Posted on 05/28/2007 3:38:23 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".)
From a Newsweek article:
Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."
Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign.
So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions.
From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:
To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."
From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:
"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."
That same article also had the following zinger:
He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.
This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening:
Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.
Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.
Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.
Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?)
The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys!
I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan)
I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now!
PING (anyone with a more complete Romney PING list is welcome to pass it along)
McQueeg is starting to look for the strawberries again. He thinks Mitt stole them this time.
LOL
((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))
• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
THanks for spreading the PING.
Abortion-rights group rips Romney
Boston Herald
By ANDREW MIGA
10 September 1994
The leading abortion-rights group in Massachusetts yesterday accused GOP Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.
"He is not pro-choice," said Joyce Cunha, executive director of Mass Choice. "He's trying to have it both ways. He's anti-choice at heart. Massachusetts voters deserve to know the truth."
The Romney camp sharply denied the charge.
"The fact is that Mitt does support a woman's right to choose, and we hope Joyce and other members of Mass Choice meet with Mitt and listen to what he has to say," said Romney spokeswoman Ann Murphy.
Cunha cited a recent mailing by Massachusetts Citizens for Life urging its members to vote for Romney, who accepted the group's informal endorsement.
"Mr. Romney cannot credibly call himself pro-choice while accepting the endorsement of the state's largest anti-choice lobby," Cunha said.
Romney has said he would support the Freedom of Choice Act with two qualifications: as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade and as long as it leaves it to states to decide on using federal funds for abortion.
Romney has been criticized for some for not taking a clearer stand on abortion. One of his former GOP rivals, Janet Jeghelian, yesterday assailed Romney for waffling on abortion rights.
"I feel as though he's been ambivalent, ambigious," said Jeghelian, who said abortion rights were a critical issue to her.
She charged that Romney was opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act earlier this summer before the state party's convention and that Romney also said he opposed federal funding for abortion.
"To hear he's moderated some of these positions bothers me," she said. "We have to find more clarity in his message. He will be pilloried by Ted Kennedy this fall if he doesn't."
Cunha said her group would work hard this fall to get Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) re-elected.
"We will be highlighting the importance of Ted Kennedy's leadership on abortion and work to get out as many anti-Romney voters as possible," Cunha said.
______
Here's another from 1994:
Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid
Boston Herald
By Ed Hayward
08 September 1994
U.S. Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney has tried to mold himself in the image of a Republican abortion rights advocate, but that didn't stop a Massachusetts anti-abortion group from endorsing him as the "logical vote for those who value human life."
The September issue of Massachusetts Citizens For Life News calls incumbent U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy "perhaps the worst person in the U.S. Senate from a prolife point of view."
Spokesmen for John Lakian, Romney's GOP primary opponent, and Kennedy said the endorsement showed Romney has tried to work both sides of the abortion divide to win votes.
"Mitt Romney is not pro-choice," said Rick Gureghian, Kennedy's campaign spokesman. "The endorsement unequivocally proves that Mitt Romney doesn't support a woman's right to choose and never will support a woman's right to choose."
Romney's "said he's privately pro-life, but as far as a public pronouncements he's attempted to mouth the pro-choice stand," said Lakian campaign manager John Alvis. "I think . . . the women of Massachusetts will see through that," Alvis said.
The antiabortion group dismissed Lakian because of his recurring credibility problems.
Lakian "is neither electable nor, unfortunately, able to tell it like it is," the group said. "With respect to the abortion issue, he'll say whatever fits the moment."
Alvis denied his candidate had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and accused Romney of courting the anti-abortion vote at the Republican convention and privately opposing abortion.
MCFL's endorsement of Romney is hardly ringing.
"Mitt Romney is electable and the MCFL Federal PAC believes that he is light years better on the prolife issues than the incumbent, and although we would prefer a 100 percent prolife candidate, in the real world we don't have one."
But Romney's camp welcomed any endorsement in the weeks prior the Sept. 20 faceoff with Lakian, though a spokesman said Romney didn't meet with the MCFL's representatives.
"We're happy to have any group endorse Mitt, especialy when you look at what they have to say about his Republican opponent," said Charles Manning, a Romney adviser who added that Romney has been "pro-choice" since 1970.
However, the group got several of Romney's positions on abortion legislation wrong, Manning said.
As opposed to the endorsement, Romney supports a federal health care plan option that includes abortion services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and backs federal funding for abortions as long as states can decide if they want the money, Manning said.
_______
So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice and a pro-life organization (the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who have endorsed him in 08) saying that he is acceptably pro-life.(And this was before his "conversion" in 2004.) So one has to wonder, if, as has been charged, Mitt Romney is a "far-left, judicial supremacist", why would the Boston Globe be so adamant about outing one of their own? And why would the MCFL have given Mitt their endorsement, not once but twice, if he were in fact a flaming liberal? If liberals thought, as do some that call themselves conservative here on this forum, that Romney will be the death of the Republican party, wouldn't they strive to keep their mouths shut rather than rip him at every opportunity? Something to think about for those who are willing to give Mitt a look.
