Romney Has History of Running Away from Reagan and Republicans

Blogs For Fred Thompson ^ | October 6, 2007 | brkcmo

[Clara Lou]

You’re mighty brave when you’re talking behind someone’s back. Are the courtesies at FR too much for you?

[traderrob6]

Case in point.

Hardly behind your back, my posting was in the open for you and everyone else to see.

But if it makes you feel any better, your obtuse.

[Soul Seeker]

I dislike Romney because he’s a Mormon? I take it you are a student of the Hugh Hewitt School.

I suppose I dislike Rudy because he’s Catholic?

Oh, and since I’m not a fan of Bush these days I must have developed a newfound aversion for evangelicals.

Let’s see...who else can I hate?

Obama because he’s black of course.

Hillary because she’s a woman (even though I’m a woman).

I disliked Miers because she was a woman and gosh darn it didn’t go to Yale.

I want secure borders because I can’t handle people with a different skin color and language in this country.

You sound like a Liberal. If we don’t support somebody it must be because of their sex, their race, their religion, and whatever other garbage they level. It can’t simply be because they are Liberals, and that Mitt until his choice to grace us on the presidential stage was/very likely still IS a LIBERAL. Nah, couldn’t be that is why a CONSERVATIVE site has such an aversion to Romney while it favors Thompson and Hunter. of course not...

[Clara Lou]

your obtuse
You're illiterate, as well as lazy and rude, if you want to toss insults. (I'm sort of at a loss as to why you would want to, since I've never posted to you.) Romney fans-- mean-spirited people. I guess it comes from supporting a loser who donates to himself because no one else will.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

For federal purposes marriage won't stay between one man and one woman with Fred's proposed amendment. He refuses to include that language in the amendment. FLIP-FLOP!

As things stand right now the courts are likely to overturn DOMA since the federal gov't recognized all other state marriages. Fred's plan is no solution to the problem since he won't support an amendment that contains a federal definition of marriage (by whatever name). He is going to make double sure the federal gov't has to recognize homo marriages.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

What makes you think the states wont see marriage the same way you do?

Most of them will. One or two liberal states should not be allowed to radically redefine marriage for the federal government when the other 40+ states are appalled at the idea. An amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman would allow for a consensus throughout the whole United States, rather than let some crazy liberals force this nonsense on everyone. And we should say "no" to marriage by another name as well. We shouldn't be scammed by stupid word games.

[traderrob6]

Sorry, I call em as I see em. I’ve watched your posts for some time and I find that even when someone presents a cogent concise argument you either refuse to accept the evidence or ignore it completely and move on too something else. Obtuse is defined as willful ignorance and that’s the general impression I get from many of your postings.

I don’t hate Romney, Hunter, or even Guiliani supports as long as they play fair and try to carry on a reasoned debate. With the exception of Paul supporters I respect everyones opinion.

I’m neither lazy nor illiterate....rude, quite possibly. But one thing for certain, if I get bested in a debate I’ll concede the point. Something I’ve yet to see you do. Maybe it’s because your always right....but I doubt it.

[SoConPubbie]

Strike the “Rudy” part and you got a deal.

ANYBODY BUT A DEMOCRAT WHICH INCLUDES THE LURKER RUDY!

[SoConPubbie]

Says who?

You?

You apparently have forgotten the Thompson’s fundraising last month of approximatel $200,000 a day and over 70,000 unique donors.

Nice try at lying though, really!

[restornu]

Gee I thought I was going to read something current not a cut and edit tape!

[CheyennePress]

The ironic truth? ha! The man who won the Ronald Reagan Award this April is running away, eh?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/04/19/VI2007041900473.html

Romney is the one speaking of the three-legged stool of family values, the economy, and the military.

[Clara Lou]

So, in other words, I haven’t come around to your way of thinking, and I don’t hang around to argue with you [the general ‘you’]. Too bad. There’s no law that says I have to waste my time bickering. If you (specifically) don’t like it, I’ll just have to try to live with it. ~sniff~

[Signalman]

Mojo, I agree with you. I believe Romney and Rudy are both equally strong as candidates. My first preference would be Mitt but I would have no problem supporting Rudy.

