You would be more credible if your facts were more accurate.
Rick Santorum endorsed Mitt Rmney in the 2008 campaign because, as Bill Buckley’s election rule goes, he was the most conservative candidate in the race who could be elected. My contributions to Romney were all made in 2007 and 2008 for the same reason.
My contributions in the 2011–2012 election cycle have been made exclusively to Rick Santorum.
I would like to take you seriously, Garry, but to do so would affront your intelligence.
It is not within the realm of the remotely possible that a man of reasonable intelligence – as Garry is – that did even cursory vetting in 2007 (as Garry, a political operative of long experience and extensive connections, must certainly have done) could think for a moment that Willard Romney had a single drop of conservative blood in his veins, much less that he could be “the most conservative candidate in the race” by any measure, including screening by the imaginary viability always claimed by the GOP Left. Romney is – by the demonstration of his own acts – a liberal and a liar, both traits habitual.
It would be possible for a casual voter, newly “conservative” in the wake of Obama’s assaults on freedom, unaware of all the history that has preceded, to stumble on the Massacuhsets fascist and read Romney’s conservative rhetoric du jour and even when confronted with Romney’s record (or, more likely only parts of it), chalk it up to “the past” out of which everyone supposedly grows. But NOT in 2007.
It might be possible in 2012, if you were unfamiliar with the architecture of Presidential politics and polling, if you began with the perennially disproven assumption that being “further to the middle” was a benefit to a Republican candidate for that office, and seeing him surrounded – as he is in 2012 by media-manufactured “viability” (as was McCain in 2008) – to think that Romney was the most “viable” of some group.
But not in 2007.
On September 27, 2007, Fred Thompson was the Republican frontrunner. Fred Thompson was an actual conservative. A new Rassmussen poll showed he held a two-to-one lead over Romney. He had held it since first considering the race in June. That day the Pagon household gave the demonstrably liberal Mitt Romney a thousand dollars to round out a solid year of Pagon/Romney donations. No one conscious could have thought that Romney was EITHER more conservative or more viable than Thompson.
“…the most conservative candidate in the race who could be elected…”
In what universe?
I suppose it deserves at least passing mention that Pagon suggests I “would be more credible” if my “facts were more accurate.” He then purports to correct me by pointing out that his donations to Romney were not in the 2012 cycle.
What “facts” are you reading, Garry?
We reported that Pagon and his wife donated to Romney or his Pac on 11/9/06, 1/6/07, 2/8/07, 3/20/07, 4/19/07, 6/7/07, 6/30/07 and 9/27/07. Period.
I think perhaps Mr. Pagon’s protestations of credibility would be more credible if “my” facts against which he alleges inaccuracy were somehow less accurate. It is the FACT that he made those contributions in 2006–2007 that is so damning. There was, at that time, no possible mistake: they were going to a Republican liberal, Human Events Magazine’s 6th rated RINO in the entire country.
I did, however, discover an error in our article that Mr. Pagon’s response has made clear. Despite the fact that I met him in 1987 when he was the Snohomish County Chair of the Jack Kemp for President campaign on which I labored hard and long, and despite, moreover making a joke about his name at our first meeting – to wit: “You are the first Pagan I’ve met on the Kemp campaign” – and to which he explained that the family name had, indeed been originally spelled “pagan” and changed, by his predecessors, to “pagon” for social reasons, I did not know that Garrett Pagon spelled his nickname “Garry” instead of “Gary.” That error appeared several places about our website and has now been corrected.
I sincerely apologize.
In return, perhaps now Garry could apologize for camouflaging himself as a conservative to infiltrate campaigns and doing so with Messers Derham, Rohrbach, Nixon and the Evergreen Leadership Conference and throughout the Jennifer Dunn administration on behalf of the pro-abortion, gay rights, tax and spend, anti-constitutional, anti-property rights, environmentally ill, anti-second amendment, Evans, Gorton, Pritchard, Munro, Reed, McKenna, Hays, “Mainstream,” Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party and THEREBY preventing actual conservatives from organizing and fighting back against the socialism that is leading our nation to economic ruin and slavery, THEREBY destroying the Republic.
Sounds like a fair trade to me.