Skip to comments.[Twoface] Romney joins the Obama bashing [but flip flops on gun control, health care]
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 Obamas 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 wont 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 Obamas 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, Im glad."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
"The best path to healthcare reform is to let the American people make their own decisions, not have those decisions forced on them by government," Romney said.
Oh this is rich.
Heavy irony in that quote!
He ought to be for “O-bozo Care” since it is very similar to “Romney Care”!
Romney joins the Obama bashing
I didn't change anything. I only added commentary and placed it in brackets, since it wasn't part of the original title.
Did you even read the part where Romney backtracked on RomneyCare?
Wish Romney were president instead of Obama — we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in now.
If Corky from ‘Life Goes On’ was President instead of Obama, we wouldn’t be in this mess either. That doesn’t mean I’d support him for President. Although, Corky is definitely preferable to Mitt Romney.
I don’t see the “flip-flop” on gun control.
I don’t hunt, but I own guns and can shoot straight and practice often. I’ve never had to point a gun at a human being but I believe in defense of myself and my family I could shoot to kill.
So am I a flip-flopper because I don’t hunt?
I’m just curious what your definition of “flip-flopping on gun control” is.
By the way, I believe the PRIMARY reason for gun rights isn’t to go hunting or even for self-defense but because the US Constitution not only recognizes gun ownership as a HUMAN right but also implies (at least to my way of thinking) that gun ownership is a duty of good citizenship.
But I don’t hunt. So am I a flip-flopper?
Isn't Romney a gun control supporter?
Mitt is perfect. He will beat Bambi in 2012.
Funny. That's what they said about McCain.
“I dont see the flip-flop on gun control.”
Apparently neither did the cheering crowd at the NRA.
Yes he is. When the so-called Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban expired in 2004, he was more than happy to make it permanent in Mass. when he signed a Mass version of the “Assault Weapons” ban in that state.
I think to some people here a political view is not acceptable unless it’s adhered to since birth. By that standard, it would be pretty darn hard for anyone to convert to Christianity (just to take one example) since such conversions could be seen as “flip-flopping”.
Some people here won’t accept agreement from others unless the others have met some historical prerequisites.
That not only sucks for the Republican Party, but it sucks for conservativism, too.
You can’t be a conservative because you weren’t a conservative before.
What a great standard to hold people to.
I thought the Boston Bilge—er, Globe—had gone out of business.
It is the correct title. If you put something in () that means it is your comments of the title.
He couldn’t beat McCain in 2008 and I know a lot of people that gave him the benefit of the doubt then that would NEVER vote for him now. How is his Romney healthcare mandated in MA different from Obama’s?
He has NEVER been a Conservative but sure does pander.
Thanks, I guess I jumped too fast..... I guess I am just not getting used to all the bashing that is being done. Can we save it for some of the screaming socialists in power that are trying to ruin the country
From his CPAC speech:" "The invisible hand of the market is more powerful than the lumbering machinery of the government."
And ... "Cap and trade would tax American citizens and American employers and send business and jobs to high poluting nations."
Too bad these words from Romney are only platitudes. Listen a little more, and you hear him promoting the opposite of the things he pretends to support. Don't believe me? Here's what else he said in the same CPAC speech:
Regarding health care: "We need to advance a conservative plan based on free choice, personal responsibility, and private medicine, one that doesn't add msassive new federal spending. I like what I proposed in Massachusetts, and even though the final bill and implemtation aren't what I wanted, the plan is a good model." SO WHICH IS IT, MITT? Do the people make their own decisions, or does a "conservative plan" make it for them?
From what I've read about the heavy fines that hit employers and the self-employed for not knuckling under to the Massachusetts plan, "free choice" is a fantasy and a LIE. How about a "plan" that says the government bows out entirely and truly gives people free choice and lets them take personal responsibility, instead of having it forced on them by the heavy hand of government? Mitt is obsessed with using the government to manage people, you and me, and he has the gall, the audacity, the duplicity, to call it "free market" and "based on choice."
That pretty little tidbit from his CPAC speech about how the "invisible hand of the market" is true -- but obviously he doesn't believe it. In the same CPAC speech, he says "Parts of the stimulus will in fact do some good ... " and endorses the idea that "tax on interest and captial gains should be zero" -- sounds great! Maybe he's finally getting it! -- "... for middle class Americans." *groan* Middle class as defined by who, Mitt? At what income does the "middle class American" cease being middle class and become rich? In other words, what Mitt is really for is the same things the Left wants: more class warfare, more of punishing success and wealth, more of putting the disproportionate bulk of the tax burden on those who produce and take risks. Deb, it's not "Yea, Mitt!" it's Boo, Mitt!
What he says about cap and trade environmental crapola screwing Americans in the global sense is certainly true, but he totally MISSES THE FACT that carbon "plans" are based on a fear-mongering hoax whose ultimate end is to CONTROL every aspect of energy development, energy production, and energy consumption. PERIOD. Instead of having the integrity to face down the lie and protect America, in his CPAC speech he follows up with: "Any carbon plan has to be worldwide in scope. Let's have a worldwide solution, not an American one."
People, LISTEN to the whole Romney, not just the conservatively-correct facade of Romney's platitudes. Romney is a false conservative. His words prove it. All you have to do is listen ... to all of them.
No that isn't the standard. The standard is that you MUST govern like a conservative before we TRUST you when you SAY you will govern like a conservative. Politicians say things that are lies, and when what they SAY contradicts what they DID they are LYING. Until there is PROOF (that's the doing part) there is no reason to trust what a politician says he WILL do.
But that's all too complicated for Mittbots, they'd rather say I just hate Mormons.....
I will bash "screaming socialists"--including Mitt Romney--, regardless of whether they are in power.
