Posted on 08/26/2006 2:18:58 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10274
Things are looking up for Mitt Romney. Not only has the outgoing Massachusetts governor been getting reasonably favorable press from usually hostile places but, courtesy of George Allen's Macaca moment, his position in the 2008 Republican presidential field suddenly looks more secure -- the most viable candidate to the right of front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Romney appears to sense the opportunity . . . (READ ON at the link above)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"Evangelicals for Mitt" argue that Romney is the candidate that fits their three qualifications for the ideal POTUS: "a president who not only "shares our political and moral values and priorities" but "can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter." "
It's not just about matching up on social/economic policy stances, nor is it just about winning, nor is it just about being an effective and persuasive leader. IT'S ALL THREE! They are ALL important . . . but no candidate has ever existed that is perfect in all three areas. There is no candidate in the GOP field currently who fits all three qualifications for the GOP base better than Romney.
I think he's a good man, but I want to warn all of you who are not from the conservative South. If he were to win the Republican nomination, massive amounts of fundamentalist Baptists and near-Baptists will sit out this election rather than vote for a Mormon. It won't be enough to lose the Solid South, but there could be key losses in border states in the Electoral College. Which, of course, would be a disaster.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Your right. I think the Baptists will be happier with Hillary than Mitt.
Except for, you know, MITT ROMNEY.
He has been, according to his own statements, consistently in favor of legal abortion since even before Roe vs Wade. He takes the Bill Clinton / Mario Cuomo "it's bad but should be legal" position.
Recently, as he thinks of running for prez, he's called himself "pro-life", but declined to say what he means by that.
He's such a little worm, to slimy and scared to take a position.
His cowardice over Gerald Amirault was pathetic.
I'm not paid anything. Maybe you should do the search . . . even just by clicking on my profile you can go to my blogsite. I'm a grassroots supporter all the way and that's clearly explained on my blogsite. What's your beef here? Your comments lack clarity.
I've corrected you before on your Romney slanders. Why do you persist? You are just wrong.
Yeah, pretty much my attitude.
The way I figure it Newt, Allen and Romney are the only choices at this time. Could change, but we're just dealing with the present right now.
I like Rudy. I like him on the WOT. I like his attitude to the media. I like he doesn't try to rip the skin off conservatives in a prolonged act of revenge because he was torpedoed in 2000....Am I off track? LOL
But he's a liberal. And I am NOT inclined to give the GOP the free signal to continue going left.
And I'm going to choose the best conservative available, or one that at least behaves more politically conservative then the others, even if I wish someone better existed.
Whether I vote for them in the general depends on who it is. But as far as the primaries are concerned I'll be damned if I let McCain get the nod. He has to be humiliated, sentenced for what he has done these last years. And the primary is the vehicle to enact one half of that vengence. The second attack is attempting to remove him should he seek another term as senator.
JohnnyZ has no clue . . . just outlandish claims.
Romney has been Governor of Mass for nearly 4 full years now. Of the abortion related issues that came to his desk how many of them did he make "pro-choice" decisions? ZERO!!! He vetoed the Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning bill, vetoed the bill seeking to lower the age not requiring parental consent for an abortion, and vetoed a law increasing access to the morning after pill.
He had various pro-choice statements during elections in 1994 and said that even though he was "pro-life" that he would place a moratorium on abortion related issues while he governed uber-liberal Mass (which is and wants to stay pro-choice). This is an unfortunately reality that any MA politician must face. He made a campaign promise here and kept it.
However, I say, what's more important . . . 12 year old statements from his first political debate ever (against the bulldog Ted Kennedy) or an actual record of governing in a pro-life manner? I think the answer is clear to those willing to assess the situation properly.
To really get the full story on Romney's abortion history see http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/12544/1705
(written by a pro-life activist who is an Evangelical Christian and supporter of Romney)
No way am I voting for the socialist.
B.S. It's all documented.
Mitt has been consistently pro-abortion, right through his campaign for governor in 2002, then denied repeatedly that his position had changed, his advisor said he was "faking it", and he's STILL too scared to come out and announce his new position, whatever that is.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2005/07/27/romneys_choice/
The list of Republicans the trolls hate keeps getting bigger and bigger.
You guys recognize we're in the middle of a global war, right?
His lips are swollen, and a bit brown.
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.