• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •
Posted on 09/07/2007 6:04:05 AM PDT by Reaganesque
GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY (RECORDING): "... could lead to the violent death of Americans. We need to know about that, track them, follow them and make sure that in every way we can we know what they're doing and where they're doing it. And if it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church then that's exactly where we're going to go. Because we're going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say 'Hey, wait a second. We have civil liberties we have to worry about.' But don't forget, the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."
LAURA INGRAHAM: "I thought that was the best moment of the night for Romney. No doubt about it. Without security or safety the whole debate about civil liberties is much ado about nothing. Okay? Simple as that. If we have to into a mosque, we'll go into a mosque. If we have to go into a prison where they're converting people to Islam we're going to go into the prison. If we have to into Starbucks in Northern Virginia where we apparently have a corridor of suspicious activity then we'll go into the Starbucks. If we have to into the 7-11 parking lot we'll go there too. If we have to hit the day laborer centers where illegal aliens hang out we'll go there. That's what people want to hear in this country. They want to hear about how we can keep this country safe and what measures are you going to take to do it."
Ironically, just the other day, I ran into a friend of mine who is very well placed in the Dept. of Homeland Security in Washington. When I voiced my concerns about the possibility of vilence being preached in the fortress-like mosques that now surround our Capital City, he assured me — without elaborating — that every word is sufficiently monitored.
I wish Hunter would get more attention from the media (I know - what a joke!). Rudy and Mitt seem to be the only ones with 'governance' backgrounds.
or
would be good places to start.
I thnk Romney is one of those men who can come across as just too good to be true. But in his case, it is true. It would be a shame to see his candidacy sunk by trivial “macaca” type things. I hope he and Rudy and Fred and John McCain go all the way to the convention. It will do wonders for the GOP. These are all very fine men and much better than anyone the Democrats are offering up this year.
Please put me on the Mitt Ping.
My buddy here King Vanity is a Mitt Man.
I am still a Duncan Hunter backer.
Romney/Hunter 08?
I heard that snippet from her show...but prior to that she played the ‘apparently successful’ soundbite and called it a smackdown by McCain. I disagree with her on that because I don’t believe in blind faith or jumping to conclusions.
With Thompson now into the race I think Romney has to start emphasizing his experience in getting things done in a variety of roles, in contrast with Thompson. Guiliani has impressive accomplishments, but mainly in one role, mayor.
Thompson might sound more believable, but what has he done in comparison?
Mitt lost me when he fumbled on Iraq. I will not vote for him or rootie.
LLS
Sorry, I did not mean to leave Duncan Hunter out of my post. He is a great American too and would be a wonderful President. I used to live in San Diego and have always liked him. I knew someone who worked for him and raved about how smart and loyal and generally good he was. I would work very hard for him if he wins the nomination. If he doesn’t, I really hope he will run for Senate and finally get that Marxist hag Barbara Boxer out of there.
You got it! I wouldn’t mind that ticket at all. Hunter’s a good man!
Too bad he didn’t even try anything like this in Massachusetts. His philosophy blows in the wind.
That is why these kinds of "thinking on your feet" debates are so silly. I don't give a crap if my president can come up with a quick answer to a complicated question. I really don't even want a president who would do that. I want a president who will ponder a situation for as long as it takes to decide the right course and then to stick to that course.
I don't know if Romney is that president or not, but I sure as hell am not going to rule him out based on some miniscule misstep on a loaded question from a media buffoon in front of an audience of University students.
I think all the questions should be given to the candidates at least a week before the debates. Give them time to mull over the questions and come up with their best answers. If they muff it then, then they are probably not presidential material. But to rule out a candidate because he muffs a question put to him by a TV media whore with an agenda is hardly a reason to rule out any candidate... (except Ron Paul).
Interesting comment...I feel the same. I have no problem with his religion and I am NOT a religious person; I think his explanation about why he changed his view on abortion is believable and genuine; but I just can't get behind the man. But I can't really get behind anyone running, including Thompson.
I keep staring at the horizon waiting for Ronald Reagan to come riding in to save us.
“if it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church.....”
