Posted on 01/13/2012 1:18:24 PM PST by nickcarraway
I am tired of both of them being shoved down our throats. There is a boatload of evidence that Gingrich isn’t any better than Romney, and I don’t care which of them would make our country socialist. Because Romney is bad doesn’t somehow turn Gingrich into a conservative that he isn’t.
Newt's just pushing the buttons he thinks people want pushed. The thing is, if you forget that much who you are and what you've done and believed it comes out looking cheap and contrived and lacking in class.
To be sure, Romney can't fault Newt on that -- he has his own "memory lapses," forgetting things that he's done and said and stood for in the past -- but the reaction is harsher when the guy with the faulty memory is attacking others, rather than defending himself.
Newt did NOT produce the movie. A PAC over which he has no legal say, bought the rights to it.
But you knew that, and you’re just being silly.
And this French thing— quel dommage!
“I am tired of both of them being shoved down our throats.”
I’m sure as a conservative perfectionist you find Reagan a RINO who was shoved down our throats, considering that he signed a huge tax increase and amnesty for illegals.
It might not be good that Newt supported Rockefeller in the year that George Romney was running for President, but Mitt Romney left the Republican Party entirely when President Reagan was elected.
Gingrich lived there as an Army brat, a few years before his dad went to Vietnam.
Romney was hiding out there, avoiding the draft, during his father’s campaign for President, while he was running as the anti-war Republican.
Having his healthy, draft age son living in America during his anti Vietnam Presidential run, could have been embarrassing.
Romney said he was an independent during the Reagan-Bush years. A lot of people in Massachusetts are. It means you can vote in either primary and in some races, the Democratic primary is the election.
I'd rather he hadn't done that. Someone whose running for the Republican nomination now should have helped to build up the Republican Party earlier, but to say he had some deep hatred of Reagan or animosity towards him would be going way too far. Romney was more interested in making money (and maybe in raising a family) back then.
Interesting.
Go Newt!
Romney left the Republican party because of the election of President Reagan, Romney eventually started devoting all of his donations and fund raising solely to Democrat candidates.
Following that time, even after he RE-REGISTERED REPUBLICAN TO ENTER MASSACHUSETTS POLITICS Romney campaigned as the anti-Reagan, the anti-’Jesse Helms types’, against the Contract with America, and was fund raising for Planned Parenthood.
ROMNEY WAS THE FOURTH REPUBLICAN MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR IN A ROW. Lay off your BS.
Romney is a dedicated lifelong, anti-conservative, he and his anti-war, presidential candidate father stormed off the convention floor at the 1964 Republican convention IN PROTEST AGAINST GOLDWATER’S NOMINATION.
For years Romney was one of America’s most vocal, passionately pro-abortion politicians, explaining that his entire family had become dedicatedly pro-abortion in 1963.
I don't know if it was "storming off" or just going home early, but those were different times. A lot of Republicans back then didn't approve of Goldwater's stand on civil rights. Let's not pretend that everyone had the same rights then that they do now.
For years Romney was one of America’s most vocal, passionately pro-abortion politicians, explaining that his entire family had become dedicatedly pro-abortion in 1963.
"One of America's most vocal, passionately pro-abortion politicians"? Not so much. He took a "pro-choice" stance in his race against Kennedy, but surely there were more vocal, more passionate advocates of legalized abortion. Romney may just have wanted the issue to just go away.
But you don't say why his mother and other members of his family became so committed to that position in 1963. It wasn't ideological, was it? And it's not entirely honest to avoid the details.
And the family position wasn't as clear-cut as you imply. Even when Lenore Romney was campaigning for the Senate as an advocate of changes in the abortion laws she was also quoted as saying:
I think we need to reevaluate this, but do not feel it is simple as having an appendectomy. … I’m so tired of hearing the argument that a woman should have the final word on what happens to her own body. This is a life.
So she was ambivalent back then. And don't forget: those were very different times before Roe v. Wade, back then even Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law.
Mitt Romney does have a very checkered record. I can't and won't defend everything that he's ever said and done. My point was: he's never said he voted against Reagan. He's not some kind of anti-Reagan and he wasn't disgusted or driven out of the Republican Party by Reagan or Reaganism.
You aren’t an honest man. Your avoidance of truth is the same thing we saw from you romneybots in 2008, a simple sing-song, almost chant like bending of reality and truth, to fit Mitt Romney’s agenda.
The storming off of the convention floor was a formal public protest against conservatism for the Romney branch of the GOP and the national media, it was not a formal, public display of “going home early”.
Father Romney followed that protest by then running as the liberal, candidate for President, Mitt followed it by formally leaving the Republican party because Reagan was elected President.
For years Romney was one of America’s most vocal, passionately pro-abortion politicians, explaining that his entire family had become dedicatedly pro-abortion in 1963. Mitt’s record is unmatched by any major politician as far as we know, want to see the videos?
As you know Mitt Romney ran on the claim that his mother was a courageous pioneer in campaigning as the pro-abortion Senate candidate in 1970. Mitt was the man claiming that.
Mitt was disgusted by Reagan, and conservatism, that is why he left the party and switched to backing the Democrats with money, fund raising and even supporting their agenda after he switched party registration to run in Massachusetts.
It was funny with Kerry. Not funny now.
O M G !!!
>> Newt speaks it with a strong Georgia accent so it’s OK <<
Well, as a Southerner, yours truly says Newt may speak FRENCH with a Georgia accent, but if you think he speaks ENGLISH with a Georgia accent, then I’m afraid to say you don’t know much about Georgia accents!
(And since he has such a strong Yankee accent, I guess the only thing that allowed him to be elected to Congress from his Congressional district was that the Atlanta suburbs have been overrun by so many refugees from Pennsylvania!)
I thought about that but I thought the joke was too good to pass up. Hey, I speak French, too. With a Buffalo accent.
But I don't agree that he hated Reagan and Reaganism and that this hatred drove him out of the Republican Party. That's reading too much into the available evidence. Romney just wasn't that interested in politics in the 1970s and 1980s.
After college Mitt Romney wanted to go to business school, his father wanted him to go to law school, possibly with an eye towards an eventual political career. Mitt compromised on a JD/MBA dual degree program, but it looks like he was trying to get away from his father's (and mother's) political world and concentrate on making money and raising and supporting a family.
Even in the days of Vietnam and student rebellion, Mitt wasn't very politicized. I don't have much data from his Bain Capital days, but, from what I have found, it looks like Romney's attitude towards politics was that of a businessman: he contributed to candidates who had clout or who he had a personal relationship with.
That may strike political people as gutless, but it's fairly common among successful businesspeople. I don't see any indication that he was any kind of liberal or left-wing firebrand or had any vendetta against Reagan.
Romney did try to distance himself from the "Reagan-Bush years" and from Jesse Helms when he ran against Kennedy, but you're reading too much into his comments if you take that as a sign of a deep hatred of Reagan and Reaganism.
You can argue that the kind of side-stepping that Northeastern Republicans like Romney practiced disqualifies him for the Republican nomination, but it doesn't have to be a sign of strong liberal passions. It's just what East Coast Republicans had to do to get elected.
In the 1960s, abortion wasn't yet an issue that divided the two parties. Indeed, many Republicans were involved in Planned Parenthood. Even in the 1980s, Reagan got support from "pro-choice" Republicans. A lot of the Wall Streeters who later moved over to support Clinton and Obama voted for Reagan as well.
I'd agree that Romney's stand on abortion was deplorable, but it can't be taken as an indication of hatred or animosity for Reagan or the Republican Party. Social issues were more important in the 80s than they had been twenty years before, but not nearly as divisive as they are now. People who wouldn't have voted for Bush, freely voted for Reagan and Bush's father in those days.
You are more than just dishonest, I think something must be wrong with you, for you to keep making up such a past for Mitt Romney.
During the Vietnam war, Romney’s father was running as the anti-war PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE for the Republicans and his mother was running as the pro-abortion candidate for SENATE, and you want to claim that Mitt, who had personally attended the 1964 Republican nomination and who had joined in his father’s anti-Goldwater protest, was unaware politically?
Romney came from a background of activism, radical, passionate activism, both in politics and his religion, Romney was actively backing many politicians in the 1980s and eventually only Democrats.
Romney was truly passionate, passionate enough to leave the Republican party when Reagan was elected.
