Posted on 01/19/2007 8:39:00 AM PST by RKV
LADIES AND gentlemen, welcome to the first virtual debate of the new political season, a mock matchup to help take the true measure of two men locked in ideological conflict.
Our first candidate is Mitt Romney.
Candidate number two? Why, that's Mitt Romney as well. ...
A note on the proceedings: While our forum is fanciful, the words in quotation marks are real.
Let's begin.
...
Please give us your views on gun control.
MM: I supported the Brady Bill, which instituted a five-day waiting period before you could buy a handgun, and a ban on assault weapons. As I said in 1994, "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA." But then, "I don't line up with the NRA." As I said in my gubernatorial campaign, "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them. I won't chip away at them."
Romney2008: "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms. In our state . . . there are a series of laws restricting gun ownership in various ways. Over the past four years, I've worked very closely with the Gun Owners' Action League here, which is an affiliate of the NRA, and we've made some changes which I think they feel have been positive steps. And so you are going to see that, I think, hopefully, in other states as well, as they make progress, perhaps further than Massachusetts has."
MM: Ah, excuse me, but isn't that son Josh's gun?
...
Alas, we've run out of time. But I hope our forum has revealed something important about the positions, character, and convictions of these two very different politicians.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Y'all got it wrong. The question is "Is this guy a conservative?" Then answer, obviously, is "NO."
Of course the Republibots will be along shortly to tell us that we should vote for any candidate the GOP puts in front us, we're never going to find a perfect candidate, conservatives can't win, yadayadayada...
I'll agree we'll never find a perfect candidate, but couldn't we at least find a decent one?
""Why is the Globe so intent on attacking Romney?"
Perhaps because Romney is the only Republican candidate from Massachusetts. After all, it is the Boston Globe. Frankly, I don't think the national Democrats are particularly afraid of Mitt Romney."
Then why have they published 11 press releases in the last 6 weeks, where Romney was the headline? More then all the other candidates combined (although, McCain has about that many that mention him somewhere in the press release).
Far to many Freepers are engaging in promoting mute negative issues, just for the sake of argument.
You see, the threshhold for being an "unappeasable" keeps lowering.
It used to be about 90 percent - you would be called such if you demanded a candidate fit your views 9 out of ten times.
Now it's down somewhere in the 20-30 percent range, from what I have seen, and getting lower each passing week. Now we are supposed to overlook someone being pro-choice, pro-gun-control and pro-amnesty. We are supposed to vote for a certain guy because he supports the WOT - even though every candidate except for one (Ron Paul) supports the WOT. And if we question the motives of a candidate who is suddenly shifting to the right on these issues after years of taking a more leftward position, well, we're bashers.
After all, their guy is the only one who can win, even though we are a year away from the first primary.
Do you really want Pelosi and Reid to remain as majority leaders merrily undoing all that HAS been accomplished, raising taxes, undermining our troops, requiring pro-life taxpayers to pay for what they abhor?
Yeah, why bother paying attention to their past stated beliefs on key conservative issues? After all, politicians NEVER pander to get votes.
Because if nominated, Mitt could drag Massachusetts into the GOP column.
Dear sitetest,
You leave out 70% of the other issues. The war on terror, entitlement spending, taxes, government regulation. If you include those, you will see that 70% is guaranteed.
Furthermore, politicians usually hold themselves to the position they espoused most recently. For example, Bush senior used to be pro-choice, but when he ran in 1988, he ran as a pro-lifer. Then, as president, he vetoed bills that (allegedly) promoted abortion. So your skepticism is unwarranted, in my opinion.
Uhh, I'm a Mitt supporter, but the chances of Mitt carrying Massachusetts in a nationwide campaign are roughly the same as Dunken Hunter carrying California.
Dear LtdGovt,
"You leave out 70% of the other issues. The war on terror, entitlement spending, taxes, government regulation. If you include those, you will see that 70% is guaranteed."
I doubt it.
But it wouldn't matter.
He scores close to 0% on the issues that are paramount to me.
"For example, Bush senior used to be pro-choice, but when he ran in 1988, he ran as a pro-lifer."
Mr. Bush "converted" in 1980, and spoke as and showed himself a consistent pro-lifer, working side-by-side with President Reagan for eight years by 1988.
Let Mr. Romney speak as and show himself a consistent pro-lifer for eight years, and then get back to me. That would make him eligible in time for the 2012 election, or thereabouts.
sitetest
Mitt Romney is a liberal.. meaning moron.. slightly smarter than Al Gore..
Abortion and gun control are the biggies. Those are HUGE issues for the right. And I'm also not convinced about the sincerity of his position regarding amnesty.
Of the three allegeded front-runners, I find him the least objectionable. However, I also think we can do a heck of a lot better.
Them are fightin' words EV. Romney supporters are plenty conservative. Ann Coulter supports Romney, is she insufficiently conservative? Just because we don't wish to support the Republican equivalent of Dennis Kucinich doesn't make us lefties.
Every declared GOP candidate except for Ron Paul supports the WOT. So in the primaries, that really isn't a factor.
I tend to question conservative epiphanies when they are concurrent with a candidate seeking a new office. I know you consider that silly, so apparently what used to be common sense is now viewed as some form of madness.
In the primary, yes. In the general election, no. Don't forget the mood swing that just handed the Democrats the House AND the Senate. Someone like Duncan Hunter would be slaughtered in the general election.
First of all, the main reason the GOP lost in 2006 is because they quit acting like Republicans. And second, the Rockefeller wing of the party cannot win at the national level any longer - the only reason Bush the Elder won in 1998 was Reagan's legacy, and he lost after he drifted from such.
So I find it rather silly that you would think an east-coast pro-choice moderate is the best candidate to win in 2008, when past history screams the opposite (more of that common-sense insanity that apparently has completely inhibited my ability to grasp your political wisdom).
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.