Posted on 03/13/2007 6:20:04 PM PDT by Unmarked Package
Cheap shot and totally bull!
If you recall, it wasn't even a year ago, conservatives like Fred Barnes were proclaiming the idea of small government was effectively over. Likely not so with a President Romney.
I listen to Hugh and am interested in getting a copy of his book on Romney.
I totally agree!
People tend to forget that Reagan and Bush 41 --in spite of their efforts-- still managed to give us O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. That more than offset Scalia and Thomas.
Bush 43 may have given us Roberts and Alito, but not before he tried to shove Miers down our throats.
I personally see no difference between McCain, Guilani, Romney, Obama, or Hillary when it comes to the SCOTUS. If those are my choices, I will try 3rd party.
LOL!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
LOL!
I see no evidence of the MSM pushing Rudy. They were pushing McCain, when that didn't work they went into overtime to push Rudy on us. Where are all the great stories about Mitt? All I see are people attacking his religion and stories from pro-abortionist expressing "fear" that Romney is a recent convert to the pro-life position.
"There is a steep and very slippery slope in front of the passionate anti-Mormon who takes that passion and funnels it into anti-Romney activism because of the theological concerns. Such activists are building a weapon of political war that will be used against them, and those who they might approve for office based on theological soundness in this and future cycles... If the various and disparate camps within what the Left lazily and condescendingly calls the 'religious right' join with the secular agenda journalists of Left... in mocking Romney's sincere religous belief, they can expect the same arguments to be turned against them in even greater force than they have already encountered."
Yep. By the same logic that Christians use to mock a Mormon candidate for kooky beliefs, atheists and non-denominational theists will one day mock a Christian candidate for their relatively kooky beliefs and dogma.
My problem with Mitt isn't that he recently changed his mind on this issue. That can happen, and I can respect that.
My problem with Mitt is that he has recently changed his mind on *almost every* social issue. Right around the time that he decided to run for President, actually.
That sure looks like he's an opportunist. The alternative - that he's a flip-flopper without any real core beliefs - isn't much more flattering.
I'm very willing to look at your references (with the exception of the garbage from MassResistance) dated after Mitt Romney became Governor on Jan. 2, 2003 that shows a position on a social issue different from the positions documented in my information page (see my tagline). As of this writing, his conversion to a public pro-life stance is the one issue I'm aware of during his term.
Judging from the constant barrage of anti-Romney press recently, it's obvious to even the most casual observer that the Democrat Media is trying desperately to push Republicans away from nominating Mitt Romney and steer us to Giuliani or McCain. You don't need to be a Romney supporter to see the negative attention of the press placed on Romney is wildly out of proportion to his current standing in the polls for the candidates. You should be asking yourself why does this one candidate worry the Democrats so much?
Reagan had a long paper trail which outlined his thinking over the years. Romney switched for expedience.
Then you obviously haven't been reading the volumes of anti-Guiliani material in the press.
No doubt, Giuliani is the target of lots of negative press, but that is to be expected for the front runner who leads the pack in the current standings by a large margin. Frankly, some of the negative press for Giuliani is coming from the Right as well as the Democrat Media.
The volume of negative press against Romney is bizarre for a candidate currently third or fourth in the polls who less than half of Republicans know. The Democrat Media is attacking Romney with phobic zeal, and I believe it's because they perceive the highly intelligent and charismatic Romney to be a real threat to any candidate the Dems nominate. The liberals want to paint Romney with labels of their choosing and, with the help of unwitting dupes on the Right, knock him out of the running early before he becomes well known among Republicans.
Romney is the former governor of a large Northeastern state. It only stands to reason that his candidacy would draw more mainstream media attention than someone from, say, Wisconsin.
I don't think you need to look for any conspiracy to explain the attention he's getting.
Mitt Romney's conversion to a public pro-life stance is not as dramatic a switch as many of his critics would have us believe. There is a trail of evidence to follow with Romney as well.
Romney had solid conservative positions in campaign issues in 1994 with the exception of his pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman's right to choose. A pro-choice position in Massachusetts in 1994 was a socially moderate stance accommodating the large majority opinion of voters in the state. In hindsight it was wrong, but it's understandable how a conservative, first-time candidate in the liberal state of MA in 1994 running a crusade for fiscal conservatism with solid conservative positions on issues of crime, welfare, foreign policy, healthcare, and congressional reform might accept the status quo on a social issue respecting the constituency he would represent.
More importantly, there is ample evidence that Romney held pro-life views in his private life in 1994 and before. In his role in private life as a Mormon lay leader (Ward Bishop and Stake President), Romney counseled women not to have abortions.
(A Primary Factor, NRO, December 14, 2006)
Mitt Romney received the endorsement of an anti-abortion group, Massachusetts Citizens For Life, in his Republican primary race for the 1994 Senate election.
(Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid, Boston Herald, September 8, 1994)
In an ironic twist from Romney's conservative critics today, in 1994 it was an abortion rights group, Mass Choice, who accused Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.
(Abortion-rights group rips Romney, Boston Herald, September 10, 1994)
The influence of family members and events in Mitt Romney's life on matters of abortion are worth considering. They emphasize obstacles he surmounted to adopt pro-life beliefs in his private life. Mitt Romney’s mother, Lenore Romney, advocated a pro-choice position in her unsuccessful 1970 run for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, writing in her campaign platform, "I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant woman [sic]." Mitt Romney’s niece died in an illegal abortion in the 1960s.
(Romney releases mother's statement on abortion issue, Boston Globe, June 28, 2005.)
Romney freely admits now that he was wrong to accommodate a public pro-choice, status quo stance and has changed his position on this issue to a public pro-life stance reflecting his long-held personal beliefs. The issue of human embryonic stem cell research and the ghoulish specter of human embryo farming was the last straw to unplug him from an uneasy commitment to the liberal voters of Massachusetts.
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.