Romney became a fund raiser for democrats, Romney was promoting abortion in the 1990s and even into the mid 2000s, Romney was fund raising for Planned Parenthood in the 1990s, and managed to pass legislation in 2006 which paid for them.
You really are full of misinformation.
Romney went to a fundraiser for Planned Parenthood in 1994. He paid his $150. That may disqualify him for the Republican nomination, buy you do realize that when you say "fund raising" you create a very different impression -- that he was speaking at the fundraisers, writing solicitation letters, planning events, etc. -- and so far as I can see, that's just not true. It's the same way with the Democrats. He made a contribution to Tsongas, but to say that he was fund raising for the Democrats creates a very different and, so far as I can tell, false impression in people's minds.
A lot of Republican politicians in the 1990s (and earlier and later) defined themselves as "pro-choice" -- William Weld (and his successors Paul Celucci and Jane Swift), George Pataki, Rudy Giuliani (and sometime Republican Mike Bloomberg), Christine Todd Whitman (and her predecessor Tom Kean, Sr.), Pete Wilson. Maybe none of them deserve our votes, but it's hard to make a case for Romney being the worst or most important or most dedicated pro-abortion Republican, let alone one of the most committed pro-abortion politicians of recent years.
During the Vietnam war, Romney’s father was running as the anti-war PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE for the Republicans and his mother was running as the pro-abortion candidate for SENATE, and you want to claim that Mitt, who had personally attended the 1964 Republican nomination and who had joined in his father’s anti-Goldwater protest, was unaware politically?
Romney's mom did run for the Senate as a "pro-abortion" candidate, but remember that quote I produced last time? She did have some doubts and second thoughts. Moreover, just what it meant to be "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" before and after Roe v. Wade were different things. Actually, the scoop now is that back when Mitt was "pro-choice" he exaggerated his mother's commitment to abortion. It wasn't something went out of her way to talk about during the campaign. If Mitt misrepresented his mother, it's something you can condemn him for, but it goes against the argument you're making here.
George Romney certainly did make that "brainwashing" comment that destroyed his presidential campaign before it really even started, and he did say that he no longer believed that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam and no longer believed that the war was "morally right and necessary." But few people supported him as a way of getting the US out of Vietnam. Few people supported him at all. Just what George Romney would have done as president and just what the country should have done are things people will argue about. I don't even know if Nixon or Humphrey knew what they would have done if they won the election. But George Romney did support Nixon and served in his cabinet. He wasn't a George McGovern, or even a Gene McCarthy.
Romney was truly passionate, passionate enough to leave the Republican party when Reagan was elected. Nor does Mitt seem to have been much of a peacenik.
Well, you say that because you want to connect some widely separated dots, but Romney wasn't out there speechifying or demonstrating or agitating, so the logical conclusion is that he wasn't really that passionate about politics in those days. If you compare his behavior to somebody who really is ideologically committed it's hard to see how you can reach the conclusion you reached.
I don't know if Romney should be nominated or elected. I'm not sure I'd vote for him. But all the overkill with which people approach politics is pretty off-putting. Politicians on the other side are always seen as diabolically clever and determined, plotting a secret course and keeping to it over years and decades, while those on one's own side are seen as weak, vacillating, cowardly flip-floppers. I guess you've already decided Mitt's on the other side and has to be doggedly pursuing a fixed and evil course, but for other people, that's not at all clear or certain. Certainly, you hear the word "flip-flopper" a lot in reference to Romney.
Your dedication to Romney is strange and you keep selling him in a sing-song fashion that ignores the facts that we have been posting to you for at least five years now.
Romney was at the abortion fund raiser to help them raise funds for Planned Parenthood as ‘Mitt Romney, Republican Senatorial candidate’.
Romney voted for Tsongas in the presidential primary, and devoted all of his donations and fund raising from July,1989 to Oct.1992, only to Democrats in several states.
As far as the Romney’s being the most prominent, passionately pro-abortion republican family, George Romney’s presidential run and politics, and so on, it gets tiresome to keep having to repeat myself year after year to you, and even on this thread.
If you want to keep pushing Romney, then join me at a fresher thread, such as this one. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2835467/posts
Or this one. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2835468/posts
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.
