Posted on 08/15/2007 5:49:23 AM PDT by Reaganesque
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390
Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President launched its newest television ad, "Thanks Iowa." The ad features Governor Romney's call for change in Washington on Saturday at the Iowa Republican Straw Poll in Ames. Governor Romney won the Straw Poll with 4,516 (31.5 percent) votes. The first step toward bringing change to Washington began on Saturday in Iowa.
The ad will begin airing as part of the campaign's rotation today in Iowa. Script and viewing link are below.
Script For "Thanks Iowa" (TV:30):
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "If there's ever been a time that we needed to see change in Washington, it's now.
"First of all, I want to strengthen our military and then strengthen our economy and strengthen our families.
"I will secure our border, and amnesty will not work.
"I want to strengthen marriage...
"Keep our taxes down, keep government small...
"And keep America always the hope of the Earth...
"Change begins in Iowa and change begins today.
"Thank you so very much!
"I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message."
To view "Thanks Iowa," please see: http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=307227
Nope, acts of treason cancel out any respect that a soldier, sailor, Marine, guardsman, airman or any veteran of a service branch might have earned...this extends back to our War of Revolution with England and Gen. Benedict Arnold--you may have heard of him (he was regarded as a hero until his treason, but at least he had the intestinal fortitude to at least begin to fight for our country--something lacking from the Romulan).
Meandog is a lost cause. I wonder if he still has his James Webb bumpersticker.
It as ripped off the bumper when he embraced the Clintons...still, even though you might detest his politics, you can hardly criticize the duty of military service to America that he fulfilled. Besides, Ronald Reagan seemed to think a lot of him.
I admire his service and thank him for it, but I'd never vote for him.
Besides, Ronald Reagan seemed to think a lot of him.
At one time, anyways.
Yeah, when Mitt came out in favor of ethanol subsidies, I really had to think hard about whether I would continue to support him. But I realized that it's a concession to political reality. Because of Iowa's position in the primary season, there's no way a low name-recognition candidate like him could ever win without winning Iowa, and opposing ethanol in that state is the kiss of death. So I still support him, even though I despise the ethanol shakedown.
IMHO, we've really got to change our primary system. It's absurd to have two such small states, laden with special interests, have such a disproprotionate say in the presidential election. I think we ought to have a national primary some time in July. That would also shorten this absurdly long campaign season.
Forcing candidates to begin the campaign two years before the election creates such a waste of money and resources, it makes me sick.
Honestly obtaining a legitimate deferment is not draft dodging.
As you know I've changed my mind about immigration many times now I will secure our border, I realize the amnesty I once supported will not work. But, maybe again, I'll change my mind again and it will once I get to be president.
Romney has never endorsed any amnesty legislation.
"I want to strengthen marriage...so I've changed my mind on gay couples. However, if I see them as supporters, I change it back again.
Romney's always opposed gay marriage. I defy you to find a single instance wherein he supported it.
And no, he did not support gay marriage in his 1994 campaign against Ted. He supported laws prohibiting workplace discrimination against gays and other such things, but never, never did he support gay marriage.
"Keep our taxes down, keep government small...just like I did in Massachusetts, er, uh, better strike that pledge.
He did those things in Massachusetts: kept taxes and spending low. He actually cut spending. I was a Massachusetts resident for all but the last 6 months of his term, and I follow politics very closely.
Did that include "private" organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America? I ask this in lieu of what he said about the scouts before the Winter Olympics...
No. Though he said he didn't think scouts should discriminate, but he supported their right to do it.
I ask this in lieu of what he said about the scouts before the Winter Olympics...
He did nothing wrong to the scouts during the olympics or at any other time.
Source is from CBN click here
Good manners are sorely lacking in society today. Mitt continues to impress every day.
Holy smokes, Meandog, thanks for the link. I was a Romney supporter but, my nerves, his letter shows a complete and utter disregard for good order and discipline in the military...and to think I was going to vote for him. Never!
Yes, he supports the current policy, and so does every other GOP presidential candidate. I have not heard anyone proposing a reversal of Clinton's policy.
describing it as "the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation's military."
Okay, you've got him on that. 13 years ago he believed gays should eventually be able to serve openly. Since then he's changed his mind and is on record as opposing any change to the current policy.
