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 ...
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....
Ditto.
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 Reagan’s 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 Reagan’s 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 didn’t like it. “Compromise” was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything. I’d 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 that’s 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)
The putz.
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.
Yes he would and rightfully so if he supported the Brady Bill/assault weapons ban. Probably the single biggest reason GHW Bush lost to Clinton was his betrayal of the gun lobby. If his former boss, RR, was out there lobbying for the BB (first time I have ever heard that) that must have added to GHW's defeat.
Whatsa matta, boopsy? Can’t refute any of it?
Oh yeah....right. Spare the phony outrage, as if you're really all broken up these supposed attack on Reagan by Romney followers. As if it would make any difference to you whether any Romney follower had ever even mentioned Reagan or not. If Ronaldus Maximus came down from heaven right in his glory, and proclaimed: "Well, that Romney is all right by me", you'd not be joining Reagan, rather you'd be saying--"Reagan's been stuck in heaven, what does he know?"
Pay attention to all of Romney's words, not just the generic platitudes like this one from his CPAC speech: "We believe in Democracy. We respect the will of the people." (Except when it comes to public and cultural rejection of open homosexuality, eh, Mitt?). Or, "We will have to fight to make sure American stays America." (Except when it comes to the "worldwide solution, not an American one," to "any carbon plan," eh, Mitt?)
Maybe if you actually pay attention to Mitt Romney, you will see that with him "leading" the GOP, conservatives will get 75 or 80 percent of what they oppose.
Reagan's not the guy trying to take over the GOP. Romney is. With Reagan, we'd get that 75 to 80 percent, his position on assault weapons notwithstanding. With Romney, we FORFEIT 75 to 80 percent of conservative principle.
That's why I agree with Jim Robinson when he says, "If Mitt Romney is in, I'm out."
I didn’t know if you realized that it wasn’t part of the title.
Personally I don’t want any candidate from the 2008 primary running for President. If you cannot beat John McCain in the primary, then you should find something else to do. Our Party needs fresh young blood to run for President who we know where they stand on the issues. Time to retire the candidates from the 2008 Republican primary.
It is just as pointless to respond to the spam on these threads, as it is to respond to the spam in your Inbox.
It would be pointless to refute a direct quote of Mitt’s.
What you need to come to terms with is that it’s now 20% we get, even with our folks. At 50%, your guy is implementing the other side’s policy as much as he is your own. I won’t support that. Call me any names you like, denigrate my intelligence. You still won’t get my vote.
And frankly, if you’re too stupid to understand why not, then you’re your own worst enemy.
Couldn’t agree more. Thank you.
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.