Your post #24, nailed it. Nothing else to say.
Romney isn't a conservative now. PAY ATTENTION TO ROMNEY. Even now, he betrays conservative principle with regard to limited government, though he swears up and down that his big government "solutions" are somehow "free market" and "free choice." He's voted for gun control; he's supported gay "rights" which are really just a ploy to take away our rights to discriminate against open homosexuality (not gays, but open homosexuality -- two different things) in personal choice regarding who you hire, who you fire, who you work with, even who leads your kid's boy scout troop. THAT'S ROMNEY, and it's the antithesis of conservatism. He's supported government controlled health insurance meddling and decision making for individuals, although he swears up and down that all free market and free choice -- a lie, and THAT'S ROMNEY. He totally endorses the concept of "cap and trade" carbon regulation having an overriding global authority to dictate to nations the development, production, and consumption of energy, which means allowing a global authority to dictate individual and national rights to prosperity. THAT'S ROMNEY.
If a guy is all for:
-- Government meddling in relationships between individuals, employers, health insurance and health care
-- Forcing Americans to accept open homosexuality in their midst, in schools, in the military, and in the workplace
-- Giving overriding authority over energy production and use in America to other nations
... then that person is a liberal leftist. Just because his happens to be a registered Republican and anti-abortion doesn't mean he's a conservative. It just means he's a leftist who fails to understand conservative principle and is a registered Republican who is anti-abortion.
Why is a gun-grabber speaking at the NRA convention?
Who knows. It’s not entirely unexpected, though, seeing as the Republicans ran a Democrat as their presidential candidate last year.
Q: Are you still for the Brady Bill?
A: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time. I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, thats something I would consider signing. Theres nothing of that nature thats being proposed today in Washington. But I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality.
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 Meet the Candidates series Dec 16, 2007
He said this a whole 17 months ago. I will never trust that a grown man who has held a governorship that says this has had any change of heart. Lots more at the link.
Once the candidates were selected the NRA had no choice but to pick one. They didn’t exactly bubble with excitement about McCain. But they don’t need to support an out and out gun-grabber in a non-election year. Their wishy washiness irritates me.
Five whole years ago.
Romney is such a putz and it's so disgusting that so many gullible people fall for his phony schmooze. Next time the NRA calls our house (that will be tomorrow!), I'm going to let them know that Romney having anything to do with the NRA puts the NRA in danger. Grave danger? "Is there any other kind?"
But still, TigersEye, if you have the info at hand -- what weapons was Romney specifically talking about made "with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people"?
rabscuttle385, Bash who ever you want, it just shows your ignorance. Just because you disagree with Mitt Romney does not mean he is a socialist.
Really? Good to see ya. Mitt Romney claimed to be a lifelong hunter, he lied. Mitt claimed to own a gun, he lied. Mitt at about age 59 suddenly joined the NRA, with a lifetime membership no less.
Mitt Romney said this as he signed a bill as Governor "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense, They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
After a series of embarassment and lies and retractions, Mitt Romney was still at it.
Mitt Romney's compulsion to lie is just too powerful for him to control.
"Suddenly, a heavyset man wearing a bright-orange cap entered the room. Mr. Romney, he called out. Eric OrffIm a hunter.
It was a potentially awkward moment. Earlier this year, Romney claimed that hed been a hunter pretty much all my life. A few days later, he said in a statement, Ive hunted small game numerous times. Four days after that, Romney told W. Gardner Selby, of the Austin American-Statesman, Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.
Still, he couldnt resist. Youre a hunter? he said to Orff. Well, same here. Good to see ya.
Would you buy a used car from this man?
What exactly would it take for Romney supporters to realize that he's nothing but a slick, political climber?
It's apparent that if Romney thought it was once again to politically expedient to kill babies, turn in AR-15s and impliment Cuba's health system, he'd do it.
“But perhaps the most significant gun legislation Romney signed as governor was a 2004 measure instituting a permanent ban on assault weapons. The Legislature mirrored the law after the federal assault weapons ban, which was set to expire. According to activists at the time, the bill made Massachusetts the first state to enact its own such ban, and Romney hailed the move.”
“These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” he was quoted as saying. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”
It is his government based Helthcare with its mandates, tax and anti gun stances that makes him a socialist, though in his defense a mild one. Of course even a little should be too much for conservatives.
So you are correct, disagreeing with him has little to do with it....
Ronald Reagan lobbied members of the House of Representatives to support the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Ban. The ban passed by only two votes; at least two House members publicly credited Reagans direct appeals for their aye votes.
In the early 1990s, President Reagan lobbied Congress to pass the Brady Law, a major gun safety initiative vigorously opposed by the gun lobby.
During Reagans tenure as President, bans on cop-killer bullets, undetectable handguns, and the manufacture and sale of machine guns became law.
Reagan would have been absolutely vilified by some here. Indeed, Reagan said it best when he said:
“When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didnt like it. Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldnt face the fact that we couldnt get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you dont get it all, some said, dont take anything. Id learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average. If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and thats what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.” Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life
When a politician is one thing all of his life and then at almost age 60 when he wants to switch to a national race he switches on so many fundamental things, then we don't have to accept it.
Romney didn't just soften his stance on an issue or two, or only have a pro life epiphany, he became an entirely different person and even attempted to rewrite his past, and the lying is compulsive, we have never seen anything like it in the Republican party.
Front Sight, Press (scroll down a little)
That's ok. Threads like this having nothing to do with the content of the article that is posted. Rather, they are merely opportunities for Romney bashers to trot out their same spam for the umpteenth time, lest they get rusty.
Thanks. Great link.
It also gives the Romney followers a chance to attack Reagan.