Posted on 07/04/2006 9:36:49 AM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Oh, wow! That sets MY mind at ease!
</sarcasm>
(Home of the Marxist Brothers: Carl and Sander Levin, Li'l Debbie Stabenow, etc. etc.)
Romney went to Harvard Law School and MBA school and stayed on in Boston with consulting. Nearly all of his professional career was spent in Boston and they raised their family there. In 1999 he was called upon to lead the Olympics in SLC Utah. He had roots there and after the Olympics they were planning to stay in Utah . . . but the Mass. GOP "Drafted" him to supplant their INCUMBENT candidate that was dying in the polls. He rode the wave of his incredible excecutive success off the Olympics to a comfortatble 10-12% win in a state with only 18% registered Republicans.
So, he didn't pull a Hillary Clinton-New York thing since that was his home for so long. He wasn't eyeing the presidency back then . . . but everyone took note when he won so convincingly that he was definitely one of the GOPs "rising stars." He's quickly "warmed up" to the idea of being POTUS. With hindsight being 20/20 I'm sure he were Gov. of a place like WV or Ohio, or Michigan!
He's even said, "By the way, had I known I was ever going to get into politics, I think someone would have told me. Don't stay in Massachusetts, the most Democratic state in America, go back home to Michigan where your dad's name is golden." (father was a well loved 2 term Republican Gov. of MI)
I agree that he's the most capable executive among the 3 "electables" and the most conservative. It's a no-brainer to me.
As far as health care that everyone is compelled to buy under the law, a hearty no-thanks!
Shhhh...don't throw in a little reality on this thread. These are the same folks that still think Bernie Kerik is a hero. That little mob connection and theft of 9/11 funds was just a little speedbump dontcha know.
Explain to me what aspect of the Mass Healthcare plan is in any way related to "Hillary-Care" (unless you think it is inherently wrong?
THis link has my own explanation of why Romney's and Hillary's plans are more opposites than anything.
http://jjfuller72.redstate.com/story/2006/5/29/0030/34495
Again, this forum seems to be more about labels, name calling, and pre-conceived notions. Hopefully at least some that are reading and not commenting are gleaning some useful information.
By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, April 5, 2006; Page A01
BOSTON, April 4 -- The Massachusetts legislature approved a bill Tuesday that would require all residents to purchase health insurance or face legal penalties, which would make this the first state to tackle the problem of incomplete medical coverage by treating patients the same way it does cars.
Gov. Mitt Romney (R) supports the proposal, which would require all uninsured adults in the state to purchase some kind of insurance policy by July 1, 2007, or face a fine. Their choices would be expanded to include a range of new and inexpensive policies -- ranging from about $250 per month to nearly free -- from private insurers subsidized by the state.
"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said regarding the health insurance bill. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people." (By Julia Makalie -- Associated Press)
Romney said the bill, modeled on the state's policy of requiring auto insurance, is intended to end an era in which 550,000 people go without insurance and their hospital and doctor visits are paid for in part with public funds.
"We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance," Romney said in an interview. "And cars are a lot less expensive than people."
Tuesday's votes approving the bill -- 154 to 2 in the House and 37 to 0 in the Senate -- were the culmination of two years of politicking and several months of backroom negotiations, as rival health-care plans from Romney and the two Democrat-led chambers were hammered into one.
What resulted is a proposal that health-care experts say is unlike any other in the country. What to do about the 45 million Americans without health insurance has flummoxed both the Bush administration, whose proposal for "health savings accounts" fizzled, and that of Bill Clinton, whose broad plan for health-care changes fell flat.
On the state level, Hawaii and Maine have programs that seek to offer near-universal access to health insurance, and Illinois last year approved a subsidy plan that will widely increase coverage for needy children.
But no state, experts say, has taken the step of making health insurance coverage a legal requirement. The idea was applauded by Uwe E. Reinhardt, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, who said that he has long believed that the American system of allowing uninsured patients to receive care at the government's expense was nothing more than "freedom to mooch."
