Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred lawyers flock to Romney
Boston Globe / Political Intelligence ^ | 1-25-08 | Charlie Savage

Posted on 01/27/2008 11:15:55 AM PST by SeafoodGumbo

When GOP presidential hopeful Fred Thompson dropped out of the race this week, the former Tennessee senator gave no sign that he intends to endorse one of his rivals any time soon. But a sizable segment of Thompson's team of legal advisers quickly signed on with Mitt Romney.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fred; fredthompson; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last
To: Aria

If you have not read this speech by Romney concerning Fegeralism, please do! Sure makes me feel much better about going from Fred to Romney on Tuesday! Now understand why many lawyers who were supporters of Fred have moved to Romney. Take time to read the entire speech and let other Freepers know what you think about it. Would love to read your comments. A FredHead who has moved to Romney.

Subject: Federalism
http://www2.nationalreview.com/corner/romneyaddress.pdf


21 posted on 01/27/2008 11:54:36 AM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty
Of course Mitt has lawyers. I mean, who else would he consult with for permission to interfere with an Iranian nuclear program for instance?


22 posted on 01/27/2008 12:11:32 PM PST by perfect_rovian_storm (Yeah, I'm a bigot. I'm bigoted against MA liberals pretending to be conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeafoodGumbo

“...a sizable segment of Thompson’s team of legal advisers quickly signed on...”

Yeah, well, they all did such a bang-up job running Fred’s campaign, didn’t they? If he’d had some competent people in charge of it he’d still be in the race, most likely out front. Romney (who I will not vote for) needs to watch out.


23 posted on 01/27/2008 12:25:57 PM PST by beelzepug ("Suffering from electile dysfunction.....can't get aroused by any of the candidates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blue State Insurgent

The thought of a Romney/Huck ticket makes me squeamish. Can you say Mufasa & Scar?


24 posted on 01/27/2008 12:39:05 PM PST by littlehouse36 (Okay Mittens, count me in!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36; Blue State Insurgent

There’s absolutely no way Romney would choose Huckabee. Huckabee hates Mormons and Romney is a lot smarter than that. I still say it’s going to be Jim DeMint.


25 posted on 01/27/2008 12:45:07 PM PST by VegasBaby (<---Just one of many who refuses to vote for McCain or Huckabee under any circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VegasBaby
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

26 posted on 01/27/2008 12:47:41 PM PST by JaneNC (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JaneNC

That’s so true! LOL


27 posted on 01/27/2008 12:50:54 PM PST by VegasBaby (<---Just one of many who refuses to vote for McCain or Huckabee under any circumstance)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JaneNC; All

“Mitt is the closest to Fred on issues.”

Really, are you saying that Fred was for funding abortions, pro-homosexual, and anti-gun like Romney has been????? Or, did Fred do more flip flops than the local pancake house?

Maybe Fred wasn’t what he was touted to be??? Or, his supporters the balanced conservatives they claimed to be.
Bottom line is that folks that now back Romney are more concerned about their pocketbook than issues of long term significance. Pocketbook Republicans (PBRs) for Romney should be your label.


28 posted on 01/27/2008 12:53:30 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blue State Insurgent

I doubt that even Fred as VP would make me consider Pretty Boy but I guess I’ll ponder that when and if the time comes


29 posted on 01/27/2008 12:56:55 PM PST by upcountry miss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

Pretty Boy Mitt will never beat the Dems.


30 posted on 01/27/2008 12:58:47 PM PST by upcountry miss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

Mitt Romney is not for funding abortions. Fred Thompson is not homophobic. Romney is pro-gun.


31 posted on 01/27/2008 2:12:18 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: big'ol_freeper
Take a look at those lawyers; they're all conservative hard rocks, the very kind we want on SCOTUS. A man is known by the company he keeps, and Romney, as far as the very legal team that will implement conservative social change in concerned, is keeping damn fine company.
32 posted on 01/27/2008 3:05:33 PM PST by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeafoodGumbo

Ambulance chasers.


