Posted on 01/02/2010 9:25:42 AM PST by GOP_Lady
Mitt Romney - that rare political breed, a Republican elected statewide in Massachusetts - told supporters yesterday that if Scott Brown can pull off a similar feat next month in the US Senate special election, it “would shock the country and send a strong message that business as usual in Washington is coming to an end.’’
“He would bring badly-needed fiscal restraint to an out-of-control budget process that is adding trillions of dollars to our national debt,’’ said Romney, the former Bay State governor who gives every indication he’s preparing a second presidential bid in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I doubt that your desires will be met by me any time soon...
Well, if you would care to respect my wishes, they would be.
I mean it.
“I thought Mitt was pretty well DESTROYED in 2008...”
Well he WAS defeated, doesn’t hold any official position of influence or authority, but that apparently isn’t enough for UNNAMED posters. They have been deprived of dragging his carcass through the streets, hopefully figuratively, and that makes them VERY angry.
I challenge you to point out the differences between Romney and Brown. I stand by my position that the two are nearly equal in every respect. Mitt Romney is no more responsible for gay marriage than Scott Brown, Brown is pro-choice, and supports the Mass. health plan. Check his own website.
By FR standards (not mine), he is not a conservative.
Name them, Jim Robinson, for one. Are you saying that Mitt Romney is not a candidate for the 2012 presidential race, is that your expert opinion?
If Mitt Romney were not trying to take over the republican party and be it's nominee for 2012, then why else would you be laboring so hard for the man, on freerepublic?
"Coakley’s Web site carefully specifies the LGBT issues that still need work (a full repeal of DOMA and ’don’t ask, don’t tell,’ the military’s ban on gays and lesbians serving openly"
Mitt Romney's position:
"One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share."
Sincerely, W. Mitt Romney
Actually the Alan Keyes vanity party is pushing everyone to not vote for the republican in the race, so they want to lend their small influence to getting the democrat elected.
You don't belong on Free Republic if you have to cry like an angry little girl and stamp your foot in cyber space.
That said, I hope you remain on Free Republic because as always, your behavior SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT MITT ROMNEY.
To wit: obtuse, paper-skinned, emotional, childish, and a very poor sport. You represent the mindset that falls for and promotes Romney.
Romney imposed gay marriage by his fiat against the Mass. Constitution by using improper executive authority.
Scott Brown supports the Mass. Constitution.
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
Have no idea who will announce, don’t really give a flying fedora until after this years elections.
You still have a perception problem, I poke at someone who goes into a mouth frothing frenzy every time Romney’s name is mentioned you think that is “laboring” hard for him.
I will wait for the candidates to announce, then I will decide on who I will support based on their views, experience and demonstrated capabilities. Then I will campaign for them, support them financially and I will vote for them. If it happens to be Romney I will let that be known, if that leads to my banishment.... well then being on this site isn’t worth my joining your little mob nor being silenced by it.
Be safe, be effective and try to keep your eye on the goal... Oh yes HAPPY NEW YEAR!
post 167
Ansell, Ansell, Ansell, why must you always involve Mr. Robinson with your petty little affairs. Aren’t you capable of handling them on your own.... man up “if you are of that sex”. Again, HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Your posts are never substantive, or meaningful, or even relevant.
Your method of working in behalf of Romney is to merely troll threads making little fluffy digs and insults.
Post after post of nothingness, but personal enough to distract the thread from it’s purpose of discussing a political opportunist that is very damaging to conservatism.
You should man up and play your Romney hand like a man, not a child. Play out in the open, this is a political site, start defending Romney with politics, not this trolling with constant personal digs and snickers.
Then you have a challenge my friend, you apparently aren’t in a position to do what you want done.
If I supported Romney for 2012 I would say so, I have said on this forum, that I VOTED for for him in the last primary, if that is grounds for a death penalty, so be it.
Lastly I will support/defend who I choose, not those you wish wish to assign to me. People like you have the potential of doing more damage to the movement you claim to support than anything Gov. Romney could do.
I am off.
More fluff, you ignored my post, I asked you to quit trolling and man up in your support of Romney. Post politics, not the constant digs and insults.
Here is what I said to you.
"Your posts are never substantive, or meaningful, or even relevant.
Your method of working in behalf of Romney is to merely troll threads making little fluffy digs and insults.
Post after post of nothingness, but personal enough to distract the thread from it’s purpose of discussing a political opportunist that is very damaging to conservatism.
You should man up and play your Romney hand like a man, not a child. Play out in the open, this is a political site, start defending Romney with politics, not this trolling with constant personal digs and snickers."
By golly just happened to check in.
You really shouldn’t post when your panties are all bunched up, you tend to look silly.
But I always find myself defending Romney without ever getting around to giving his record a hard look. -- Elsie.
I suspected as much.
He's not going to be president either, so we can take a more balanced view of the man.
If you're the guy who couldn't decide whether he was from Michigan or Massachusetts or Utah, moving to California doesn't improve things. And Romney won't have the automatic support he got for not being McCain. Unless there really isn't another qualified candidate in the race, a one term governor like Mitt won't get the nomination, so maybe we can ease up on him a little.
It seems you have no problem w/his government 'control' healthcare - well, here's some news for you - the MAJORITY of Americans do! Let him take 'care/control' of his company and his family - Americans don't need his 'care/control' mentality nor his climate change deception.
Romney opposes Obama's plan and bill in Congress. By this point most Americans do as well. What he thinks or what a majority of Americans think about health care in general, I don't know, but the fact that things have gotten as far as they have suggests that the majority isn't as solid as you think.
Romney wasn't a big supporter of the climate change idea the last time. Compared to McCain he was only lukewarm. If Romney's as wobbly himself as people say he is, I wouldn't count on him to stick to the idea in the future.
But like I said, he probably won't get very far if he runs again.
States opposition to the aggressive march of the homosexual invasion. (my words, not his). Opposed to "gay"marraige.
His statement on abortion rates him an F.
Like Mitty, he is apparently happily married with children; unlike Mitt, he served proudly achieving a rank of Lt. Colonel, Army. Mitt nor his five young, strapping boys never served . His dad, George, was a very vocal antiwar politician. (governor, Mich, '60s )
We have a chance to elect a 'fair' conservative in a sea of radical Dem. leftwingers, and get the opposing vote against health takeover.
Don't like his abortion stance. Am looking at his statements & record some more.
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.