"Massachusetts is the first state in America to reach full adulthood," said Reinhardt, noting that the new measure is a move toward personal responsibility. "The rest of America is still in adolescence."
I can only guess some "Moderator" decided it said too much, because it disappeared without any explanation.
If you read my post . . . you would realize that I mentioned Giuliani, but left him out as a "wild card" . . . if he were REALLY interested in running for POTUS, he would be working the pavement here in Iowa, meeting in small groups, etc . . . I still don't think he will run.
However, Giuliani was a Mayor (granted, of a BIG city), but a Mayor none-the-less. Romney ran a major international event (with a well-recognized history of terrorist activities) right after 9/11. He's run a state. He's a recognized authority. I don't see Giuliani being MILES ahead on this issue. But, assuming that Giuliani won't run, who can beat Romney on this issue?
And, someone above critiziced, the Homeland Security entity has been very ineffective and wasteful in many areas. If you read the links of Romney's testimonies it is obvious that he is calling attention to many of the problems and wastes that were/are occuring and providing remedies.
This is my anti-Romney rant. I will post it as often as I can, so folks out in the country will know what a bad guy he is.
In 2005 there were significant floods in the North-western part of the state--in the Greenfield area. There was a state of emergency declared, many hundreds were homeless and there was loss of life.
It was not a huge disaster, but you would think that the Govenor would do the "fly out to the location and see what is being done" thing.
Nope, not Mitt. Mitt got on a plane alright. He flew to a republican fund raiser in South Carolina. He was more interested in getting votes in a primary three years from now than he was in making sure his own constituents were being taken care of.
This guy talks well, and he is a good business person. But, he is NOT a leader. He doesnt have a vision and he doesnt have the brains to see where the morale and well being of his state takes precendence over a fund raiser.
Was this a big deal in the local and national press. No. Did it really matter to the people in the area? Nope--they didnt care if he was there or not. However, it would have been the "right" thing to do. You make sure the troops are taken care of. You make sure your people are safe and sound, before you run off to do something else. It was one of those defining moments when a person's true character shows through. And it wasnt a pretty site.
He is a loser. He would be a loser no matter his political affiliation, religion, or race. He is another of those well dressed, smooth talking, good looking, fake conservatives.
Stay away from him.
Apparently, Romney doesn't impress any of us. So, it seems we're even.
No one will ever mistake this for freeRINO.com.
What about this man? He doesn't seem to be in the Rino class. I don't think the open border lackeys will like him though. .
40th Governor of Colorado
Term of office: January 1999 – present
Lieutenant Governor: Jane E. Norton
Predecessor: Roy Romer
Successor: incumbent
Born: October 22, 1950
Fort Worth, Texas
Political party: Republican
Profession: Politician
Spouse: Frances Owens
William F. "Bill" Owens (born October 22, 1950) is an American politician and a member of the Republican Party. He is current (and 40th) Governor of Colorado.
Born in Fort Worth, Texas and a practicing Catholic, a master's degree in public affairs from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is an expert in Soviet affairs and writes and lectures often on Russia. He has been married for almost 30 years and has three children. Before his political career, Owens worked for 20 years in the private sector as a consultant with Deloitte and Touche, with the Gates Corporation, and as director of a trade association.
Owens served as a member of Colorado state house of representatives from 1982 to 1988 and Colorado state treasurer from 1995 to 1999. Since 1999, he has served as the 40th Governor of Colorado. In the 1998 governor's race, he defeated his Democratic opponent, Gail Schoettler, in a very close election (they both received about 48% of the vote). He won the 2002 governor's race by defeating the Democratic candidate, Rollie Heath, 64%-32%, the greatest majority in Colorado history.
In 2002 he was proclaimed by the National Review, a conservative political magazine, as the "best governor in the U.S." [1]
Following the retirement announcement of U.S. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell in 2004, Governor Owens briefly considered running for the open seat, but ultimately decided against it. Leading up to the 2004 primary, Owens caused some controversy in the Republican Party by announcing support for Bob Schaffer's run to replace Campbell, but then endorsing Pete Coors when Coors announced his entry into the race.