33 posted on 01/27/2008 3:56:18 PM PST by CowboyJay (Mittens... You lost me at 'man-dates'. Just say no to RiNO's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"Romney is pro-gun."

Does he even own one yet? Not a rhetorical question.

34 posted on 01/27/2008 3:59:00 PM PST by CowboyJay (Mittens... You lost me at 'man-dates'. Just say no to RiNO's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SeafoodGumbo

Pepperdine University, former Reagan counsel, sounds good to me. What this country needs is a reassembling of the Reagan team and new up and coming people from true conservative backgrounds. The team will have a big effect on Romney’s direction.


35 posted on 01/27/2008 4:20:34 PM PST by cradle of freedom (Long live the Republic !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: libstripper

Does anyone have a link to the video of Romney’s interview with Wolf Blitzer today? Would like to see it. Thanks!


36 posted on 01/27/2008 4:23:04 PM PST by seekthetruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeafoodGumbo

I’m one of them. I’m holding my nose as I do it, but he’s our best shot.


37 posted on 01/27/2008 4:39:50 PM PST by Buckeye Battle Cry (Life is too short to go through it clenched of sphincter and void of humor - it's okay to laugh.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay

Not that I know of. I think you can support the right of people to own guns without actually owning your own gun.


38 posted on 01/27/2008 5:04:15 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; All

“Mitt Romney is not for funding abortions.”

Really? The below is from a post by Brices Crossroads elsewhere in FR:

On Abortion: When Romney took office in 2003, under the law in Massachusetts, enacted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Moe v. Secretary of Admin.& Finance, 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (Mass. 1981), the taxpayers of Massachusetts were forced to subsidize ONLY abortions performed on Medicaid eligible women. In 2003, there were 4,859 publicly funded abortions in Massachusetts, according to the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. link

In 2003, there were 25,741 total abortions performed in Massachusetts. link

Post-RomneyCare, the state forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to fund every abortion performed on any Massachusetts resident for a very modest $50 copay. Thus, under Romney Care, the number of abortions that will be funded on the backs of the taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts will be at least 500% more than the number when he took office (approx. 25,000 versus 5,000).

Romney’s answer to this is as predictable as it is disingenuous: The Courts made me do it. The Court in Moe did no such thing. The court did not require the legislature to subsidize health care. In finding that the state had to cover abortions for Medicaid eligible women in the same way it covered child bearing, the Court was explicit that: “... the legislature need not subsidize any of the costs associated with child bearing or with health care generally. Once it chooses to enter the Constitutionally protected area of choice, it must do so with genuine indifference.” This is Massachusetts double speak which is translated: “If you do not want to have universal funding of abortion on demand, then do not pass a universal and mandatory health care program.” Romney could have avoided this five fold increase in publicly funded abortions which was put across on his watch and with his enthusiastic support, by vetoing the whole plan. Instead, he chose to sacrifice the lives of unborn children (and to require the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay for it) on the altar of compulsory, yes socialized, health care. All the bromides about an unpassable Constitutional Human Life Amendment cannot conceal the fact that, when he could have done something to prevent an increase in abortion, Romney not only did nothing. He actually cooperated with it. At the signing ceremony attended by Ted Kennedy, in April 2006 (after his supposed conversion to a prolife position), the mood was ebullient, according to the news reports:


39 posted on 01/27/2008 5:40:12 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CowboyJay; All

“Romney is pro-gun.”

Your response:

“Does he even own one yet? Not a rhetorical question.”

Yes, he probably owns some ten thousand dollar professional skeet shotgun useless for anything but shooting clays (worthless for self defense). And they won’t let him even shoot it because when he first tired he put the muzzle to his shoulder and was stopped before he could blow his arm off.

In short, he probably doesn’t know squat about the gun culture that, besides the military, provides the most security against tyranny in the U.S. He doesn’t understand hunters or self protection advocates. He was governor of one of the top ten liberal states in America.


40 posted on 01/27/2008 5:50:14 PM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson