Longtime Romney friend: He’s standing by to rescue the party from nominating Ted Cruz

Hot Air ^

[SoConPubbie]

If you are completely wrong about the taxation thing, would that make your entire posting here wrong?

If this were a ‘tautological proof’ then yes, it would.

It is dishonest to try and discredit an argument full of a list of truth because you believe one point is not accurate.

Romney raised revenue by increasing fees (taxes). I say they are the same as taxes because they are monies taken from the citizens of Massachusetts to fund government services. Romney deceitfully tried to argue that they were not taxes, but Romney has always been a prolific Liar.

From the Cato Institute:

Mitt Romney became a prominent public figure when he rescued the 2002 Olympics from a $379 million deficit. When incumbent Republican governor Jane Swift announced that she would not run for reelection, Romney stepped into the race. He scared some conservatives when he said that he was opposed to tax increases but he couldn’t rule them out. His first budget, presented under the cloud of a $2 billion deficit, balanced the budget with some spending cuts, but a $500 million increase in various fees was the largest component of the budget fix.

[SoConPubbie]

You’ve been added to the Ted Cruz Ping List!

[SoConPubbie]

You been added to the Ted Cruz Ping List!

[SoConPubbie]

You’ve been added to the Ted Cruz List!

[wastedyears]

Thanks :)

[Jim Noble]

Some Senators made good Presidents, many did not

Name a sitting US Senator elected President during his first and only term who "made a good President".

[Jim Noble]

I could’nt agree more you that GOP needs to tighten the primary voting process. The problem is, any democrat can register as a republican. In this country there is freedom to register with any party of your choice

The problem is idiots voting.

The whole issue of qualification for the franchise is going to have to be resolved. If it were up to me, I would abolish primary elections altogether.

Since that is impossible, I would limit the franchise (for Republicans, I don't care what the Democrats do) as follows: 1) Registered continuously for five years as a Republican; 2) Donated at least $5000 or contributed at least 200 hours of party work in the last two election cycles OR held office as an elected official representing the GOP; 3) Married to a member of the of the opposite sex or, if single and male, owns $50 000 real property (no single female voters).

This would help, somewhat.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Mitt Romney supports/supported/implemented the following policy positions:

1. Gay Marriage 2. Gays in the Military 3. Gay Adoption 4. Gays in the Boy Scouts 5. Regional Carbon Trading scam 6. Global Warming 7. Abortion 8. Socialized Medicine 9. Taxed everything in sight as Governor of MA. 10. Assault Weapons Ban

At what point does some in the rarified air you are living in become center-left?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply are ignorant of Romney's record, but just how long have you been visiting on FreeRepublic that you were not aware of Romney's actual history?

The first four points you have mentioned, above, can really be consolidated into just one issue: the gay agenda.

It is probably worth noting that Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts; so it would be ludicrous to expect him to be a successful politician there with a platform that might work in, say, Alabama or Kansas.

I will certainly concede your point, however, about RomneyCare; it was surely the precursor to ObamaCare.

As regarding Mitt Romney's policy positions, here is a link to a neutral source: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney?lang=en

[entropy12]

Jim,
Your list is too ambitious. Good, but not gonna happen.

I would aim for only registered republican during previous election cycle allowed to vote.

Mischief monger democrats are unlikely to vote twice in a row for republicans.

[ExCTCitizen]

Sorry... Ted Cruz Should be the candidate... or we will leave the party...

[Tennessee Nana]

Mitt Romney is from Massachusetts
_______________________________

No hes not hes from Michigan..

and he was raised by a rabid liberal mother and a father who would move from liberal towards the center if he needed to at which times he would get extremely POed with the Republicans for forcing him to do so...

He hated Ronald Reagan and Ronnies good friend Barry Goldwater and taught his son Willard to hate them and Conservatives also..

In 1970 Lenore Romney ran for US Senator from Michigan, her platform was abortion for all, THREE YEARS BEFORE ROE V WADE..

While gov of MASS Willard introduced homosexual marriage to the US..

No state had ever had SSM before..

The Romneys didn’t join the liberal causes ...they led them..

[SoConPubbie]

As regarding Mitt Romney's policy positions, here is a link to a neutral source:

Sorry AE, not interested so much in what Romney says because he is an out and out liar and there is plenty of evidence to support that, for instance:

At CPAC Jan 12', during the primaries, he stated he had always been Pro-Life, then on August 27th, after he had won the nomination, he states the following:

(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.

