Posted on 07/13/2007 9:26:53 AM PDT by americanophile
Politically accomplished, commercially successful, shrewd, articulate, handsome, personally religious, and a dedicated family man…what’s not to like about Willard Mitt Romney?
Publicly, conservatives complain that Romney is a flip-flopper…a prevaricating label they plastered on Massachusetts Senator John Kerry during the 2004 election. Citing his switch on abortion, conservatives question whether Romney can be trusted, through privately they acknowledge that many Republicans have been born again pro-lifers, the most notable being Ronald Reagan.
Some critics also cite...
(Excerpt) Read more at gopublius.com ...
Time is not on his side but yes he has a chance, though not with me.
On the other hand, just a few years ago, Mitt Romney told NARAL that he's the kind of person that they'd want in the White House.
Now... what does that tell you?
I’ve been saying it for months, the primaries will be between Romney and Thompson, both of whom I could vote for in the general election, though I would prefer Thompson.
That’s the most frequent criticism I hear of him, but doesn’t this mean that large groups of conservatives will never vote for Giuliani either? Between Romney and Giuliani, I definately think Romney is more conservative...and more eager to please his base on this issue.
Sorry Mitt, Like Rudy you are a liberal and will not get my vote.
Unless of course if you win the nomination. Then I have no choice.
more eager to please his base on this issue.
Yeah, right, for the present anyway. All his rhetoric now is simply running to the right to win the nomination, if he were to actually land in the white house you’d see what he was as Massachussetts governor resurface. Flip flopper.
How many years need to pass before his views gain legitimacy then?
I think it’s unfair to assume someone is a liar unless they have actually demonstrated it. Mitt should get the benefit of the doubt the same way we gave Ronald that benefit (which I think we would agree proved to be to our own benefit).
More correctly, Mitt is less Liberal than Rudy, but not Conservative. Anti 2nd Amendment, government forced medical insurance, AKA “Romney Care” etc.
Yes he has a chance but a lot will have to change in his favor for him to win. A couple of things I don’t like about Romney is that instead of using his charisma to lead on conservative issues he has in the past attempted to ameliorate the left at least in Massachusetts. Some would say that is what candidates have to do to win but I think that is the furthest from the truth. Reagan led in word and deed. He was not ashamed to be conservative, he did not apologize for it or try to split the difference and he won reelection in electoral landslides.
Romney seems to me to be just another opportunist who I’m not convinced really holds in his heart conservatism as an overriding philosophy. We have way too many Republicans who believe in “practical taxation” and have compromised on all kinds of legislation so they will not appear in a negative light on tv. The result is they end up appearing as posers to a liberal throne. We don’t need another President who will attempt to win the cultural and political war by granting legitimacy to the socialist underpinnings of modern liberalism and bouncing the bureaucratic offspring on his knee has if they were his own.
I will not vote for just another politician. I would rather the country be returned to the party of high taxes and liberal policies if only for shock value than elect another politician who only gives lip service to Reagan.
“Mitt Romney told NARAL that he’s the kind of person that they’d want in the White House.”
Do you always trust the claims of NARAL operatives?
The only reason he thought for a time that abortions should be legal was because his sister-in-law DIED trying to have an illegal abortion. What reasons the other candidates have for their flip flops? Who are the real opportunists?
Fred Thompson will pounce on them all.
What a foolish statement in this climate we have no more time to waste on pouting.
At the in of this inning we will be either a free nation or part of the satellite countries.
what I don’t get is how someone can be pro-choice aka pro-abortion until recently.
The information about abortion has been readily available since 1973, when the debate became a major one in America.
I have real doubts about this.
1947 - 2002 is much, much more than "for a time".
Good point. Also, remember that Romney was 26 years old and pro-choice in 1973... and he remained pro-choice all the way up until 2002 or 2003.
Same here. I can understand getting caught up in the liberalism of the 1960's and early 70's, and thinking that abortion is just a part of women's rights, but surely the pro-life movement has educated people since then. What gets me particularly is how one can be raised in, and faithful to, a religious tradition that dislikes abortion, then claim to have figured out the truth only recently.
It's too late. Mitt Romney missed the boat. He's too old to be changing his mind about something as important as abortion right now.
As another poster pointed out, when all of this material and information on abortion has been available since the early to mid 70s, why is he now seeing the light?
ANSWER: Because he's a phony.
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.