal opposition.

That does not sound like staunch support for abortion on demand. Here’s another excerpt from News Max.

He also said he believes each state should decide whether to allow abortion, rather than having the “one size fits all” precedent of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that legalized abortion.

Does this prove that Romney’s stand on abortion is above criticism? Probably not, but it certainly does not offer the same harsh and misleading appraisal as given by Farah. Proving or disproving the validity of the statements, positions or conclusions of others requires outstanding effort. There is more to be considered in the Farah commentary but to this point it should be obvious not all is fair about his characterizations of Romney. And the main point here is not to offer this critique of Farah’s commentary as superior but as notice not to accept such information at face value.

After Farah’s opinion of Romney on abortion was expressed he moved on to draw conclusions on Romney’s record on same sex marriage. In the first of two paragraphs, again with no supporting evidence, he harshly and with insults offers his opinion as if it were fact. The way in which the first paragraph is written gives the impression that as soon as the SJC of MA. issued a decision on same sex marriage that Romney personally issued marriage licenses for same sex individuals. The Boston Globe does not usually give the impression they are fans of Mitt Romney and an excerpt on their take on this topic offers another impression.

SJC Affirms Same Sex Marriage
The Boston Globe
SJC affirms gay marriage
Court deems civil unions insufficient
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | February 5, 2004

With the civil unions bill tossed out, opponents of gay marriage, including
Governor Mitt Romney, stepped up their calls for a constitutional amendment to
define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. The Legislature is set
to take up a proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday, but Senate President
Robert E. Travaglini said he is not sure whether debate will take place as
scheduled.

Things are not quite as Joseph Farah would have you believe. The problem with Farah’s commentary is it avoids the very real circumstance in politics where actions are not produced in a void. Details such as legislation that comes with amendments viewed as unacceptable can give a politician’s vote and unfair appearance. Absolutes are rarely available.

Farah’s second paragraph on this topic is entirely opinion and of little value without supporting data or a clear indication of his intent. The unclear intent is whether or not he expects a reader to simply nod in agreement. This sort of expression does little for honest debate and only serves to reinforce the opinions of others who may share Farah’s opinion.

Then Farah criticizes Romney for being against freedom and the 2nd amendment in a similar manner to his other opinions. If that is his test for who is GOP or Dem, right or left, or conservative or liberal, perhaps he should review the roll call votes on the Brady Bill of which he apparently refers when mentioning a 1993 ‘draconian’ gun ban. The votes were not completely divided along partisan lines and plenty of Republicans voted for the Brady bill.

Here are the results:

brady bill
senate GOP voting for HR1025 as amended
1993, nov 20
103rd congress, roll call 394

Bond (R-MO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cohen (R-ME)
Danforth (R-MO)
Durenberger (R-MN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Packwood (R-OR)
Roth (R-DE)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)

House vote on Brady Bill, 103rd Congress, Roll 564
HR 1025 Nov 10, 1993

Dems 184 YEAS, 69 NAYS
GOP 54 YEAS, 119 NAYS
IND 1 NAY

238 to 189, passed

Again, the point here is not about who voted for what and why did they do so. There are reports, not vetted, indicating by people not associated with the Romney campaign that he is for gun ownership, against assault weapons and approves of such things as waiting periods for gun purchases. So what? Dismissing a candidate by actions you claim prove something without proper supporting evidence is irresponsible. The water is muddy in regard to many. As another example, votes of members of Congress on issues like illegal immigration and the war in Iraq are not always as obvious as they may at first appear. With the addition of amendments changing the net result of legislation or the pressure exerted on certain members by party leadership, a member’s vote is not always easily understood. And again, fault can be found with statements made by Joseph Farah regarding Mitt Romney.

Based on widely available reports, polls, articles and other accounts of the 2008 Presidential campaign there are a few top contenders from both major political parties to date. It should be obvious to everyone that all candidates will be subject to inspection, criticism and favorable and unfavorable opinions voiced by anyone interested. Everyone is also entitled to their opinion. All such opinion should be challenged as often as possible to assist the voters in making informed decisions. That was the purpose of this post and you are of course free to agree or disagree with the contents.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Adam’s Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, , Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Nuke’s news and views, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, CORSARI D’ITALIA, The Yankee Sailor, and Public Eye, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

This entry was posted on Friday, July 13th, 2007 at 1:14 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, McCain, Clinton, romney, Opinion, giuliani. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.