And so, you remain firmly on the sidelines, content to “despise” and rail against any and all Republican contenders and their supporters because they don’t fit your definition of perfection. Show some real courage and find a candidate that does fit your standard of perfection and then tell us why he is the best choice. Put that talented mind of yours to work for someone. Until then, I can only regard you as a professional critic who can dish it out but doesn’t want to take it. Those who can’t do, criticize.
You're welcome.
Jeff, please see a recent FReep email to you for a message about ping lists.
BTW, Jeff, keep up the good work!
I don’t think — at least I hope — that Jeff Fuller doesn’t knowingly make false statements.
But since his ridiculously laughable claim that abortion is the only issue on which Romney has flipped his positions has been so thoroughly and documentably discredited over the last year, Jeff’s painting me toward the corner of havng to believe that he’s intentionally trying to mislead people.
Let’s see...just off the top of my head, Romney:
* Supported abortion on demand, now says he opposes it.
* Supported Roe v Wade, now says he opposes it.
* Endorsed gays in the military, now says he doesn’t favor it “right now”...”during a time of war”...”at this time.”
* Endorsed Kennedy’s federal “gay rights” legislation, now says it’s not necessary.
* Said Catholic hospitals shouldn’t have to offer the morning-after pill, then later in the same week said they should.
* In 2002, opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state’s constitution. Now postures himself a champion of the same.
* Said defining marriage should be a state issue. Now says the federal Constitution should be amended to define marriage.
* Said his views don’t line up with the NRA. Now brags about being a “life member” of the NRA (since last August).
* Served on the board of directors of one of the nation’s largest white-collar distributors of pornographic videos (the Marriott Corporation). Now says pornography in movies helped motivate the Va Tech shootings.
* Dissed Ronald Reagan. Now claims to be Ronald Reagan.
I’m getting tired...
McCain’s amendment 1190 seems to be misleading. It says “Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that....”
To me, this looks like more lipstick on a pig. They have to make an “agreement for payment” to pay back taxes only if they want to apply for a green card (”status is adjusted”). If they just want to stay and work here, payment not required. Watch for their talking points to include the claim that illegals have to pay back taxes.
SA 1190. Mr. MCCAIN (for himself, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. BURR, and Mr. SPECTER) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 1150 proposed by Mr. REID (for Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. SPECTER)) to the bill S. 1348, to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes; as follows:
On page 292 redesignate paragraphs (3) as (4) and (4) as (5).
On page 292, between lines 33 and 34, insert the following:
``(3) PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES.—
``(A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than the date on which status is adjusted under this section, the alien establishes the payment of any applicable Federal tax liability by establishing that—
``(i) no such tax liability exists;
``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been paid; or
``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service.
``(B) APPLICABLE FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY.—For purposes of clause (i), the term `applicable Federal tax liability’ means liability for Federal taxes, including penalties and interest, owed for any year during the period of employment required by subparagraph (D)(i) for which the statutory period for assessment of any deficiency for such taxes has not expired.
``(C) IRS COOPERATION.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall establish rules and procedures under which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall provide documentation to an alien upon request to establish the payment of all taxes required by this subparagraph.
``(D) IN GENERAL.—The alien may satisfy such requirement by establishing that—
``(i) no such tax liability exists;
``(ii) all outstanding liabilities have been met; or
``(iii) the alien has entered into an agreement for payment of all outstanding liabilities with the Internal Revenue Service and with the department of revenue of each State to which taxes are owed.
“So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice” after he tried to tell them that he was. Yes, that’s our man Mitt!
I believe Romney when he says he’s changed his mind... But are we supposed to pretend that his positions haven’t changed? You don’t have to have a solution to recognize that something’s a problem. And you don’t have to have a right answer to recognize a wrong one.
Perhaps the right choice just hasn’t presented itself yet.
Wow. Are you in the second grade?
ROFL...
Aauughhhhhh, Not another lying liberal Boston Globe hit piece. Have you no shame?
You missed the big hits on Romney-—he opens ceral boxes from the wrong side and ties his left shoe first!
Now, who is going to be the best President?
Isn`t that a bit more important then what he may of said about an issue he really won`t effect as POTUS?
None of it changes a thing about Romney's liberal record, or the deceptions he's now trying to perpetrate on unsuspecting conservatives.
1994:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
2002:
"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. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights."
1994:
In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that "as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
2005:
"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." [the Romney administration subsequently named two homoesexual men as "adoptive parents of the year" for 2006.]
2002:
"Basically I see the provision of basic civil rights and domestic partnership benefits [as] a campaign against Tom Finneran. I see Tom Finneran and the Democratic leadership as having opposed the application of domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples and I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples."
""I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
[The Governor's Commission was perhaps the largest government-sanctioned promoter of the homosexual agenda to children in the United States. This entity spent millions of state tax dollars promoting the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) radicalism in Massachusetts schools by inundating them with GLBT speakers, presentations, films, books, parades, dances, posters, handouts, and help establishing GLBT clubs on campus. These events provided a model for homosexual activists around the country.]
