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 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.”
Oh I think Romney would be an excellent VP. I just think that he’d be more effective in the executive role—just based on the miracles he did in the business world and in the Olympics. He knows how to hire the right people and is skillful at getting things done. He has the fire of a leader. I see the VP role as dealing more with the actual execution of the plan. That’s why I’d prefer Thompson in the VP role because of the relationships he has within the Washington beltway—relationships that Romney has not had the opportunity to establish. Either way, these are two extremely intelligent men that are able to articulate their messages well. Together, I think they’d have no problem beating Hillary.
Also, I don’t ever foresee Romney making silly personal attacks on any of his opponents...it’s just not his style. He’ll criticize their policies, but he won’t attack them personally (like McCain did to him this morning). In fact, it’s pretty funny that McCain said what he said about Romney today, because even after the 2nd debate when a reporter asked Romney to respond to McCain’s flip-flop rebuttal, Romney just shrugged it off and said that McCain is a true war hero and he has the right to say whatever he wants.
Personal attacks now? Aren't you special.
It was a reply to someone else.
That poster at least had to decency to only link to the site in question. You quoted from it, treating it as fact, without any indication of where it came from (a radical liberal hit piece) or what context it was from (an acting role).
READ YOUR OWN POST.
There is no indication in your post that it has anything to do with acting. You quoted "he was filmed" -- as if he was caught on tape at a Klan rally or something.
READ YOUR OWN POST.
And keep that trash off of FR!
Ram,
You keep posting the Evangelicals for Romney link - and I admit it has a very nice logo.
But the group is comprised of 6 individuals! Six of anything, can apparently form and name a group and appear to represent millions - at least in this case.
ampu
Quote and prove false a single one of my statements.
We all know Romney has tried to play both sides of the abortion issue with his "personally oppose, but..." stance, just like Kerry, just like the Clintons.
But Mitt Romney consistently favored legal abortion right through 2004, when he started waffling and saying he was in "a different place" on abortion but wouldn't, for a while, say what that place was.
That is a fact.
Quote and prove false a single one of my statements.
You can't.
All you can do is post a bunch of rationalizations from people trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear.
He merely agreed to allow the status quo. And, when the libs tried to go the other way and force more liberal laws he opposed them. He honored his word.
“Especially since it’s unconstitutional.”
It would be unconstitutional for the government to impose a religon litmus test.
Citizens, not being State actors, would not be so encumbered and could impose whatever test they want.
This is why Jim Rob (a mere citizen) can bar anyone he wants from F.R., while the government (theoretically) cannot bar participation here.
QUOTE ME.
Go on.
I said, Mitt Romney was a supporter of legal abortion.
He supported abortion rights right through 2004. (For me that equates with being pro-abortion, but I'm being strictly technical.)
That is a fact.
He merely agreed to allow the status quo.
FALSE.
Mitt did not ONLY agree to allow the status quo. That is a lie. A lie Mitt supporters keep repeating, but a lie.
Mitt ALSO said he supported legal abortion. He was in favor of abortion rights. Not just because it was status quo.
In the spring of 2002 Romney completed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire. Signed by Romney and dated April 9, 2002, it contained these responses:
Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES
Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES link
Romney also completed the questionnaire of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now called NARAL Pro-Choice America), with this statement:
I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's.
Despite Romney's "personal opposition" to abortion (which doesn't mean much unless he's planning to get pregnant), he stated that abortion should be a woman's right.
Mitt also promised NARAL that he would work to liberalize the Republican Party from the inside:
After completing the questionnaire, Romney met with three NARAL executives. In this meeting, NARAL executives recount, Romney evidenced no hesitation about his pro-choice views. He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." Moreover, those present recall that Romney argued that his election would make him credible in the Republican party nationally and thus help "sensible" Republicans like him overshadow more conservative elements in the GOP.
Those are facts.
You have failed to refute a single one of my claims that you said were false.
HAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!
Nice try:) That was put out 2 weeks ago by the LA Times in an apparent desperate and utterly transparent attempt to derail Thompson.
You CANNOT think that an obscure part he played in a MOVIE is going to stop his campaign? Or seriously sway voters who would otherwise be favorably inclined to vote for him?
pppfffttt...
You can’t use Fear of Rudy to scare conservatives off the way that the Rudy-bots try to use fear of Hillary.
I’ll just support consistent, solid conservatives who have what it takes to win. Let me know if you have any suggestions.
Romney never favored abortion. Period.
He was personally pro-life. Period.
He promised if elected to maintain the status quo on this issue. Period.
While he maintained the status quo on that issue -- he did so by fighting the libs from liberalizing abortion rights (see unmarked package's homepage for the actual record). Period.
I know what he said. And I know why he said it. What he did is far more important to me and all the other pro-life people who now support him, including James Bopp.
Mitt Romney supported government funding of abortion. FACT.
Mitt Romney supported Roe v Wade. FACT.
Mitt Romney said over and over that he thought abortion should be legal. FACT.
Mitt only changed his position on abortion around the time he decided to run for president, an interesting coincidence. FACT.
I know you just try to ignore these indisputable facts because there's no way to refute them.
But why won't you admit they're true?
Why does the Slick Willard camp always have to play a spin game? It's Clintonesque, slimy, and goes to the heart of Romney's being unfit for any office.
I assume you probably didn’t like Reagan or G.H.W. Bush either, since they were both pro-choice once too — before they became staunchly pro-life.
I always wondered how many evangelicals comprised that group.
I hear they are headquatered in Provo, Utah. But I have never heard of any of them being active in this very small, minority evangelical community here.
They are NOT headquartered in Provo. The creators and bloggers of EvangelicalsForMitt.org live and work in Washington D.C., Tennessee, Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Dobson is a very thoughtful, careful man.
Hardly a knee-jerker.
Neither of them is analogous to Romney's sudden 180 degree turn.
Reagan signed a law legalizing abortion in certain select circumstances many years before running for president. The courts then exploited a loophole in the bill to allow lots of abortions, and Reagan realized what a big mistake he made. He was never pro-choice, and he was outspokenly pro-life for over a decade before being elected president.
GHWB nearly won the Republican nomination in 1980 while being pro-choice, and forced himself onto the ticket with Reagan. He did not need to change positions on abortion for political purposes - yet he did change positions while in the Reagan administration, well before running for president as a pro-lifer this time. Bush's change is and was at the time well-documented, though he was still a moderate in other ways.
Mitt Romney, by contrast, was a supporter of legal abortion right up until the time he decided to run for president.
Comparing him to GHWB and especially Reagan is extremely dishonest and inaccurate.
Can you list the members, where they live, where they work, or a link for any of that information. I heard the organization (not the people) was headquarterd in Provo. What kind of evidence do you have otherwise. It would be very helpful if we had that information.
Sure:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/cmitchell.php
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/dfrench.php
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/nfrench.php
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/dmeling.php
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/nburd.php
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/smuscatello.php
I made the mistake of trying to help you see the forest through the trees. Sorry.
Co-founder EvangelicalsForMitt.com
David, a graduate of Harvard Law School and David Lipscomb University, works for a non-profit legal organization and is a First Lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army Reserve. The former president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, he also taught at Cornell Law School and served as a partner in a large law firm. He is the author of four books, including A Season for Justice: Defending the Rights of the Christian Home, Church, and School, and numerous op-eds. Regularly interviewed by both print and broadcast media, David has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, The Fox Report with Shepard Smith, Special Report with Brit Hume, and Your World with Neil Cavuto, among others. He has also been profiled in the Christian magazines Charisma and Prism and appears regularly on dozens of Christian radio programs.
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.