Posted on 12/01/2007 9:06:35 AM PST by jdm
If Republicans nominate former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney to be their party's presidential candidate, whom are they going to get?
Are they going to get the candidate who once said: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it. And I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.”
He made that comment in 1994 when he was running for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts.
When running for governor of that state in 2002 he was again asked about laws permitting abortion: “I will preserve them. I will protect them. I will enforce them.”
Or will Republicans get the candidate who now says that, if elected, he will work to get Roe v. Wade overturned. The one who says it should be up to states to decide whether abortion is illegal and, if he could have his way, he would make it illegal.
Pressed during the most recent debate on this moral and political about face, Mr. Romney explained, “On abortion, I was wrong.”
How convenient.
In 1994 and 2002 he was running in politically liberal Massachusetts. It did not take a lot of courage to be pro-choice there. Now he needs the votes of social conservatives to win the Republican nomination.
Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts said it best. Mr. Romney's not pro-choice or anti-choice, he's “multiple choice.”
Perhaps Republicans, if they choose Mr. Romney, will get the candidate who, back in that 1994 election, said he looked forward to the day when homosexuals could serve “openly and honestly in our nation's military” and who sought the support of gay rights groups.
Or maybe they will get the candidate who no longer thinks allowing homosexuals in the military to come out of the closet is such a great idea after all.
“At this stage, it's not the time,” said Mr. Romney at the recent debate when asked if gays serving their country should be allowed to be forthright about their sexual orientation. If elected president he “looks forward to hearing from the military exactly what they feel is the right way.”
That wishy-washy, evasive response drew well-deserved boos.
Maybe they'll get the candidate who once said, “Look, I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” Or they could get the candidate who pledged at the debate “to follow the pathway Ronald Reagan blazed.”
They certainly will get a candidate so timid and politically careful that he will not even say whether he considers waterboarding to be a form of torture.
Voters know candidates modify positions to get elected and routinely utilize the art of nuance. But Mr. Romney, with his willingness to so completely change positions on morally grounded issues, has set new lows for political duplicity.
If Republicans want a candidate who will do or say anything to get elected, Mr. Romney's their guy.
Sounds pretty accurate to me.
A few are, sure.
I can’t take Giulianni, his stance on a lot of issues that are important to me is way too close to the Hildabeast. Romney I’m not as enthusiastic about, the more I hear about him.
“They certainly will get a candidate so timid and politically careful that he will not even say whether he considers waterboarding to be a form of torture.”
That was actually one of the few decisive thing he has done, that isn’t something for open discussion.
More egregious was a recent Mitt statement that we’d all be insured in four years. What would we need Hillary for then?
Ping to a very accurate article.
"I can be whomever you want me to be."
He’s smarter than the rest.
Why are all the attacks on Romney? Guilliani is being left to default his way to the nomination. It is he who is the leader.
He's saying he doesn't want to tell the enemy what tactics he will approve as President. I think that's a good answer. With McCain as President, terrorists know they won't face waterboarding or torture of any kind.
I'm sure that has 'em quaking in their bomb vests.
““At this stage, it’s not the time,” said Mr. Romney at the recent debate when asked if gays serving their country should be allowed to be forthright about their sexual orientation. If elected president he “looks forward to hearing from the military exactly what they feel is the right way.””
At this stage? Hearing from the military?
Clintonesque weasel words. This man knows NOTHING about the military and should NOT be CIC!
Fred Thompson is the only real conservative in the race. Mike Huckabee is at least a social conservative that comes off as honest.
Giuliani is a liberal and crook with no character. He is unacceptable as a Republican nominee and that is why is dropping like a rock in the early primary states.
If you want to end up with Mike Huckabee as the nominee -- and you know you don't -- I'd get behind Fred Thompson if I were you.
He is Nixon on steroids.
>>
Clintonesque weasel words. This man knows NOTHING about the military and should NOT be CIC!
>>
And Thompson’s military experience is what?
Only McCain does not fall into the category of “knows NOTHING about the military and should NOT be CIC!” and I suspect you do not favor McCain.
Romney brings uber competence to the table and a resume of accomplishments in business and leadership that the others simply do not. This trumps the degree to which he is not the most conservative of the field. He, like GW Bush, who was not the most conservative of his field in 1999, is conservative enough and more competent than the rest.
Correcting myself, Hunter also has military service in his bio — though no money and likely will not last past New Hampshire.
Nope. Not at all.
I didn't care for the way he answered the flag question at all, have some guts man, the Klan probably eats at McDonald's too, but it doesn't make McDonald's a racist symbol. Just because some people up north decided its a racist flag, does not make it so. I may share his faith, but I sure don't understand or admire his politics.
Go Hunter or Go Fred!
Go anybody that isn't going to turn us into a socialist state!
Then we have the others, which Mitt is the most obvious example, who put on Conservatism like a costume for a play.
The difference is starting to really show.
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.