Or a church??? Odd. Never heard of Muslim terrorists - the only kind threatening us - meeting in a church.
SOunds like politically correct pandering to me. But at least his heart is in the right place.
I have no problem with trust. In fact, given the arena Romney’s in — politics -— he’s probably as good as it gets on that score. But I agree that there’s a connection problem with Romney on a personal level. Not for me, but for people in general. I wonder if he isn’t just too good for people to tolerate. We tend to like people who have flaws that make us feel somewhat superior to them, even as we support the parts of them we like. Maybe if he had jowls or was bald ......
It has NOTHING to do with how ‘good’ he is. I believe it has more to do with where he is from. Any state that keeps electing the K’s (Kennedy and Kerry) causes concerns for me.
His religion is not a conccern for me, but it is for others in my family. His stance on several issues do not come into play. I just can’t seem to trust him.
I agree.
“I have been trying to understand why I just cannot connect to him. Rudy has too many negatives - socially speaking. But I just can’t seem to trust what Mitt has to say.”
Maybe it’s because you’ve been listening to others’ constant negative comments about him — for instance, “he’s from Massachusetts; so he must be liberal” and he “can’t be trusted”?
From what I know about him (and I used to live in Massachusetts), I think he’s conservative, intelligent, and means what he says.
Actually, no one around me says any of those things. Most are not political. I don’t hear it on Fox News, or from Rush. This is just ME.
No amount of preparation will change his opinion... he had no business talking about Iraq if he didn’t know or understand the reality of it. He sounded like the Iraq Study group, not a Republican running during the time of War.
LLS
With that said however, he gives me the impression of always trying to parse his statements and say the correct thing that pleases everyone, that he ends up apologizing for things he has said or done.
I'll admit right now I am a Fred Thompson guy. I like what he says and his straitforward manner of saying it. He is not PC and carries himself that if his words offend people, so be it. He will not back down from saying it. I am not too kean on Rudy's social stances but you have to admire someone who faces down the mob. I think in the early part of next year, the remaining three will be Fred, Mitt, and Rudy. I have decided to support Fred during the primary process but whoever wins the nomination, I will support against the Dem candidate.
With the exception of McCainiac or Rube Paul. I'm still waiting for someone to boot Paul off the stage as he is not a Republican nor a conservative.
“From what I know about him (and I used to live in Massachusetts), I think he’s conservative, intelligent, and means what he says.”
Same. From what I know of him, so far. To judge someone based on the state he’s from leaves us very few “safe” places for a candidate to come from. Liberal and conservative states occasionally cough up a winner from the opposite party.
1. His religion. It is not well understood so, there's an understandable fear of the unknown.
2. His change of stance on abortion. A self-inflicted wound to be sure. It is the only real switch on the issues he has made. The rest of the accusations are based on word games and misinterpretations on the part of his opposition.
3. Your point. The fact that he is from Massachusetts and the general belief amongst hard core Conservatives (again, understandable)that nothing good can come from there. I would remind them that the Revolutionary War started there but, what have you done for me lately, right? ;-)
4. Lack of name recognition. He's just not as well recognized as either Rudy Giulliani, John McCain or Fred Thompson. This is changing but it still is a challenge.
5. Lastly, there is just a general distrust of Republican politicians on the part of many Republican voters. They've been let down and flat out lied to by their elected officials and any inconsistencies, real or perceived, cause more concern than there would be under prior historical circumstances.
To be sure, he faces challenges ahead. But this is nothing new for him. As Republicans in NH, IA, MI and NV have gotten to know him, they have put him in the lead in those states. Progress has been made in SC and other states as well and this will pick up as he broadens his appeals. Thus far, he's run a very effective campaign and it will be interesting to watch as the rest of the primary season progresses. But, as someone who knows the man, I believe that he is more than capable of overcoming all of the above objections.
LLS - don’t give up on him so soon. Hey, how would you or I do if we had 30 seconds to a minute to answer a question.
Mitt is very analytical. He is not going to make a statement about something until all the facts are in. Isn’t that what we’re looking for in a POTUS.
