Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus
Posted on 04/13/2012 2:50:30 PM PDT by FR_addict
You can’t make the mistake of applying national poll numbers to particular state contests. New York and Texas will have very different vote spreads.
The possibility is more to deny Romney the nomination, not to have Newt win outright. So votes going to Paul isn’t the worst thing that can happen.
With 11 days to go until the next primary, a lot of things can change too. I just hope Santorum doesn’t re-endorse Romney in the primary. That would be enough to make me never support him for any position again.
So you are OK with replacing a Democrat commie with a RINO one as long as he has a R after his name?
Ignoring the fact that he will implement many of the same bad ideas as the current commie. Yes, we must have the Republican commie in there so that we can share equal blame for messing up the country by compromising our conservative beliefs to the establishment who wants us to bow down to them and do as they say.
After all, we work for them now, not them for us.
Pathetic.
Romney's bad behavior Exposed by Seamus
Romney attacked Gov. Palin’s handicapped children
to make Obama POTUS in 2008.
You really like that?
Would you have made Benedict Arnold POTUS, too?
Well he will be. Our only choice. It’s going to be another hold your nose and vote. Well not quite that bad. There is absolutely no other alternative now. If you want Bam out of there Mitt is our only available tool. This is what separates republicans from democrats. They feel we analyze facts and act.
Here’s the problem. Gingrich was at 20 percent when Mississippi and Alabama rolled around.
Gingrich is now at 12 percent. Romney was at 33, and is now at 46.
So Romney has strengthened 13 points while Gingrich has lost 8.
Gingrich needs to be at 20 percent in order to be competitive to Romney when he is at 33 percent in the South. Gingrich at 12, will only get about double that, 24 percent in the Southern states, which isn’t going to be enough to overcome Romney at 46, who will probably get about 35 in the South.
So I would say TX is 35-30-24-12, right now with Santorum at 30, and Gingrich at 24.
If Santorum support breaks 30/30/20, it ends up with 35(+8), 24(+11), 12(+11), or 43 - 35 - 23.
Romney’s up by about 8 in TX based on those national numbers. This is very bad news for Gingrich at this point, because it assumes that all of Santorum’s support moves over.
I’d like to restate that. The difference between a conservative and a liberal not democrat and republican if you catch my drift.
Here is the problem.
Romney is a CHEAT. He “votes” and “polls”
are fabricated because he PAYS for them.
Romney cannot win. Dog abuser and backstabber karma.
Romney may be your “tool” but frankly your,
and his sexual interests and fascism are NOT of interest.
NO ROMNEY. NO RINOS. NO ROMNEYCARE. NO LIARS.
If enough people have that attitude we’ll get 4 more years of Obama with a 40% winning percentage in electorial votes.
40% - Obama
40% - Romney
20% - Some other underfunded understaffed guy.
Remember Ross Perot brought us Bill Clinton.
Remember: Team Romney brought America Obama.
Team Romney works with Soros (JET Blue).
Romney is a DNC poser willing to say ANYTHING.
Time to put ideology aside. We’ve had enough. He’s the only soldier willing and able to go to battle against the demon spawn.
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Bottom-Line Summary: ANN Romney Lies Thru Her Teeth | Ann Romney, 1994: Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation | Ann Romney, 2011: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have never changed; we’ve always been pro-life (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side) |
| Bottom-Line Summary: Mitt Romney Lies Thru His Teeth | “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) + ...”my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007) | So, not only does Ann Romney tell Parade Magazine November 2011 that they've “never changed” re: abortion and that they've “always been pro-life,” but Mitt Romney told Chris Wallace part-way through their 2007 campaign that: “I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice”...This was seven months after he said in January 2007 that he was “always for life.” |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood (a href="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/ann-romneys-planned-parenthood-donation/">Ann Romney’s Planned Parenthood Donation (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
H/T Colofornian
What does one stand to gain from such a weird obsession?
I've never felt I had to hold my nose and vote for a Republican president before. There was enough I liked about every one that I felt they would be far and away better than the Democrat, would be good for the country, would be good for the party, and were not the worst possible choice available. I'm not that picky and don't expect 100% conservative compliance in a candidate.
So you know Romney's got problems if I'm dead set against supporting him. This is a RINO beyond anything we've ever seen before and a uniquely unappealing candidate. Having a history that's on the wrong side of social issues like abortion and homosexual marriage is almost certainly a dealbreaker for me. If he was simply a libertarian, then maybe I could hold my nose and vote for him, but his big-government, progressive economic record rules that out.
There is absolutely no other alternative now. If you want Bam out of there Mitt is our only available tool.
He's some kind of tool, alright.
Your energy is misdirected. Try convincing voters in the remaining 20 primary states to not vote for Mitt before you try to convince Freepers to vote for him in the general election. My primary's up on April 24th and I won't be voting for Mitt or our state party's OTHER hand-picked limousine liberal Republican Senator wannabe, Steve Welch.
and hope that we have the courage to change what we can change and the wisdom to accept what we cannot change.
Bam’s gotta go. End of story in my book.
I have a feeling that some Romneybot is going to get the ZOT.
I held my nose for McCain and that worked out so well for us. The establishment figured they got us to do it then so we would do it now.
You might not have any morals or spine, but don’t tell us that we need to sell out like you.
You’re the kind of voter that gave us McCain and Romney. Both will result in Obama getting 4 more years.
As far as I am concerned about you FU.
Standing up for the unborn is a ‘weird obsession’? He’s spot on here.
A pet agenda item of the LDS Establishment is to maintain databases of personal information. They want to manage Big Brother. Romney would be a tool for that. He publicly supports a National ID Card, for example.
In related news, the NSA's Utah Data Center (a domestic surveillance center that is alleged to replace functionality of the "Total Information Awareness" program) goes fully operational in 2013. They supposedly will track your emails, web searches, phone conversations, credit card usage, FR posts, etc.
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.