Posted on 09/06/2007 6:01:57 AM PDT by Reaganesque
I thought Mitt was extremely weak. I’ve always felt uncomfortable with the feeling I get about him that he doesn’t commit and he’s a lot more liberal on some issues than he appears to be. That “feeling” went a long ways towards getting confirmed last night. My husband concluded that he appeared like a used-car salesman. I am personally supporting Duncan Hunter, but I’ve waivered on who I would vote for if he withdraws. It certainly will now never be Mitt Romney. It would either be Guiliani or Huckabee.
He lost me when he came out in favor of a national smoking ban. He is not presidential material. He isn't going to win this thing. And with statements like he made last night, he is not going to be a part of the new Fred Thompson administration.
You really think so? I thought the Deputy Sheriff went out of his way to be polite to Romney. I can’t think of how he could have made his point more tactfully. I personally thought this was a most excellent debate. It was moderated by real journalists who weren’t afraid to ask tough questions and let the participants challenge each other. IIRC, the democratic candidates wouldn’t participate in a FNC-led debate. Now I can see why.
Here is a blurb about it. Don't feel too bad about missing it, since, as usual, there was far more press on the gaffe than the mea culpa. I happened to have seen the Fox interview.
I agree about Romney’s apology. He said what he said and he apologized for it. I was less than enthralled with his performance last night, but I don’t think he had to apologize again. I thought his response to the deputy sheriff was ok. It put the focus on the troops like that man’s son—where it belongs.
You and I were watching different debates. That was a set up.
The beginning of the end for the ill-fated Romney candidacy.
I pretty much track with your analysis.
As a committed conservative activist, I tuned out the debates, and switched to music.
It doesn’t much matter how well you do in a debate that is not watched.
Why am I not engaged? I don’t hear an exciting, thorough, conservative voice I can trust. All the major guys have major flaws: Amnesty, Leftist Social Positions, and Socialized Medicine.
I agree that Duncan Hunter was robbed. He just wasn’t asked enough questions and I believe that he’s the soundest candidate running for president. Fox has been as bad on covering him as the MSM. Even talk radio. I’ve really come to believe that the so-called conservative journalists really and truly do not want a real conservative like Hunter to get to the WH. I don’t know why.
I thought Gilmore has withdrawn from the race.
I would have to take a much closer look at Huckabee before I decided to vote for him. There’s too much I don’t know. The same is true of Thompson.
Romney does not fit your description.
Hunter seems to be good on almost every issue - but he was hardly robbed.
He is a second tier candidate and needs to make the most of the time allotted to him, and he wasted a good chunk of that time jawing about Ramos and Compean.
99% of GOP voters aren't obssessed about that specific case and 75% probably never heard of it before.
It made Hunter look a bit whacky, which is a shame because he isn't.
LOL! Good catch. I’ve been so used to typing those three names together I did it again!
We've been over this many times Spiffy.
Just because you want to sit there ignoring everything bad about Mitt, the Great Mormon Hope, your promised one, doesn't mean those things don't exist.
Mitt is STILL liberal on social issues, still splitting hairs, from supporting embryonic stem cell research and gay rights -- he supports both, and admits it -- to his horrendous 40-year history on social issues prior to his supposed "conversion" just in time to run for prez. He supports and opposes amnesty and won't say what he means when he says "amnesty"; and then there's the socialized health care plan.
Romneycare forces insurance on people who do not want it.
Socialism on the hoof.
I'll be charitable and just say that your analysis is inaccurate.
For example, the "socialized" health care plan that you speak of actually deregulated, privatized, and restructured much of the already existing state-run health care. It provided for MORE consumer choice, competition between insurers, and REDUCED the taxpayer burden in paying for the system. It was supported and heralded by a premiere conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation. The plan actually made Massachusetts' state-provided health care LESS socialist, not more. And Romney was able to accomplish this with an 85% Democrat legislature.
And your alteration of my FR handle, calling me "Spiffy", was juvenile. As is your analysis of my reasons for supporting Romney. Grow up.
No rebuttal to Romney's current social liberal stances, supporting embryonic stem cell research and gay rights?
That's right, better to just ignore it and keep worshipping your matinee idol.
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.