Read Hugh Hewitt’s book, A Mormon In The Whitehouse and learn more about him before you dismiss him.
Sorry, if you can’t get the WOT and the reality of Iraq right and you have been running for over a year... no sale.
LLS
I DO want a conservative to be eleccted. And it does need to be someone with the experience of being the boss, and making 'boss-type' decisions. I could trust Rudy to a point, but that is all. My concern with him is that he is socially WAY too liberal.
paul is a complete idiot. He may stand strong on the Constitution, but look how he sounds and looks on every day life.
On top of which, the GOP in MA is a sad, pathetic shell of what it used to be. With the exception of Mitt Romney, they haven't fielded a decent candidate to replace Ted Kennedy in decades. Most Repubs in MA are Dem wannabes who, like the Dems, see state government as a "hack heaven", as Howie Carr, a local radio host, puts it. It's a gravy train to be boarded, not an opportunity to serve the community. The Dems created this "hack heaven" but there are many, many Repubs in MA that want in on it too.
Yes, Laura has bee positive about Mitt! I’m a regular listener.
That’s “been.”
Tagline
2nd try
So I take it you haven’t read the comments on FR about Romney.
I like it!
No, I tend to skip a lot of ‘opinions’. Much of it is same-ol’ same-ol’.
“Being from TX, I am concerned that voters who continually re-elect the two senators from Mass also elected his as governor.”
I believe you made my earlier point.
Massachusetts also elected Reagan twice and the state was every bit as liberal then as it is today.
He was also quite good last night on the O’Reilly Factor where he discussed immigration in detail. They agreed on the importance of securing the border and enforcing the law. He could be leaning Romney too, from the looks of it.
He supported the fags, snatched the guns and screwed the party when he left.
Plenty of reason for concern.
Mitt Romney: True Strength for America's Future
I have to admit that I was not completely hooked until I saw him speak in person a few times. It seems more and more of those who have the opportunity to see him in person are convinced.
Mitt is being pragmatic and is giving the General the courtesy of waiting to hear what he has to say.
On the other hand, General McCain seems to have the tendency to think he knows it all rather than wait to hear the entire story from the commanders on the ground (that was quite clear when he opposed the President and the military leaders on Guantanamo procedures).
Mitt is waiting to get the full and complete information from the generals in the field before making any decisions. A wise, professional and reasoned approach.
----------------
What Mitt said:
I’m going to wait -- Well, you know, we haven’t heard from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. I believe it’s successful, but I’m going to hold out until we hear the report. I’m going to give them the benefit of hearing that.
I know there are some early reports that they’re going to say it’s successful, and I certainly hope that’s the case. But let’s listen to their report.
Sorry, if you can’t get the WOT and the reality of Iraq right and you have been running for over a year... no sale.Mitt Romney gets the WOT extremely well; he's among the strongest on that issue.
Debate semantics aside, Mitt's characterization of the surge was more accurate than McCain's, IMO.
BUMP! Yes, that one stuck in my mind, too!
LLS
I think I’ll take the word of those on the ground in Iraq, like Allegra and those like McCain that have been there recently. No matter how you guys try to rationalize his mistake... Mitt was wrong and unprepared!
LLS
...the worst moment came on the next question when "Mr. Apparently" tried to answer if he thought the surge was working.
"...so I can back out with my tail between my legs and tell everyone that the coach (Bush) should be fired because the team is losing..."
I have to admit that I was not completely hooked until I saw him speak in person a few times. It seems more and more of those who have the opportunity to see him in person are convinced."
‘Yes, Laura has bee positive about Mitt! I’m a regular listener.’
Same here (regular listener) but I’d say she’s just keeping an open mind, and totally rejecting as Un American the crap about his religion...as it would behoove everybody to do in my opinion.
Personally, I simply don’t care what church he attends, or doesn’t attend. None of my business, just as my views on religion are nobody’s business unless I decide to speak to it.
Don’t know who I’ll support when the time comes...I just know its way to early to pick ANYONE yet. Lotta ground to be covered before we start showing up at polling places, either in primaries or the general election cycle next year.
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.