I also like, and respect, Fred. I just haven’t seen, yet, that he can or will be a strong candidate. And that’s my primary concern. We need someone who can beat the Wicked Witch, and I don’t know if Fred is that man.

[mamelukesabre]

Maybe we should let the states decide. Why do we care if one or two go off on a tangent? let them. But we need a law that says we don’t all have to abide by the one or two crazy states lunacy.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

So one liberal state should force the federal gov’t to recognize homo marriage? Because that’s what we are really talking about with Fred’s proposed amendment. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t write into the federal constitution, “marriage in these United States is defined whatever crazy way individual states choose to define it” and expect the federal gov’t to be allowed to pick and choose which of those marriages it will recognize and benefit. The only way the federal gov’t can avoid being forced to recognize homosexual marriage is if we define it as only between one man and one woman in the federal constitution. It isn’t a state issue when the federal gov’t recognizes them and provides dozens of benefits.

[CheyennePress]

What they’re looking to do is let one federal court ruling obliterate all the hard word of individual states, sending their little federalism dogma whirling down the porcelain drain along with the American family—all in the name of supporting some guy named Fred.

[Edit35]

We need someone who can beat the Wicked Witch, and I don’t know if Fred is that man.

Exactamundo.

I love Fred. He is a nice guy, and would make a fabulous uncle at Thanksgiving dinner.

But he strikes me as too .... curmudgeon-ee to attract those essential cross-over votes, especially in the electoral-vote heavy Northeast and West.

In today's world, it takes a quick thinker with moxy to be an effective candidate. A savvy public persona.

Is that fair? Nah, it's not.

But it's reality.

I truly believe Romney would win over a lot of undecideds.

Rudy might also. But that gain would be offset by a huge split in the GOP base, due to his liberal stances on illegal immigration, abortion, homo marriage, etc.

[Josh Painter]

"Once you get outside of Iowa and New Hampshire, where he has been spending much of his time and campaign war chest, Mitt's numbers are frighteningly bad.

Nationally, other than in August of this year, when Mitt surfed a wave of positive publicity about his victory at the Ames straw poll in Iowa, he has been mired right around the 9%-10% range in national polls. In fact, if you go all the way back to April of this year, you'll find that Mitt's national numbers are at about the same level. Just as a point of comparison, remember John McCain? You know, the guy everyone is saying can't raise money and has no chance to win? He has been -- and is still -- consistently outpolling Mitt Romney nationally.

Things get even worse for Mitt when you look at state polls against the Democratic contenders. Romney, like Giuliani, has been touting himself as a candidate who can give the Democrats problems in 2008 because he can compete with them in the blue states. However, for that strategy to work, the candidate has to be able to hold red states against a liberal Democratic nominee while he tries to bring more blue states into the fold. Rudy Giuliani, at least at this early point, has poll numbers that indicate he might be able to pull it off. Romney doesn't.

In fact, his numbers are much worse than those of Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. How much worse? He actually ties Hillary in Kentucky and loses to her in Kansas and Oklahoma.

If the GOP has to struggle in 2008 to even hang onto red states like Kentucky, Kansas, and Oklahoma, we might as well just give up on retaining the presidency right now."

The Conservative Case Against Mitt Romney

[mamelukesabre]

I admit I havn’t thought a whole lot about this. I’m against gay marriage. I’m not really a fred supporter. I like him better than rudy, but less than hunter and tancredo.

The gay marriage issue seems less important to me right now when compared to: the war, the economy, illegal immigrants, unfair trade with china, bloated federal government, out of control spending, etc.

I tend to like the idea of giving more authority to individual states and take away from the authority of the fed. With the marriage issue, maybe this just isn’t practical though. If we have more than one definition of marriage, what happens when people get married in one state then move to another state? Currently there is a form of reciprocity for marriage licenses. It’s no big deal now since the only real differences between states is the legal age at which one can get married. But if one state begins allowing polygamy or gay marriage, or marriage to animals, and the other states ban these...how is reciprocity going to work?

I guess I would still be in favor of letting the states decide the marriage issue provided someone comes up with a good solution regarding the reciprocity issue.