• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 06/25/2007 9:27:32 AM PDT by Reaganesque
Recent polls in two crucial primary states--Iowa and New Hampshire--show that Mitt Romney has leapfrogged John McCain and Rudy Giuliani to claim momentum in the race for the Republican nomination for president.
The latest Des Moines Register poll shows Romney with 30 percent support, a 12-point lead over his nearest competitor in Iowa, McCain. Even better, Romney's internal polling has him running 17 points ahead of the competition in the Hawkeye State. A Zogby poll of New Hampshire voters offers similar results: Romney leads with 35 percent while McCain and Giuliani tie for second with 19 percent.
This surge of support for Romney comes as no surprise to those of us supporting the former Governor of Massachusetts. In fact, I predicted back in October that once voters got to know Romney they would like him very much. And so they do. The question now is, why?
I believe voters are attracted to Romney because of his three-part vision for America, one that seeks to build and maintain a strong national defense, a strong economy, and strong families.
Romney believes that peace comes through strength. In a recent Foreign Affairs article he called for adding 100,000 troops to our armed forces and for sizeable investments in military equipment, capabilities, and preparedness. To support these goals, Romney has said the next president should commit at least four percent of gross domestic product to national defense.
Romney has an adroit understanding of the threat posed by radical Islam. He recognizes that Iraq is but a part of a larger battle against Islamists that includes Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and many other places. "Jihad is the greatest threat that faces humanity," Romney said in a speech earlier this year. "It cannot be appeased. It can only be defeated."
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
I’m no fan of his but I will say that he is the most conservative of those in the top tier. It’s not much but I could probably hold my nose and vote for him over anyone else in the top 4.
Hmm, he will be the first pro-choice republican nominee in a long time. I wonder how that will play.
...and because, darnit, he's the most attractive presidential candidate practically ever.
CTK,
Also the first who is sympathetic to gay rights. I wonder
how that will play?
ampu
Hunter is my first choice, but Romney is my second choice. I would take either one.
I think “Mutt is great” may not be a satisfactory explanation in full.
It might be that he has had a full press on the citizenry for the last 2-3 months. It is non-stop Mutt on the radio. I got two mailings yesterday, and almost everyday something shows up. Phone calls are weekly.
Mclame has had some campaigning, but nothing like Mutt. I probably have gotten 1 call about a Mclame event, as opposed to a couple dozen Mutt autocalls.
Thus far, no one seems to be competing with him here in Iowa. It just aint all Mutts charisma and charm—it is more he has saturated the place with propaganda.
For what its worth, he says he's converted to the opposite position recently.
Fred has not even started his campaign and his poll numbers are right up there with the others.
Romney is my third choice IF I can convince myself that his sudden conversion to social conservatism late last year is genuine, which I’m having my doubts about. Still, he’s better than Rudy and McCain, but he’s also no Thompson/Hunter.
Being ahead in polls in IA and NH at this point means little. He’s been pouring tons of money into those states and noone else has. When the others (Fred included) start putting in similar amounts of advertising money, we’ll see Mitt drop to about where he’s at nationally, i.e. second tier.
Mitt Romney reminds me of John Kerry. Another Massachusetts flip-flopper.
That's great, but the majority of the voting public will never have the opportunity to meet the man personally. They'll rely on stereotypes and media bias (most likely unfavourable) to define him. That's quite unfortunate, but we need to face the prospects of a Romney candidacy realistically.
Mitt's greatest strength is when he talks in front of people, he doesn't sound like he came from another planet. He speaks in full, coherent sentences.
His biggest problem is going to be going to Washington. How does a Mormon attend cocktail parties? The press is going to rain scorn on him if his parties don't serve alcohol. The press knows this and they will wage a bitter campaign against him.
If it’s anyone other than Thompson or Hunter I will be an ‘under vote’.
He's a lot better than JFnK, but the charge still stands. Maybe there's no way to be anything but hard left in MA without a bit of backtracking and filling.
He uses the same ruse on the 2A issue.
1)Romney took the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he faced while governor.
2)He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.
3)He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
4)He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
5)He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
6)He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts’ schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to America’s youth. http://www.americansformitt.com/prolife_perspective.html
______________________
An op-ed written by Romney and published in the Boston Globe in July, 2005, titled "Why I vetoed contraception bill" addresses Roe v. Wade and states rights:
"I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice..... I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate."
“Transforming the courts” is a pre-requisite to winning the pro-life position. Both Thompson and Romney agree on that. And, unless a Republican is picking the judges that’s not going to happen.
BOTH Thompson and Romney did everything to limit the expansion of abortion while in office in spite of their prior statements which were "effectively" pro-choice.
BOTH Fred and Mitt have preferable positions on this topic to Giuliani's.
He signed on to the Brady bill and obeyed the Mass. girl chief justice’s order to hand-out marriage licenses to homosexuals.
And he’s pro-choice (above)? Why would a conservative vote for him? He sounds like a Rooty stealth candidate.
I don’t know if anyone remembers Skaggs one of the 1st discount stores way before Walmart. These people were unbelievably corrupt always undercutting other businesses. For example, a designer brought out a new fragrance. The department store ran an ad promoting it exclusively. They knew Skaggs could probably obtain it black market; but asked them not to promote or sell in good faith until they had brought it out. Of course, Skaggs reneged on their agreement and ran an ad discounting this new fragrance the same day. These have been a few of my experiences with the Mormans. I really don’t mean to imply they are all that way.
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.