Skip to comments.Mitt Romney's Strength
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 ...
Quoting more Lying Liberal Rags.
So according to the NYSlimes "..has set off a storm of outrage among social conservatives, and by Friday was looming...
So you swallowed that Liberal Lie Hook line and sinker. Agreeing with the subtle lies of the NYT's isn't a position I'd like to be in personally here on FR. Maybe if I had an account over at Daily Kos but not here. Buthey each to his own. If you enjoy posting Libby Lies here feel free.
Every time Romney’s Mormonism is brought up, he actually goes up in live public opinion polls.
I have a feeling the same thing is going to happen on a national level. People don’t take kindly to ribbing someone’s religion.
The idea that a man who was dead and decaying got up, walked around with holes in his body, and lived for 40 days in a time whne there weren’t really antibiotics or even soap readily available is a little questionable, too, from a secular perspective, afterall.
Here are just a few demonstrations of Fred’s “conservative” family values—a “shotgun” wedding at the age of 17, dumping his wife and going to Hollywood where he had a reputation as a serial dater, marrying a woman younger than his own children. I understand the church he claims to have attended doesn’t have a record of his participation.
Couple that with his sterling non-record in the Senate where he left no mark at all and where his record was similar to John McCain’s. No experience as a manager of anything, no particular interest in government, either. He quit his senate job in his second term (after 9-11 no less). He went to Hollywood to make a living as an actor—a job in which you are successful in direct relation to your ability to fake sincerity.
His little essays which are being reported breathlessly on this forum contain no particularly brilliant or unique insights. The latest mismash on the Queen and British-American ties probably took about 10 minutes to write up.
The Democrat operatives I’ve heard interviewed are salivating at the prospect of exposing this guy’s skeletons. They can easily compare him unfavorably to Hillary who is no lazy senator like Thompson was and who is working in an extremely disciplined and determined manner to win the nomination. Watch her in the debates; she has done her homework and is the best prepared and focused candidate on the stage.
Thompson isn’t up to the job. Portraying him as the Second Coming is delusional.
Great entry! I cannot, for the life of me, understand peoples’ infatuation with this man. I am not a Law & Order viewer, or perhaps I, too, would be taken with him. And it does seem like an infatuation, doesn’t it? Hmmmm.
Hmm, Cheyenne, huh. Mormon territory. I get it. Common cause...
I agree — strength and integrity.
>>>Hmm, Cheyenne, huh. Mormon territory. I get it. Common cause...<<<
Well, I used to be in Mormon territory. But I was born and raised in Tennessee, and I’m back in Memphis again.
I’m an Evangelical Presbyterian, if you’re curious. :)
If you don’t accept that Mitt’s camp affirmed that the letter was authentic, I guess that leaves you with attacking the messenger...
Here is the substance of the letter Mitt Romney wrote to
the GAY Group, Log Cabin Republicans...
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the US Senate and to seek the Clubs formal endorsement of my election. Your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.
As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponents [sic] considerable record in the area of civil rights For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponents record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clintons dont ask, dont tell, dont pursue military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nations military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share
I will let the reader decide, using MITT’S words, where he
stands on gay rights.
What are you smoking???
Spelling is moralistic? Inconceivable! (Princess Bride reference: "I don't think that word means what you think that word means.")
Is there any reason why you chose to highlight the misspelling of a word rather than what I actually posted?
I am living on the planet that actually looks into someone’s record on votes, and on what he says to groups and what he says during debates. He has bragged about being pro choice as recently as January 2007.
He signed into law Romney care which has tax payers PAYING FOR ABORTIONS - how the H*&^ is that pro-life?
I am not living on the “Mitt is so magnetic I will just take his word for it” planet.
Nice try but Romney is NOT "pro-choice."
My guess is that alcohol will be served but that Mitt will refrain from drinking it...just like what happens at present.
I prefer to read FR in un-mangled English when possible, and I considered the content of your post unremarkable. Any reason you didn't use spell check and/or proofread your post to avoid having that problem?
You might check out your post #74. I may be wrong; but I don’t believe spell check was applied there. LOL
Is there any reason why you always have to dig at someone? Sounds like you are more of a tit for tat person. You know winning is more than being nice. I am sorry about that. I checked out your my space page and sounds like you have something good going. And it’s totally opposite of how you are treating me.
Nice try but Romney is NOT “pro-choice.”
“ Romney’s Pro-Life Conversion: Myth or Reality?
After ‘Epiphany’ on Abortion, He Named a Pro-Choice Judge and Supported Stem Cell Research” link :
“Boston Globe reporter Sally Jacobs: “Mr. Romney, you personally oppose abortion and as a church leader have advised women not to have an abortion. Given that, how could you in good conscience support a law that enables women to have an abortion, and even lets the government pay for it? If abortion is morally wrong, aren’t you responsible for discouraging it?”
Romney: “One of the great things about our nation, Sally, is that we’re each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want, and not to impose our beliefs on other people. 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 U.S. Senate candidate.
“I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice. And my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign.”
Senate campaign debate with Sen. Ted Kennedy.
New York Times, Oct. 26, 1994”
“As governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s.”
Romney campaign statement.
Deseret News, Sept. 1, 2002
There are many other examples out there, including from early 2007 after his “conversion” to life.
You my friend are falling for a line.
Then you compound that by accusing others of "moralizing" and when called on it, try to shut down the debate on it by claiming your public posings are none of other's business. Don't like being challenged on your words and actions? Tough.