Owens has also been mentioned as a potential nominee to the Cabinet of President George W. Bush in Bush's second term. Owens has said he expects to remain governor, but he also has not categorically ruled out the possibility of accepting a Cabinet nomination. Such a nomination may be less likely after the defeat of Coors in the general election. Owens has described his politics as mostly conservative with some libertarian influences. He is widely considered to be a possible candidate for President of the United States, or a possible nominee for Vice President in 2008 or 2012.
Oops, sory, I forgot to format. .
Romney could be strong in this arena (we really don't know until something happens and HE has to react to it), but his stances on other issues just won't fly with enough people for him to get a serious run put together to get there.
Giuliani is a case where he WOULD be a decent choice if and ONLY if this were the big thing, but this election will be held in 2008, not 2002 or 2001, when Giuliani would've won handily (I think).
Neither one will get a big run put together.
I still think it will be someone who isn't even getting much run right now.
He is a republican through and through in the same sense that Pataki is.
What I find especially ironic, is there are are at least 3 or 4 democratic governors and 3 or 4 democratic senators, who are MORE conservative then him.
His positions on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, are the same exact positions that Hillary Clinton has.
Simply put, I have never, and will never vote for someone for president who openly supports abortion, and there are enough pro-lifers with that view to doom Romney or any other pro-abortion/pro-gun control/pro-gay rights republican to defeat.
Romney and Hillary also have some other things in common.
Like policies they agree on, abortion, gun control, gay rights, etc.
No one West of the Great Lakes, or South of the Mason-Dixon, has a clue who Mitt is.
We've got a 50% RINO in office now. Mitt doesn't even come THAT close to being a conservative of any denomination.
I am sorry for the flooding that hit your area. I cannot speak for why things played out as the did. We can both speculate as to the reasons (you seem to have done that and added plenty of embellishment and hyperbole). If he was in error, I feel that, more recently, he has corrected that. Over on week after the most recent flooding in Mass. he cancelled a major weekend trip to Washington state and Wisconsin for political conventions. He is definitelly just about personal political ambition. I'm sorry if you see it that way.
In a position of leadership like governor not everyone will be be pleased with your actions. I'm sorry if you feel that strongly against Romney for this experience. However, trying to convince everyone about "what a bad guy he is" seems to be a bit overboard for the experience you describe, espeically without knowing all of the potential reasons for Romney's actions.
So, do yo live in Mass or Vermont like your name says? Is this second hand information or have you moved since then? Just wondering.
You said: "His positions on gun control, abortion, and gay rights, are the same exact positions that Hillary Clinton has."
Where are you getting your information? I'd really like to know . . .
Romney is the most outspoken opponent of Gay Marriage in the nation! How could you miss this?
Romney has ALWAYS BEEN PERSONALLY PRO-LIFE! Politically he has stood on the side of life in every opportunity he had (vetoed emergency contraception bill, vetoed stem-cell research bill, vetoed a law seeking to decrease the age for parental consent for abortion). He did campaingn on a promise not to seek to alter the MA abortion laws (an unfortunate compromise that any MA Republican must make) . . . and he has kept this promise.
Romney has been on the record before supporting the Bradley assault weapons plan, but most people support this . . . He supports the rights of people to own and use registered guns responsibly. Also, I know, through a reliable but private source, that Kayne Robinson, past President and current Executive Director of General Operations for the National Rifle Association, "is not opposed" to a Romney presidency. He knows that Romney will not work to restrict gun rights.
You said: "Simply put, I have never, and will never vote for someone for president who openly supports abortion, and there are enough pro-lifers with that view to doom Romney or any other pro-abortion/pro-gun control/pro-gay rights republican to defeat."
. . . your conclusions mean nothing when your premises are wrong. If you don't like him, fine . . . don't vote for him, but at least get your infomration right.
A couple of posts ago I forgot to put a question mark at the end of "He is definitelly just about personal political ambition?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.