When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows [the gay publication] asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:
"I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party." - Bay Windows, 8/25/1994
2002, during his last run for public office:
Romney: "I will not change any provision of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws."
I’m getting tired...Yeah, spinning is hard work.
In reviewing what I have learned on this thread I'm truly amazed at the depth of your hypocrisy and I'm struck by the irony of it.
Boston Herald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Boston Herald is a tabloid newspaper, the smaller of the two big dailies in .... The Herald is conservative in its editorial stances, in contrast to the ...
Try quoting this one sometime. Oh wait it doesn't agree with the DNC talking points you keep pushing.
Uhhh yeah. Here's a hint, if it came from the DNC I wouldn't consider it "truth".
You have done more to promote DNC and liberal Boston Globe lies than any other FReeper or Troll I have ever come across. The ironic part is that you claim to be one of the most conservative of the bunch.
You are a CINO. Nya Nyah Nyah
LOL...
Again, when most of that stuff was printed, Romney loved it. It was the message he was trying to get out to his liberal base. But, as always, chickens eventually come home to roost...
You call the stuff “lies,” but have yet to refute a word of it.
I mean, how do you refute a direct quote, anyhow? Are you claiming he didn’t say those things?
Been there done that. I know you'd like to forget our little NRA-ILA discussion where you said the Globe was telling the truth and the NRA was a bunch of idiots. It's been two months now and you haven't conceded your liberal source was wrong about it.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - Mitt Romney, after signing permanent "assault weapons" ban
Gary Glenn,
Never did I say in my entry that Romney had only one position shift in his entire political career. I was speaking of the positions articulated in the flyer. That you read into it more than is there is your miscalculation.
Basically, I’m trying to debunk the claims that Romney has switched positions on everything imaginable and that he used to be a full fledged liberal. I think that the flyer helps debunk those claims.
Also, the veiled mistruths in your accusations of Romney position shifts are also enlightening. You say that I’m purposely trying to mislead . . . looks like you’re already a pro at that.
Just picking a few that you mention:
*Gays in Military: Originally (1994) didn’t support “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, but now all the military leaders say that it’s working so he supports it now. Flip flop or learning from experience of over a decade of military experience with a specific policy?
*Romney never said that Gay Marriage “should” be a state issue . . . he stated that it IS/WAS a state regulated issue. More on that one here http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/12/boston-globes-deception-romney-has-not.html
*NRA—His positions haven’t switched on guns . . . period. Still for a AWB and has a recent B grade from the NRA. “Lifetime member” is the level of membership sign up that he chose. Would you have preferred that he sign up for just one year?
Look, some people seem to think the #1 qualification for becoming our president should be how long you can stay entrenched in your incorrect and failing positions. Romney has learned and “evolved” in a few areas (some of them key areas, most of them very peripheral issues, but all of them show political growth and maturity). But there is far more “amplification” of these issues than is really there. And I think you not only know it Gary . . . you’re complicit in it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall you saying that you would not vote for the Republican ticket if Mitt was in the V.P. slot.
Now, the V.P. has virtually no impact on policy. Therefore, I assume you dislike the man beyond policy or political reasons. Is this true? And what are those reasons?
Funny, but we're nearing the end of two terms by perhaps the most powerful vice-president ever. You guys make some of the silliest assertions.
You mean the Assault Weapon Ban (and Brady bill) that Reagan lobbied for? The AWB Bush supported. Personally, I am for more guns, including assault weapons. However, calling Romney a gross liberal is where you overstep. If he was then Reagan was. In your book everybody is a gross liberal.
Allow me to demonstrate just for the sake of this debate your shoddy tactics, which are talking points directly from the DNC. I ask forgiveness in advance to those who think I may be misrepresenting the great conservative himself RR. I promise I will take a shower after this post having engaged in EV styled slander.
Rameumptom puts EV hat on,
"You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." RR
"Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of assault weapons.” Letter from R.R.
“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed.” -- Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI), from RR
Oh my goodness RR was a flaming Liberal!!!!!!!!!
EV hat off.
NOT!!!
If Romney is a gross liberal then Reagan was too. In my book neither are.
More over-the-top juvenile reactions from the Romney flacks. Why am I not surprised? Really, y’all are starting to lose it just like the Giuliani Rooty-Tooters did.
By the way, maybe you should hit the books a bit on your understanding of the word “gross” in the sense that it was used in my sentence.
By the way, shilling for a Romney assault weapons ban around here isn’t going to make you many friends among real conservatives. Just so you know...the only ones you’re impressing are those who have already drunk deeply of the Mitt-flavored koolaid.
Delusional.
What additional guns did Mitt ban?
Answer: None.
To me that is perfectly acceptable especially in a loony blue state like Massachusetts.
Still didn’t ban any additional guns. I guess results don’t matter to you. Coloring someone unacceptable for other reasons beyond politics is, I guess.
Really? Well, don't be coy. Spit it out.
"I support the Second Amendment, but I support the assault weapons ban." - Mitt Romney
What is there about that you can't understand?
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.