Posted on 05/18/2007 9:40:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
13 years ago many of us were staying stupid stuff
Really? Were you running for the U.S. Senate?
Oh, I would vote for Romney if he were the nominee.
But he ain't fooling me with his conversion on the road to Des Moines. And I simply don't see him winning the general election.
Hyperbolize much, EV? Not counting every Dem in the race and every Dem in the Congressional leadership, have you been following a certain Rep governor of California? I know you were around in '03 for the recall stuff.
I think you might be pleasantly surprises once he can be in his own element!
If I want to see back flips, I'll watch gymnastics, thanks.
"If you want to get something done in Washington you don't end up picking teams, with Republicans on one side, and Democrats on the other... I don't like winners and losers in Washington. I'd rather say 'Let's get together and work together.'"
Now that he wants to be President, he's changed his mind, supposedly, on practically everything that conservatives care about.
This country desperately needs LEADERSHIP.
The most charitable thing you can say about Mitt is that HE IS NOT A LEADER.
He's following poll numbers and focus groups, not core principles of American governance.
Mitt Romney is a follower, and one whose sole core principle is the advancement of Mitt Romney.
Margin of error +/- 4%.
It's early yet. Romney will poll better. He's the only Republican currently in the race who can defeat ANY of the Democrats. I stand by my comment.
Oblivious as always, EV, hunkered in his bunker somewhere, its cement walls festooned with posters depicting Mitt as Satan, has re-posted some tired old info from 13 years ago.
Great work EV, you must take great pride in your anti-Mitt accomplishments. If it is your avocation, it is certainly a peculiar one, if vocation they are paying you too much.
Did you support the Contract with America, Plutarch? What is your opinion of what Romney said?
And I'm glad he has.
Unfortunately, it's another flip-flop. And from not that long ago:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."
Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."
So 18 months ago Romney was parsing amnesty the same way that McCain was (and still is).
Great post. I’ve never seen a bigger hypocrite than Mitt Romney.
So if he can parse amnesty, in what other ways is he playing word games?
Well stated, RG.
Mitt Romney sounding like John McCain on immigration in 2005
You make it easy on we Mitt supporters. Perhaps, we should sit back, drink our Mai Tai's and Margaritas and let you to do the rest of the heavy lifting, by your lonesome. Mitt will be the winner in no time!: )
In more ways than I can count.
Just keep on bumping the thread, then. Thanks.
Sounds the exactly the same, to me.
Is that why Rudy Giuliani is doing so well on FR and elsewhere?
BTW, the Rudy boosters said the same thing about Rudy critics before their departure. And it turns out the Rudy critics had been right all along about Rudy's pro-abort positions and other liberal stances.
It is hardly absurd or dirty politics to question conservative ephiphanies that coincide with a run for higher office. There is no point electing someone who says they are a conservative and then turns around and reverts to their former liberal ways once they no longer need your vote.
Out of the three current front-runners, I could vote for Romney. But he is nowhere near a top choice, and I simply do not think he would win the general.
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.