Posted on 01/29/2008 11:42:26 AM PST by mnehring
Romney never had it in the first place, IMO.
I don’t know the interviewer, but he seemed almost sane until Romney hung up, and then. . . gaga time.
I’ve listened to Mark Larsen for years. When it comes to advocating small government, Romney isn’t worthy to shine his shoes.
Yea! Like he ever had this loons vote. What a rant, the guy would make an excellent democrat.
ping
Yea the jerk didn’t have the nerve to challenge him till he left.
Well I’m sure Ron Paul is worthy to shine his shoes!
I’m with you Romney went up several steps on the ladder after this with me.
LOL
That works out really well. Check out the Clintoon years against the terrorists or even go back to the united European front to Hitler's aggressions that lead up to WW2.
I think it’s a bunch of thirteen year olds who get off on telephone polls.
Heard the interview.
Mark Larson was 100 percent right when he declared that with “A-holes” like Romney’s ilk leading, we’ll have an income tax forever.
Every FReeper oughta be angry as hell with the situation our country is in, and the smoothe talkin’ devils we have to choose from to lead us.
So what’s your beef?
>> I’m with you Romney went up several steps on the ladder after this with me.
Prior to this, I had only seen Romney in a position where he was pandering to get a vote — he was always saying exactly what the audience/ questioner wanted to hear.
Here, however, he stuck to his guns. Even after it became clear that the host was a Paulite (and his listeners, probably, as well) — Romney didn’t back down. He stuck to what he believed, regardless of what the host or his listeners might’ve thought — and regardless of how it might affect their vote. He laughed at the assertion that Paul’s ideas were particularly reasonable, and laughed at those that might support him.
I can respect that.
Since Thompson bowed out, I’ve been a lackluster Romney supporter — mostly because he was the least objectionable choice. I respect him more after this. Calling on Thompson as a running mate would help as well.
H
Romney was a fiscal consrevative in Massachusetts.
I think Mitt Romney’s 1994 campaign platform is quite telling, since it indicates where Mitt Romney has been consistent for his entire political career -
http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage/#mittnolib
“In the 1994 Senate race, Mitt Romney held the solid conservative position for 23 of the 24 issues listed; the only exception being the pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman’s right to choose. A pro-choice position in Massachusetts in 1994 was a socially moderate stance accommodating the large majority opinion of voters in the state. In hindsight, it was wrong for a conservative to accommodate a pro-choice, status quo public policy despite his liberal constituency.
Romney freely admits now that he was wrong about the government’s role in protecting the life of the unborn and has changed his position on this issue to a pro-life stance as public policy consistent with long-held pro-life beliefs in his private life. However, it’s understandable how a first-time candidate in 1994, and former businessman, running a crusade for fiscal conservatism with solid conservative positions on crime, welfare, the economy, foreign policy, school choice, health care, and congressional reform might accept the status quo on a social issue respecting the liberal constituency he would represent.”
I think you need to listen again , Romney didn’t say he was against getting rid of the income tax. He rightfully question the 1% figure. And Larsen arbitrarily said make it 2%. Now think about that, he suggest that 1% would be enough and then just doubled it. That tells me he was just pulling these figures out of his A$$. Larsen got mad when Romney rightfully told him Ron Paul was an idiot, in so many words. and he quoted Ron Paul’s own words to do it.
Truly, these Paul supporters are the best example of strange political bedfellows to be seen in recent times.
We are both at about the same spot friend. I have a lot more respect for Romney now. Truth is I always gave him a little leeway because he had to get elected in “The people’s Republic of Mass.
I get it. I think he's a nut case too. But he takes some stands that are great for cult building.
“like Romney’s ilk leading, we’ll have an income tax forever.”
Do you honestly believe that we will ever get rid of the income tax?
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.