Posted on 10/20/2007 2:16:38 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
Mitt Romney gets a big reception tonight here at the Washington Briefing. Jay Sekulow introduces him. Jay gets a big reception.
Jay's introduction revolves around Mitt Romney's marriage fight in Massachusetts.
Mitt comes in to a grand anthem. The room goes nuts -- a bigger reception than any of the other candidates. He begins pitch perfect.
"I'm pro-family on every level, from personal to political," he says. He says his "driving ambition" is to have his kids and grandkids grow up in a national that his strong and prosperous.
He's got this Mr. Rogers thing going on right now talking about family. Think Mr. Rogers as President. You can't help but like him, but you can't help but think it's a bit too canned or polished — the message and pitch are just perfect.
He praises single parents like his sister Jane, but says "two parents are the ideal setting." He wants to teach kids that before they have babies they should get married. "It really is time to make out of wedlock birth out of fashion again." And you know what? You believe him. He seems just so sincere. And the message resonates. Then he gets "hats off to Bill Cosby for telling it like it is."
He moves on to talk about inner-city families where young boys have no father figures. "And then there are the broad national tragedies built on this implication. . . . The nation cannot thrive" he says, talking about so many kids without dads.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Meanwhile, “Fred Thompson Gives 5 Minute Speech To FL GOP; Dozens Ask ‘Is That It?’...”
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/florida/story/278924.html
Fred just doesn’t have it. I’ve never been impressed with him other than the 30 sec. Moore response and his internet announcement. He was almost terrible at his first debtate.
People are going to have to realize it’s between Mitt and Rudy. Mitt’s the obvious choice.
There is a difference between “Mr. Romney yesterday told TV news stations that he would support a Vermont-style civil union law in Massachusetts”, and “he supports civil unions”.
The word support means two different things in those two phrases. The first is what he was willing to compromise on in order to get the constitutional amendment barring Gay Marriage, in a state that would NEVER ban Gay marriage And Civil unions in the legislature.
The second is what he would propose if he were king of the world.
I don’t think he should have been willing to give in to civil unions in order to ban Gay marriage. But this specific example does not mean he would PROPOSE civil unions.
I happen to live in a state where we have not only banned gay marriage, but any contractual equivalent. I’m proud we were able to achieve that. In Massachusetts, as soon as Romney left office, even his watered-down Gay marriage ban was deep-sixed by the legislature. It’s amazing I guess that it stayed alive so long, even though I think it would pass if it made it on the ballot.
I’m not arguing about the “times past” for Romney, my support for him is based on my own OPINION that I can trust him, and then what he is now saying. If he can’t be trusted, what he’s saying is useless (that’s true for any candidate). If he can be trusted, what he’s saying is as good as anybody else that is electable.
I know others don’t believe Romney can be trusted.
Well, frankly, I don’t trust much of anybody in the upper tiers of power anymore. The Republican Party is very nearly a lost cause.
I’m close to agreeing with you on that point. If Government was still limited to it’s constitutional functions, I’d probably abandon the party, knowing that the feds couldn’t really hurt us much one way or another.
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.