Posted on 12/16/2007 10:33:14 AM PST by JRochelle
I just got finished watching Mitt Romney's performance on "Meet the Press."
Snip..
--On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban. He even said he would have signed an extension of the assault weapons ban when it expired in 2004. He also employed the odd phrase "weapons of unusual lethality" to describe the type of guns he would ban.
--On immigration, Romney was utterly Clintonian. He said that when in November 2005 he described the Bush/McCain approach to immigration as "reasonable" and "quite different" from amnesty, he wasn't endorsing the proposal, but just describing it. He hadn't formulated his own position on immigration at the time. That's right up there with Hillary Clinton saying in the debate that she didn't say she supported driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but she just said that a proposal to do so "makes sense." Even if we were to get into the Christmas spirit and be extraordinarily generous by granting Romney that an elected official saying pending legislation is "reasonable" doesn't constitute support for the legislation, it still doesn't get him off the hook. His description of the proposal was that it was "quite different" from amnesty, and yet during this year he has ceaselessly leveled attacks on McCain by accusing him of supporting "amnesty."
Snip..
--On health care, I thought it was noteworthy that Romney hopes other states will follow the Massachusetts model so that insurance will be mandated nationwide (even if it isn't by the federal government). So philosophically, he still holds out hope that every American will be forced to purchase health insurance, but he just thinks that personal liberty should be violated on a state-by-state basis.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Myth Romney lies. Then he lies some more.
Looks like Mitt and Huck are in a figure 8 self demolition derby.
I think he has lost track of all his past positions, he can’t keep them straight.
PING
I like what Mona Charen has to say about Romney...
...Romney has been masterful in everything he has attempted. It is not insignificant that this cum laude JD/MBA graduate of Harvard guided Bain Capital to become a hugely successful private equity investment firm and rescued Bain & Company from financial collapse. Romney was brought in to save the 2002 Winter Olympics when the games were mired in scandal and $379 million in debt. Romney was able to turn the situation around completely so that the games actually turned a $100 million profit instead. (He also gave back his salary.) That’s not slick, that’s substance.
When Mitt Romney took office as governor of Massachusetts, the state had a $1.2 billion deficit. Four years later it was in surplus. He boasts that fourth and eighth graders in Massachusetts achieved the highest scores in the nation in reading and math, though they were doing so before he became governor as well. But his program of assessment, merit pay for good teachers, English immersion and a focus on math and science may have helped keep them at the top.
It is difficult to find any significant weakness in Romney. He is refreshingly articulate, exceedingly well prepared and self-disciplined, clearly an excellent manager with both private and government experience, happily married with a large, supportive family, and well within the mainstream of conservatism on every major issue. His nomination would not divide the base.
He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.
Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
As I walk through this world
Nothing can stop the Duke of Earl
And you, you are my girl
And no one can hurt you, oh no
Yes, I’m gonna love you
Come on let me hold you darlin’
‘Cause I’m the Duke of Earl
And when I hold you
You will be my Duchess, Duchess of Earl
We’ll walk through my dukedom
And the paradise we will share
Yes, oh, I
I’m gonna love you
Nothing can stop me now
‘Cause I’m the Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl
I’m gonna love you
Nothing can stop me now
‘Cause I’m the Duke of Earl
“weapons of unusual lethality” to describe the type of guns he would ban.
The logic circuits have to work over-time to keep up with Mitt. Are the unusually dead worse off than the usually dead? The GOP does not know what it is getting itself into with this guy.
Oops, wrong thread! I didn’t know my cursor was loaded! Yuk, yuk. :^)
![](http://users.zoominternet.net/~mlob2/LiberalTroika2.jpg")
Mitt Romney is just another New World Order Socialist-Globalist. A totally transparent RINO. ...And I would say the same thing about Guliani, Huckabee, McCain,...and the jury is still out on Thompson, even though he is a card-carrying member of the CFR.
In short, there's only two other guys running who are not members of these elite clubs. "Hunter" and "Tancredo".
“He is just the sort of candidate people complain that they never get.”
Yes, he’s going to be a God don’t cha’ know.
And his Romneycare is already in debt by the way. When the God’s away, the mortals do play, so why didn’t he plan for that??
I agree. Another Romney could sell air conditioners in the Arctic, to quote Mara Liassenn on Bill Clinton.
Your tag line seems an incongruence with a seeming support for Romney.
“Rubbish!”
Garbage! Trash! Refuse! Discards! Waste! Sewage! Offal! Hillary!
I win cause I used more words with the same meaning that you used, that means I have a higher vocabulary.
Come now, he is against pornography...I think.
Romney simply cannot be trusted to stick to any one position for longer than his next appearance. Romney would be such a big mistake for this Country.
