Posted on 10/03/2007 1:13:15 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
When did I support him ? In 1994 and 2002. Unfortunately back in 1994, I subscribed to the mindset that ANY Republican was better than any Democrat. Maturity and seeing liberal RINOs in action disavowed me of that before the decade was over. I supported him in ‘02 simply because he LOOKED like and ACTED like and TALKED like he intended to change the political culture in MA. It was a falsehood of the highest order. He soon lost interest in the Governorship and cut and run from his responsibilities as party leader when he failed to do what he promised. But, hey, as one who said a long time ago that his hero was Slick Willie Weld, it told me all I needed to know about his character. Like Weld, it was all about himself and everyone and everything else came a distant second. We don’t need damnable liars, destructive frauds, and preening primadonnas running as Republicans for President. There’s enough Democrats that act that way. Let’s keep the trash on that side of the fence, thank you.
Name one veto of Mitt Romney you disagree with. My bet is that you agree with 100% of them.
Thanks for clearing that up. You supported Romney in 1994 even though he stated that he’d defend a woman’s right to an abortion, and he’d be a champion for gay rights. But now you attack him for “flip-flopping” on those issues?
You can change your mind, but he cannot? You admit that you supported a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate in 1994 and 2002. But now those issues are automatic disqualifiers for the man even though he has changed his stance on those issues?
There are two possibilities here:
1) you are a social liberal who is PO’d at Romney for running as a social liberal, but governing as a social conservative (not likely)
2) you have some form of tie to Jim Rappaport or Bill Mallard, and you feel spurned by what happened in 2002.
Where’d you go?
A veto ? There was no Republican party to sustain a veto in the MA legislature ! What a joke.
You missed this line: "Unfortunately back in 1994, I subscribed to the mindset that ANY Republican was better than any Democrat." The premier issue was defeating Ted Kennedy, and that was that.
"You can change your mind, but he cannot? You admit that you supported a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage candidate in 1994 and 2002. But now those issues are automatic disqualifiers for the man even though he has changed his stance on those issues?"
That wasn't the issue, as I stated above. Let me ask you this, what do you call someone who just happens to switch his positions on key issues just prior to a run for the highest office in the land ? You see, this is why having no core values or changing them on a dime for the purposes of opportunism demonstrates a serious lack of character.
"1) you are a social liberal who is PO’d at Romney for running as a social liberal, but governing as a social conservative (not likely)"
Nope, but then I've already answered your question.
"2) you have some form of tie to Jim Rappaport or Bill Mallard, and you feel spurned by what happened in 2002."
Given Romney's treatment of Mr. Rappaport in not supporting him for Lt Governor and depriving the party of a future viable statewide candidate (since Kerry Healey was nothing but a cypher who couldn't even win low-level office in her own bailiwick) to succeed him, that certainly also was in keeping with his intention to bury what was left of the party. Mission accomplished.
We call it “bed.”
MICHAEL REAGAN
The son of President Reagan wrote the following in Human Events about Mitt Romney:
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
You post those same tired talking points over and over, but they don’t help your point. Michael Reagan does not support or agree with Willard’s lie that Ronald Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice.”
Why can’t Willard apologize for LYING about RONALD REAGAN’S pro-life beliefs?
This is essentially what Ann Coulter said at CPAC about Romney when she talked up him and Duncan Hunter.
And others who also "know the man" from their time in Mass come to the opposite conclusion.
I’ll take Ronald Reagan’s word over Michael Reagan’s, how’s that?
Ronald Reagan made clear that he was never in favor of abortion, only permitting abortion in a small percentage of exception cases.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, often and loudly proclaimed that abortion should generally be legal.
It's sad that folks can't distinguish between someone who believes that abortion should be permitted in perhaps 4% of cases of abortion that actually occur, and someone who believes that abortion is a constitutional right.
sitetest
That's what's known as "fooling yourself."
I have found that what we say about others really says more about ourselves. Which is why I find it intersting that you don't even pass your own litmus test for Mitt Romney upthread.
In the exchange above you flip flopped and originally supported a "pro-abort" Mitt then claim you now oppose the pro-life Mitt. Then you go on to say that your flip flop of supporting a pro baby killer candidate is not an issue. But we are supposed to believe that your conversion is true and that Mitt's conversion is not. The Back flips and spin must be tiring.
>>>>You see, this is why having no core values or changing them on a dime for the purposes of opportunism demonstrates a serious lack of character.
At least you admit you seriously lack character for supporting baby killing back in the day. But how do we know your conversion is true? If you lacked character then and had poor judgement then, What's to say you are not just continuing your admitted pattern of poor judgement today?
You want us to accept your "conversion" but to reject Romney's.
Truly. And the sycophantic worship of their cult-God Precious Willard truly speaks volumes about the Mittwitts. Never let the truth and the facts get in the way of worshipping false idols.
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.