Big deal. Of course, you've never changed your mind over a 13 year period, right?
Cool and a class act. He’s taking this all to another level.
It was from 13 years ago!
People grow and mature with age and experience.
Right...we've all changed our minds but it seems Mitt does it when he feels the political winds blowing the wrong way. He changed his mind on abortion, he changed his mind on gays, on assault weapons, on how the GWOT was being fought; he changed his mind on health care, environmental issues...next, he'll change his mind on his immigration policies. Back in 1968, when I was probably your age, extremely naive, and facing Vietnam after high school, I was a big supporter of George Romney--Mitt's dad. He was the odds-on favorite to capture the GOP nod and beat Hubert Humphrey who then had unpopular war issues just like GWB does today. It was a tumultuous time, draft resisters burning cards and demonstrations galore, but we were winning in 'nam just no one knew it because of the MSM beating the drums of defeat. And Romney, while he could have been statesman like and pushed for victory, instead grasped that the capricious winds of politics were against the war and stated that the generals had "brainwashed" him in trying to get his support. Well, that did it for me when it comes to the Romneys. I don't like "legacies" they never work out right--they certainly didn't work right with John Q. Adams (one of the most insignificant presidents in history despite his dad being one of the greatest). They haven't work out especially well for GWB after he succeeded "Read My Lips" and they most certainly won't work out if another Clinton grabs the W.H. because another Romney was the GOP candidate. Heck, they even didn't work for (grandson) Benjamin Harrison even though William Henry Harrison spent less than a month in office.
Please don’t ping me to anti-Romney hit pieces and propaganda.
And that's about it. One big change and one small change don't a flip flopper make.
He never changed on gay marraige. Never changed on the so-called Assault Weapons Ban (he still supports it). I'm not thrilled about that position, but no one's perfect. Never changed on health care, and actually implemented a pretty good reform in his state. I don't know about the environment, but I'm not aware of any changes there.
As to legacies, I generally agree with you, except in Mitt's case it's different because he did not get to where he is today riding daddy's coattails. That's how GWB, Hillary, and even John Quincy got to where they were.
Not Mitt Romney. He never worked in his dad's company. Never used his dad's connections. Never inherited a penny from his dad. He got into HBS on his own merits, and got in on the ground floor at Bain Capital because of his own merits. That's a big difference.
I'm not saying that Mitt isn't smart, he definitely is. But so is Billy Jeff Clinton... What bothers me is that they are so much alike, not so much in political philosopy, but in their political instincts in that they very much seem poll driven. Mitt didn't really say squat about immigration a year or two ago but, now that it is a big wedge issue, he's on it like one of my dogs on a T-bone. Although deserved, he took tawdry pot shots at Bush in saying "couldn't fire the coach so they fired the team" about last November's election results; yet he said nothing really about (real culprit) Rumsfeld and the other Bush advisers who engineered the debacle and he's really said little about the way our successful surge is working. I'll betcha a dime to a donut that he comes out with an new economic issue next week if the stock market continues to sink.
I like Duncan Hunter and his life story, I do not however like some of the foaming mouth far-right-wingers he attracts. Still, he's now my first choice.
My second choice is John McCain because, even though I don't like his immigration stance, at least I know what I'm getting. He hasn't been shy about what he believes--to the distain of many FReepers here. Plus, he like Hunter, is an absolute stalwart on winning a global war on terror which is and should be the No. 1 issue facing Americans come November 7, 2008.
He was governor in a state with a relatively small illegal alien population. Illegal entry ("illegal immigration" is a misnomer) is a Federal issue, and it's not one that has a huge impact on his state. Hence I don't think anyone could reasonably have expected him to voice a strong opinion on the issue until he was running for Federal office.
That being said, he did take concrete pro-enforcement actions before he decided to run. He vetoed a bill that would have given in-state tuition to illegals in the U Mass system. He also ordered state troopers to cooperate with ICE in apprehending illegals, and to report all illegals they came across to the Feds.
His record on immigration is arguably no worse than Hunter's, especially considering the fact that Hunter is from California, a state with a huge illegal population. It's also orders of magnitude better than McCain's.
Of all the candidates, arguably only Tancredo has a more solid stance than Romney, but alas, single issue candidates are seldom viable in a presidential race.
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.