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 ...
What performance? You mean his record in ultra-Democratic Massachusetts, where just about every veto can be overridden by the legislature that has only 30 Republicans, out of 200? I don't think it's fair to judge him on basis of what he accomplished in that state.
Good grief people, let's do what we always tell others to do: don't listen to the rhetoric, he was trying to get elected in the most liberal state in the nation, listen to the record.
And his record as Governor is very, very good.
I have *never* heard Romney (or any other politician) articulate a valid reason for switching from pro-abortion to anti-abortion.
Being damned by the Globe, is not necessarily a good enough reason to vote for him, either.
But if you switch your position to do nothing more than gain political advantage, then you are a flip flopper.
Just like mitt romney does.
I've heard Ann Coulter say she would never vote for a pro-choice/pro-abortion candidate, under any circumstance. Sorry, Rudy!
I don't disagree with your sentiments. Now, who do you like in 2008. You've ruled out Rudy and Romney...
Unfortunately, I have been burned by your kind of illogic before - namely Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not again. Better to be in opposition, than co-opted on critical issues. The RATs want us to go along, when we should be very clear with the American people, that we don't agree. And explain why we're not playing their game.
A very good reason for conservatives to take the Globe's reporting with a grain of salt.
Perhaps, everything they are reporting is true. Perhaps not. But the first question conservatives should ask themselves is, "Why is the Globe so intent on attacking Romney?"
Some FReepers don't trust Romney's conviction or motives and maybe never will. However, I'll give Mitt Romney the benefit of the doubt until I see evidence of a hard turn to the left in a reversal from his current direction toward the light.
I hope Romney is the real deal because he is an exceptionally engaging, articulate, intelligent, and telegenic messenger for the GOP and conservative cause. We will need all of that in our candidate for President in 2008 because it's going to be the most difficult election environment for conservatives since 1964 in my opinion.
LOL. A picture says a thousand words.
He's our John Kerry. And if he gets the nomination (God forbid), I predict he'll do the same thing in the general election---lose.
Let's see. During his tenure, gay marriage has been instituted, on the strength of his executive power. He ordered the justices of the peace to perform gay "marriage" "ceremonies." If they refused to do them, they would be fired.
He also instituted mandatory health insurance, aka socialized medicine, paid for by MA companies, whether they like it or not.
His executive power has been used to heavily push the gay agenda, and he's appointed radical gay activists to the bench.
There's lots more.
If that is how you would define a "very, very good record" I'd hate to see what you would refer to as "a bad record."
"o: don't listen to the rhetoric, he was trying to get elected in the most liberal state in the nation, listen to the record.
"
So you are saying Mitt will say anything to get elected. How do we know his sentiments are any more genuine this time and aren't just being made out of naked ambition?
I don't know how she can support Romney then. Maybe she believes his conversion.
I hope we do better, Ivan. I really do. The nature of the political situation we have here in the states, is that we are on the verge of going hell bent for places I hoped the US would never go. I'll spare you my laundry list of issues and complaints. Regards, RKV
Uhh, Arnold didn't have any record when he ran. He's the counterexample of what I'm saying.
I'm saying he'll make compromises to get elected in a state that's over 60% D, yes. Nobody will ever get elected in Massachusetts as an R without it, and if you think they will, you are naive.
How do we know his sentiments are any more genuine this time and aren't just being made out of naked ambition?
Because of his record. His record is a very good one. Actions speak louder then words.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
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.