Spoiler, GOP backstabber Mitt Romney (and his BOTs):
"Never, not once, has anyone criticized me for being a 'flip flop'." 
Posted on 05/15/2009 4:51:44 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
PHOENIX – Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney joined Bush administration officials, including former Vice President Dick Cheney, in arguing today that President Obama’s approach to combating terrorism had left the country less safe.
"It's the very kind of thinking that left America vulnerable to the attacks of September 11th," Romney told the National Rifle Association's annual gathering. “And the approval of left-wing law professors and editorial boards won’t be worth much if this country lets down its guard and suffers an attack."
Even while declaring an end to past interrogation practices he calls “torture,” Obama has alienated many in his own party with a cautious approach to the issue. He has rebuffed calls to investigate Bush administration policymakers and release photographs of in that military leaders have said would be unnecessarily provocative. Today, the White House announced it would resume the use of military commissions to try those in American custody, a practice that Obama had criticized as a candidate.
"I'm glad he's continuing to hold military tribunals for terrorists," said Romney, who also said he approved of Obama’s hawkish approach to ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In fact, whenever he adopts the policies of John McCain and George W. Bush like this, I’m glad."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Yes; in fact, he has bragged about "not lining up" with the NRA before. Please see my posting #100.
House Overrides Romney's Health Care Vetoes
BOSTON --Sending a sharp rebuke to Gov. Mitt Romney, House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to overturn his vetoes to the state's landmark health care law, including the controversial $295 fee on businesses who don't offer insurance.
The predominantly Democratic House broke from debate of the state budget to begin the override process, first voting to restore a portion of the law guaranteeing dental benefits to Medicaid recipients.
The House overrides had been expected, and Senate President Robert Travaglini said Tuesday that he expects the Senate will override all eight of Romney's vetoes.
And since you mentioned Michael Reagan I'm sure you'll agree with his analysis, given all the indisputable evidence:
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=19462
Notice that instead of calling you names and accusing you of making claims you never did, I only posted the facts, included links, etc.. You antis have no support for a reason.
“Yes; in fact, he has bragged about “not lining up” with the NRA before.”
True. But the NRA still gave him a B for his term as governor. And every year when he goes to the NRA conference he is well received.
Romney started the process, the helthcare reform in MA carries his name.
Set aside the obvious fact the idea should have stayed in “the lab” in the first place as far as conservatives are concerned, let us assume he was right.
If he did not know that such a bill was ripe for liberal abuse, he is incompetent.
If he knew that the left would hook into it for all its worth he is either complacent or worse, willing to risk the future economic welfare of his state (and the nation if he had made it) in order to garner votes, which makes him an accomplice of the left and guilty of political malpractice as a Conservative.
And all that is besides the fact the idea was a bad one to start with...
So pick your poison or keep spinning to infinity, for those are your only choices, at least among Conservatives.
Did you see the article from Pete Sessions head of the NRCC?
He has changed the way they are going to do elections and that is to not work to hold seats (incumbents) but to support candidates going after Dem or Open seats. That is much smarter IMHO. Let the incumbents defend themselves. What a 180 from the NRSC Cornyn who originally endorsed Specter before he switched. Sessions feels we left too many Dems with no opponents while his predecessors were all about protecting incuments. I like the new idea and hope he sticks with it along with not endorsing in the primary. Michael Steele has also said he won’t endorse in the primary.
We need to work to find good candidates to run — ones that articulate, no baggage, ethical, and can get the Conservative message across to everyone. Stand up and fight for what they believe. We need some candidates that understand economics and have real plans on how they will represent us in Congress. Tired of the rhetoric with candidates where I could almost repeat their speeches as they sound like they came out of the same candidate schools.
I hate pandering and that is what I sense from a lot of candidates today — tell an audience what they want to hear and change your message for the next audience. Stand on principle is so important and people will respect that and the ones that don’t won’t vote for them anyway.
I think it’s the definition of ‘flip-flopper’ that needs to be clarified.
I wouldn’t call Reagan a flip-flopper on the issue of abortion, and IIRC he ran for President very few years after that. Would you call RR a flip-flopper?
There are a half dozen very good reasons I wouldn’t vote for Romney, but flip-flopper isn’t one of them.
See post #44.
Spoiler, GOP backstabber Mitt Romney (and his BOTs):
"Never, not once, has anyone criticized me for being a 'flip flop'."
And all that is besides the fact the idea was a bad one to start with...
So pick your poison or keep spinning to infinity, for those are your only choices, at least among Conservatives.
ejonesie22....I see that facts never divert you from an agenda. It is not spinning when you are reciting the facts.
Exactly where are my facts wrong?
It is popularly called “Romneycare” for a reason.
It was an idea he promoted that was popular with such folks as Hilary Clinton and James Carville.
It was an idea initially incubated in the Heritage Foundation Think Tank, which while possibly good on paper should never have seen the legislative light of day in the real world.
Liberals have used it for cover to promote even furthering the reach of government in health care, even beyond what was already unacceptable in the initial effort itself.
I could go on, but I fail to see where I am wrong.
That is the second time you have used the term “agenda” on this thread.
My “agenda” is the same as all Conservatives on Free Republic.
The question is, in supporting the man and this health care fiasco, what is yours?
I did not see the article.
I agree with your thoughts here though, and particularly just about any strategy to shake things up. I will say, that the RNC should be endorsing strong Conservatives, so the no endorsement (primary) doesn’t really impress does it.
It’s time to make a no bones about it dedication to bedrock values. We have luke-warmed ourselves into oblivion.
By "such a bill," I meant ANY health care bill other than one requiring that the government bow out of the way and refrain from any meddling with health care and health insurance relationships between employees, employers, self-employed, insurance companies, and doctors.
You, being a full-bore bigger-government-is-the-answer liberal who is registered as a Republican, because the whole concept of minimal government and conservative principle sails over your head, interpreted it to mean that Romney should have fought the changes made to his own meddlesome-government health care bill. Becauase ejonesie22 stands tall and competent in grasping conservative principle, he caught my point immediately and articulated it perfectly in his post 104 above.
As for Michael Reagain, who you used to claim here "endorsed" Romney when he had done no such thing -- Michael Reagan is misaken, and I don't care who his father was, if he thinks Romney's record is in keeping with limited government conservative principle.
And unlike many on this board, I fully reject the notion that just because someone is anti-abortion and a registered Republican, doesn't make him a conservative.
Whether he is being sincere or politically expedient in his current anti-abortion stance, is irrelevant in my assessment of Romney. As it happens, as I have gotten to know his record better (very early in the primaries I was inclined to favor Romney, but upon closer examination found him worse than wanting), I personally don't believe his "conversion" for an instant, but that wouldn't keep me from voting for him if he was a limited government conservative because a limited government conservative, one who would drastically reduce the power and scope of the Federal government, would automatically, by definition, seek the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, and that would be good enough for me.
And unlike many on this board, I fully reject the notion that being a registered Republican who is anti-abortion is all it takes to be conservative.
“You can’t be a conservative because you weren’t a conservative before.”
I voted for Jimmy Carter. How’s that for a flip-flop?
Please don’t try to make sense of the Romney bashing. The bashers don’t even know why they hate him so much. But if you defend Romney, you will be banned from this site. I’ve decided to deal with it in a 12-step program. You know, the serenity prayer.
But thanks for trying.
Dems “plan”. Mitt’s “plan”.
The fundamental bat is government plan. Dem’s, Mitt, is just variations on the theme, of which Mitt supports 100%, ie, non individual liberties.
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.