FRED THOMPSON (true consistent Conservative Federalist) - NATIONAL SECURITY EXPERT (I’ll do whatever it takes to stop the bastards, include water-boarding) - 2ND AMENDMENT ADVOCATE (arm all legal citizens and criminals will become more hesitant) - SECURE AND SEAL THE BORDERS (don’t give them sanctuary anywhere, don’t hire them, don’t rent to them, don’t give them credit, don’t give them rights they don’t deserve, report all crimes committed by them, they will go home or we will deport them) - LAW AND ORDER (enforcement first and foremost with the laws currently on the books) - SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM (reform a program that can’t sustain itself and will bankrupt this nation) - DEFEAT THE DEMOCRAT (any fool they put up) – TAX SIMPLIFICATION (choice for the tax payer) - WON’T PUT UP WITH CRAP FROM THE MSM (including stupid questions by moderators) - PING!
plus no one I know from Mass(mostly all libs)dont care for Romney at all.
He's a flipflopping liberal liar. That's significant.
We still have Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson.
Mitt and Huck are in a figure 8 self-demolition derby? Let’s hope so. And then lazy, sly Thompson will watch Guiliani’s women, and the state money he spent on them, tie him in knots? Let’s hope so.
I'm guessing that no such clear answer would be received should Mitt receive that question. It certainly wouldn't fit his MO. But you did get me to chuckle.
It may have been wrong day of the week, and therefore he was on the flip before the flop! Instead, he was on the flop before the flip! :)
Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.
He was on the board of Marriott while they offered in-room PPV porn.
Of all the reasons to oppose Slick Willard, that’s a weak one, but it is no doubt the reason for the reference.
I did. And although the blog was obviously not supportive of Romney, nowhere in the title was the phrase "Romney utterly Clintonian". In fact "Romney was utterly Clintonian" was written only once and that was at the beginning of the fourth paragraph which dealt with immigration.
Clearly, Philip Klein wrote what you wanted to read regarding Romney. But, he didn't need your help with the title.
Call a wahhhhmbulance. Not only are parentheticals in titles permitted, but this one is accurate.
He isn't called Slick Willard for nothing.
I’m sure someone has used this line in the thread by now but looks like he shot himself in the foot.
Hello. If you could provide me with any evidence that this statement by Romney is untrue I would really appreciate it. Thanks.
Fred went on MTP and Russert never laid a glove on him. Romney goes on and Russert whipped him like a rented mule! ( and made him cry)
Romney now joins Giuliani and McCain as “Republican” candidates I absolutely, positively will not vote for no matter what. Even if Hillary! or her bother Satan get the Rat nomination.
He's toast
There are no minds to be changed in politics among those most opinionated. The only thing that will have people rally to Romney’s support will be the exhaustion of campaign budgets of others.
The trial by fire continues. This guy has a crisp organization of committed people who, like him, are chock full of competence. Post nomination, in a year when the GOP donor base has closed its pocketbook, only Romney will not have to drain money from the campaigns of down ticket races and enable the GOP to either minimize seat loss or maybe even pick up a few. Only Romney can compete with the Democrat fund raising machine that is out raising the GOP by enormous proportions historically.
In the end, a loser’s principles have utterly zero impact on society. Winning matters. Never forget it. Mitt Romney is hugely rightward of Obama and Hillary. His commitment to traditional family values is the best available measure of conservative perspective. Contrast his family in the White House with Hillary and her parade of lesbian lovers.
That will be your choice. You will come home if that time comes. And you’ll sleep better knowing you did.
What is it you don*t like about Duncan Hunter?
He’s a lying liberal.
To say we should vote for the guy who has the most money is stupid.
Money does not equal votes.
Ever hear of President Forbes?
Senator Coors?
Me either.
...like $50 bargain basement abortion make him an affront to thinking conservatives.
On the Sunday talk show thread, they made it sound like Russert was savaging Romney. Or to some, Romney was defending himself brilliantly.
I’m watching the video now and my head is spinning, trying to follow Romney’s reasoning. Russert is letting him off easy in my opinion.
For example: the relative who had an abortion is now gone as the foundation of his support of abortion. Now, it was just theoretical support.
Then his belief in pro-life is, he describes it, a political position. That’s his exact term.
Killing surplus embryos is ok with him, no explanation why they don’t count as living and protected, and Russert doesn’t persist in questioning him.
That’s just the pro-life issue. Then there’s the NRA membership and the illegal alien issue.
I may have to vote for this man, which really depresses me. Smooth? He is slicker than Clinton, more nuanced than Kerry. I don’t like him and I don’t trust him, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about him.
How can smart, sensible people like Charen, Coulter, and Bork swallow what he’s serving up?
Bork is anti-gun, so his affinity to Willard is obvious.
Coulter’s probably all smitten and goooshie.
Bork is easy to explain. He’s as anti-gun as Willard is!
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.