Posted on 05/21/2007 11:48:40 AM PDT by TexanSniper
A few days ago on the Laura Ingram radio show, Focus on the Family founder James Dobson said he's not voting for John Mccain or Rudy Giuliani. No surprise there. But then he talked about Mitt Romney and his comments were pretty positive. Click here to listen. The transccript is below.
I think it's stupid to dislike Romney because he's a Mormon (there's plenty enough policy reasons), but it's certainly not unconstitutional, unless they added the "Everyone Must Like Everyone Else Despite Whatever Reasons They Think They Might Have To Not To Amendment" while I was sleeping.
I disagree. I think Romney could be a great at VP too. I am not sure if Fred can catch him, waiting till June is going hurt him bad in Iowa.
It is heartening to see how he disagreed with Kennedy on virtually everything. Take a look at it here.
That's a good point.
“Romney governed as a conservative while Governor. He had a very liberal legislature that he fought against for four years.
His problem was when he campaigned against Kennedy for the Senate. He took some liberal social stances that he has since changed on. You can call it unprincipled, but remember Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat.”
Exactly. When Romney ran against Kennedy in 1994, it was his first entrance into the political arena—he wasn’t a politician—he was a businessman. One would expect that after additional experience under his belt as governor, he would have been exposed to a lot of the things he had never previously had to deal with in business (abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc.). Experiences change all politicians. Unfortunately, Romney’s not been in the political arena as long as someone like McCain or Thompson (yes, I know he only held political office for a short time, but he had been involved in Washington politics since the Nixon era), so Romney’s evolution on issues is labeled as being “politically expedient.” But as I, and a lot of conservative pundits—Rush, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, etc. have said, at least Mitt’s moving in the right direction. I’d be more worried if his “flips” had actually “flopped”—for which there’s no evidence they have or will.
What if Fred doesn’t run...
Give it 40 days.
I have to laugh, if you look at the issue sheet I just mentioned, the very last category is “Require Congress to Live by the Laws They Pass” and Kennedy said, “No.” That explains it.
I think Romney would accept the VP slot under Fred, because he would be on the fast track for the nomination in 4 or 8 years, which is not a long time.
I’d prefer Hunter or an established conservative, but I think if Fred comes out of the gate decisively, and holds the lead, Romney will try to avoid any “voodoo economics”-type attacks that would make it uncomfortable to pick him for VP.
Why do you Romney-lovers keep pushing this misleading line of bull?
You keep pretending that Mitt's liberalism is many years ago. In fact, Mitt Romney was a supporter of legal abortion right up through 2004, when he decided to run for President! And not just supporting legal abortion because that was the Massachusetts status quo, which is another misleading Romney supporter lie. Mitt said he supported legal abortion, period, because it was right, and no matter if you agreed with abortion or not it should be legal, and that he supported Roe v Wade, supported taxpayer funding of abortion, and that he would work to support legal abortion. He was quoted many times, he's on videotape supporting legal abortion, he submitted written statements detailing his views supporting legal abortion and govt funding of abortion, so don't try to claim it's made up. And this is all from his 2002 campaign and from Mitt's subsequent statements right up through 2004 saying his views on abortion hadn't changed. NOT from 1994.
You don't think it coincidental that Mitt's supposed epiphany on abortion (and other issues) came right around the time he decided to run for president instead of running for reelection?
Bush Derangement Syndrome. It's an illness that makes people believe that the Middle East, Oil prices, Pollution and every other thing bad happening to this nation began on January 20, 2001.
It's mostly found among DemonRats (rattus democratus), and may be closely related to Moonbat-itis.
Gotcha!! Thanks.
You didn't even provide context to show that it was from one of Fred's acting roles.
I didn’t bring it on FR you idiot. It was a reply to someone else.
Heck, I don't think we could lose with a Mitt/DeMint team or a Mitt/Cornyn team or a Mitt/Steele team or Mitt/Anybody team for that matter.
__________________
It is highly possible, however, that if Fred enters the race, the so-con vote is split and Rudy wins.
I like Thompson/Hunter myself
Why shouldn't we discuss what the DUmmies and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media are plotting? And you just KNOW that the DemonRat spin machine is in overdrive just WAITING for Fred Thompson to announce his candidacy.
My guess is that ABC-BS, CBS-BS and NBC-BS will be leading their nightly news for a week with this kind of anti-Fred stuff within hours of his announcement, if they even wait that long.
You didn't even provide context to show that it was from one of Fred's acting roles.
And I'll bet a month's salary at 10-1 odds that the DBM won't provide the context either!
Forewarned is forearmed.
James Bopp, Jr. wrote:
"Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute. In 1994, NARAL’s Kate Michelman pronounced him a phony pro-choicer. "Mitt Romney, stop pretending," she demanded. "We need honesty in our public life, not your campaign of deception to conceal your anti-choice views," she said. Some conservative Boston newspaper columnists view it similarly. As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: "Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them. In 1994, Romney struck me as an extraordinarily bright, talented, and decent man — and a political neophyte who fell for the canard that the only way a conservative could win in Massachusetts was by passing for liberal."
In 2001, Romney said, in a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune, that he believes that "abortion is the wrong choice, but under the law it is a choice people have." And in the 2002 governor’s race, Romney made clear that "on a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion," that he opposed lowering the age at which minors could obtain abortions without parental consent to 16, and that he supported a ban on partial-birth abortions, but that, as governor, he would "protect the right of a woman to choose under the law of the country and the laws of the commonwealth." (The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice - Why social conservatives should support Mitt Romney for president, National Review Online, Feb. 21, 2007)
Ann Coulter is right. He lulled the libs into voting for him and then, once elected, he held the conservative line ever since.
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.