"Ronald Reagan was
adamantly pro-choice."
Posted on 10/06/2007 12:19:34 PM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
It is more than a little ironic that the 2008 GOP Candidate to wind up speaking just before the Americans for Prosperity tribute to Ronald Reagan last night was none other than Mitt Romney. It was ironic because the truth is, Mitt Romney has a history of running away from identification with Ronald Reagan and even Republicans.
Romney is seeking to be viewed as THE conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani, but his past words make that a hard sell. Listen to Romney's own words . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at blogsforfredthompson.com ...
In a sea of Republican presidential hopefuls that invoke Reagan about as much as the average person references their mothers, receiving the Ronald Reagan award seems to be the Everest of accolades. And such was the case at last night’s Frontiers of Freedom Ronald Reagan gala, where Mitt Romney sought to channel the legendary leader’s charisma, optimism and folksy feel.
Just as Reagan did when he warned against the “unprecedented danger” of communism, Romney laced his speech with warnings of modern day foreign threats like North Korea. But, like Reagan, he also channeled optimism. As he often does, Romney invoked Reagan’s famous line that “I have seen four wars during my lifetime and none of them began because America was too strong.”
Romney also used his speech-- which he opened by praising the day’s “life affirming” Supreme Court decision-- to allude to his religious convictions (hint: they’re not unlike yours, Christian Conservatives). He referenced Isaiah when highlighting his foreign policy goals and cited Cain and Abel when talking about the Virginia Tech shootings. He also said that after hearing about the tragedy in Blacksburg, “the first thing I did was pick up my bible.”
Speaking before a room full of black-and-white tuxedos, Romney’s speech was, fittingly, a study in contrasts: He spoke of life and death, good and evil, small vs. big. And for a candidate who’s plagued by accusations of policy shifts and flips flops, he wanted to make one thing certain: he’s the Reagan candidate. And he’s prepared to make as many Peggy Noonan or “Shining City” references as it takes, till they believe him. [NORA MCALVANAH]
Yeah, sounds like headlong flight to me...
Take away Romney’s own funding, and you’ve got a doomed campaign. I have to figure that Mitt is really running for 2012 or beyond.
Thompson has simply squandered his momentum. I expected stars to fall and suns to rise when Fred spoke, and instead I get a rambling monologue like my former Congressman used to give for the breakfast Kiwanis club.
True. Too bad Thompson flip-flopped on the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.
That’s what we call a “lie.” And you know it.
No it isn’t a lie. Thompson voted for the DOMA which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. Now he proposes an amendment that defines marriage as any crazy thing the states define it to mean. That’s a flip-flop on his part.
Aha. Federalism is great until you think it won’t do what you want. Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Romney also said recently he's no clone of Bush either. It's the kind of things people say in campaign races. They want to signify that they are their own person. It doesn't mean they don't respect and admire that other person or share many common views.
Nobody is going to exemplify all the traits of another person no matter how badly we want them to, and they won't agree with them on every issue either.
For instance, as wonderful as Reagan was, he signed the 1986 amnesty bill. I hope our next president never does anything like that again.
On the other hand, we have to let the past go and come into the present where we see Romney's positions aligning with Ronald Reagan's more than any other top-tier candidate's. Of the top four, Mitt is the only one to support Reagan's Human Life Amendment and he supports the pro-family cause of defining marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Michael Reagan on Romney
Federalism was never meant to trump everything. And the DOMA which Fred voted for was FEDERAL legislation defining marriage as between one man and one woman. His proposed FEDERAL amendment would define marriage as any crazy thing states want it to mean. That’s a federal flip-flop. FEDERAL FEDERAL FEDERAL. As long as the federal government offers federal recognition and benefits, marriage already is a federal issue. Just because states vary on minor short-term particulars like age (marriages still recognized by other states, and participants grow older in a hurry, nulifying the difference) doesn’t mean we should have 50 fundamentally different definitions of marriage: bigamy, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, ... whatever. Marry pet Fido and get cheaper vet bills. Marry your elderly mother and put her on your insurance plan and let her draw off your social security.
Romney is the only one who can keep up with Rudy. Do you want to beat Rudy(and then Hillary) or not? Let's be smart.
This year, former New York Mayor Giuliani, who is leading in public opinion polls, has raised more than $43 million from others; Romney has raised $44.6 million from others.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money5oct05,1,5187821.story?coll=la-politics-campaign
Have you actually ever read DOMA? The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law. This is exactly Fred Thompson's position. For Federal purposes marriage is between a man and a women. States are free to define marriage as they want but no state is forced to accept same sex marriages from other states.
Thompson has had a consistent position based on federalism and states rights. He voted for DOMA because it is consistent with his position. No flip flop.
What makes you think the states wont see marriage the same way you do?
Aw now come on, be fair, lets not go around srewing up the truth with facts...
I think you’ll find Clara is what we call in the posting/debating business...obtuse.
These blind Romney-haters here on FR almost make me ashamed of once believing FR members to be a cut above other conservatives.
Romney’s charm, wit, economic success record and solid family values make him one of the strongest candidates the Democrats could face.
He would attract millions of middle-of-the-road voters in addition to the large bulk (about 99-percent, I figure) of Republicans.
Yet these blind Mormon haters just can’t get past that denomination thing.
As a confident conservative Baptist, and proud of it, I would welcome someone as credentialed as Romney as the Republican candidate for US President.
Do I like Hunter, Thompson, and Huckabee?
Certainly. Very much so.
But Romney, as a package, looks to be the best candidate for the GOP.
I think the problem with Mr. Romney is that in standing for this, that and the other, he has alienated a lot of people who will tolerate a diversity of opinion, but will not tolerate someone who panders.
He is against abortion, but was okay with it before. He is against gay marriage but he was for it before. He is pro-gun, but was pro-assault-weapons ban before. Porn is a scourge, except when he was on the BoD of Marriott, and then it was just dandy when it helped pay his salary (my personal pet peeve is his hypocrisy on this issue).
If you stand for everything, you stand for nothing.
That is the message he broadcasts to me, and I find it distasteful in a major way.
JMO, of course.
I think Clara is correct.
I also think you’ll find Romney is what we call in the Republican primary campaign business...Toast.
In one of the first Republican debates he said he supports the 2nd Amendment AND an assault weapons ban!
That sort of stupid will never sell in the heartland to 100 million gun owners!
Ping those Freepers you address....if you have the courage.
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.