"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

On Immigration Romney was supposedly the best on immigration issues famously supporting a position of self-deportation, however, shortly after Obama won the election, Romney went on record supporting the Comprehensive Immigration Reform or Amnesty.

My point is that you cannot take anything Romney SAYS at face value at the point in time frame he states it, you have to look at his whole record in context to fully understand what Romney is really about.

There is not an ounce of honesty in the soul of that man and he will do anything and say anything to gain power.

Finally, I fully reject the idea that because he was a Politician in Massachusetts, that it somehow absolves him for support all of the positions of the left. If anything, it should be a clarion call to anyone paying attention that Romney is not a Republican and cannot be trusted.

But here you are arguing in support of him. Why is that?

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Sorry AE, not interested so much in what Romney says because he is an out and out liar and there is plenty of evidence to support that, for instance:

At CPAC Jan 12', during the primaries, he stated he had always been Pro-Life, then on August 27th, after he had won the nomination, he states the following:

(CBS News) In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, Mitt Romney said his views on abortion rights are more lenient than those put forward in the Republican party platform.

"My position has been clear throughout this campaign," Romney said. "I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest, and the health and life of the mother."

On Immigration Romney was supposedly the best on immigration issues famously supporting a position of self-deportation, however, shortly after Obama won the election, Romney went on record supporting the Comprehensive Immigration Reform or Amnesty.

My point is that you cannot take anything Romney SAYS at face value at the point in time frame he states it, you have to look at his whole record in context to fully understand what Romney is really about.

There is not an ounce of honesty in the soul of that man and he will do anything and say anything to gain power.

Finally, I fully reject the idea that because he was a Politician in Massachusetts, that it somehow absolves him for support all of the positions of the left. If anything, it should be a clarion call to anyone paying attention that Romney is not a Republican and cannot be trusted.

But here you are arguing in support of him. Why is that?

My "support" of Mitt Romney derives from the fact that I considered him far preferable to Barack Obama, during the presidential campaign of 2012. And I still do.

My own views are really closer to those of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. But I am emphatically not a political-philosophy purist. Which is to say, I would much rather win with an "establishment Republican" than to lose with my ideological soulmate. And I am fearful that my ideological soulmate would probably not be able to attract enough independent voters to be able to win.

[SoConPubbie]

My own views are really closer to those of Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio. But I am emphatically not a political-philosophy purist. Which is to say, I would much rather win with an "establishment Republican" than to lose with my ideological soulmate. And I am fearful that my ideological soulmate would probably not be able to attract enough independent voters to be able to win.

Then support Ted Cruz and walk away from supporting Mitt Romney.

Either you are sincere in your statement of your positions and see the necessity of conservatives as a whole backing the best conservative candidate available, or you are not and are making excuses and pretending.

[Triple]

His intelligence/security advisor was non other than the former head of Blackwater, a man highly connected to the intelligence community.

Mitt was informed.

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Then support Ted Cruz and walk away from supporting Mitt Romney.

As I previously indicated, Ted Cruz is really my ideological soulmate; but I am unsure that he would be able to attract enough independent voters to win.

And frankly, I would rather win with an "establishment Republican" than to lose with an insurgent conservative, despite the afterglow that I would doubtless feel, in the wake of the latter's nomination by his party.

[GeronL]

Then you can happily lose with an “establishment Republican” just like the last 3 Presidential elections.

[NorthMountain]

Go to Hell, Mitt Romney!!!!

[AmericanExceptionalist]

Then you can happily lose with an “establishment Republican” just like the last 3 Presidential elections.

Actually, it was the last two presidential elections (2008 and 2012) that resulted in Democratic victories--not "the last 3."

Moreover, I think you are glossing over the real reasons for these two defeats. It was not because John McCain and Mitt Romney were just too centrist to inspire the Republican base. Rather, it was because neither conducted an especially impressive campaign. John McCain, in fact, refused to even discuss Barack Obama's associations with the racist and America-hater, Jeremiah Wright (whom I refuse to honor with the title, "Reverend").

Additionally, the (now) Community-Organizer-in-Chief was exceptionally skillful at motivating his base (including low-information voters) to get out and vote; something that Hillary (or any other Democratic nominee) is unlikely to be able to match.