'Favorite son' Romney is best GOP choice in primary

The Oakland Press ^ | January 11, 2008 | The Oakland Press

[Norman Bates]

We wouldn’t lose Kansas, but currently Kentucky would be at risk (IIRC down by six versus HRC according to Survey USA). Down by eight in Ohio (IIRC).

Look, I like Mitt Romney. But right now he looks vulnerable in terms of electability (for some reason or other), though I respect those who stand by him. You know I don’t think it’s impossible to turn those numbers around. Just seems a tall order (and risky).

[Diogenesis]

Actually, in Romney's home state, he is so despised and has so many negatives that Romney-the-HOMEBOY
loses in actual tracking polls in MASS. to Hillary. Worse, Romney is clearly tanking over time.

---

Romney: “Make all the promises you have to.”

---

Romney "Disses" Amateur Radio In Televised Town Meeting (and why he won't get my vote)

---

"Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village
and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, non-finger-pointing way..."
(Mitt Romney, "For City Problems, Future Solutions," The Boston Globe, 3/1/98)

---

"Mitt Romney...alienating America one group at a time."
AlaskaErik

[Plutarch]

And the media is never ever wrong.

No, it is the media are never wrong.

The word media is plural.

[dalereed]

If he wins the nomination i’ll vote against him in the general.

HE’S LIBERAL TOXIC WASTE!

[whatisthetruth]

No, when she became a Christian, Romney has explained his 'conversion' to the pro-life cause however I can't see into his heart to see if he's sincere or not but I have heard of many pro-choicers who have become pro-life and pro-lifers who have become pro-choice but once a person switches it's usually just one time, so I doubt that Romney will don the mantel of being pro-life only to switch back to being pro-choice.

The Mormon Church claims to be pro-life, even Harry Reid supposedly is pro-life so Romney's new pro-life views are in lockstep with his faith.

[Norman Bates]

Believe me FRiend, I am quite aware of all the polling on the candidates. John McCain by far polls the best in Massachusetts.

[Norman Bates]

Dio, that’s an old graph there’s been three more polls conducted since then. Mitt’s at around 35-36 in them. ;-)

[PetroniusMaximus]

Look at this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Just take a second to watch it.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Congratulations again.

[Lily4Jesus]

I would and will

[Colofornian]

You Romney haters better be careful. If he should get the nomination, I’m sure you will not vote or go for Hitlery or OBBBBBBBBBama. Better tone it down before your vile stance will poison lots of voters and we will end up like we did with the Senate and House.

Oh, stop being single issue voter. If Romney gets the nomination I'm passing on the POTUS portion of the ballot.

[pepperhead]

That is why I will never vote for him.

[Colofornian]

...once a person switches it's usually just one time, so I doubt that Romney will don the mantel of being pro-life only to switch back to being pro-choice.

He already has been switching back & forth, back & forth. (People either don't want to know or don't pay attention to particulars)

The first principle of true conversion: STOP waffling back to old ways. Shall we review Mitt's meandering case of 13 switchbacks?

(1): Romney comes from a heritage that is primarily pro-life. = He says flipped from a Mormon pro-life perspective when he sided with his mom when she ran as a pro-abortion senator in 1970.

(2): But then we learn he's supposedly been "pro-life" all along: "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98) = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3): 1994 campaign in Massachusetts: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country." = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5): But by 2002, guess what? He was pro-abortion again! "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert? )

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt NOW says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.") = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access for poor women. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) " I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

Confused? Well don't be: This Harper's Magazine excerpt found at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1921487/posts includes this excerpt:

"Earlier this year, the Boston Globe obtained a copy of an internal campaign PowerPoint presentation that outlined Romney’s strengths and weaknesses as he embarked on his presidential bid. One page—entitled “Primal Code for Brand Romney”—explained that Romney should market himself as a foil to such Massachusetts liberals as Senators Edward Kennedy and John Kerry, and also run against such “enemies” as Hollywood, France, and “moral relativism.” Problems identified by the campaign included the perception that Romney would not make a tough wartime leader and the possibility that voters would be spooked by his Mormon religion. The presentation also acknowledged the problematic view that Romney is a “phony” and a “political opportunist”; but that view is due at least in part to the fact that by any reasonable standard it’s true."

[TheLion]

Gerald Ford barely got in the Michigan Primary in 1976 and won. He was the last candidate to run in Michigan that had been born there. He beat Ronald Reagan by 31% that year.

http://www.michiganhistorymagazine.com/features/remembering_gerald_ford.html

“In 1976, though, the movement of voters was in the other direction. Democratic turnout plummeted to barely 700,000, while the Republican turnout skyrocketed to more than 1 million, as Michigan voters handed native son Jerry Ford a lopsided victory in the GOP primary.”

——snip——

http://rhodescook.com/analysis/presidential_primaries/mi/allabout.html

[kinghorse]

He’s got the best shot of taking the general election with a handsome VP choice over any of the other candidates. I want my party to win, period. And get over the in depth reasoning needed to make a logical choice. This election is going to come down to the visceral.

[kinghorse]

I didn’t know that. Oh well, next. This is slim pickings I tell ya. Brokered convention?

[Scarchin]

You dope - it’s because he’s the one they fear the most.

Reverse psychology - heard of it?

[kinghorse]

From an historical perspective and considering where we are with the ME and Pakistan and particularly regarding his stance on Iraq, a case can be made for McCain being the inevitable nominee. If intl events break just right between Sept and Nov, he’s there. McCain would be the next in line based on running and getting jammed by the party the time before, Bush in this instance. There’s a pecking order to these nominations sometimes. Not always the best way to go. Look at the less than stellar candidates both parties have had to run out of loyalty over the years. Kerry and Bob Dole immediately come to mind. On the other hand President Reagan was a loyalty nominee after getting jammed by the party in 76.

[kinghorse]

It’ always been Romney or McCain for me just because there are no perfect candidates and you have to look at who you trust to protect you and your interests. Romney comes first out of a primordial desire to remain employed while McCain satisfies my sleep soundly in my bed at night requirement. Either works for me. If Fred Thompson somehow some way rekindles more of his Joe Don Baker side (I always got the two mixed up in the movies) I would be thrilled. I worry about his poorly managed campaign being a warning sign however.

[apocalypto]

I watched some parts of the debates, and John McCain appeared like a nasty, angry old man who is not quite right in the head. He is also not in the best of physical health. Polls cannot be trusted too much as shown by NH. One wonder who exactly is chosen to respond. John McCain beloved by the media (who will turn on him when he faces Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton) because he is ultra liberal. He has a dark soul. Think: amnesty, adultery, CFR, lack of self control.