Posted on 01/14/2007 1:45:09 PM PST by JRochelle
ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.
snip/
On Wednesday, Romney said on an Internet podcast, "The Glenn and Helen Show," that he hopes states would continue to ease regulations on gun owners, and he expressed enthusiasm for guns and hunting. "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah,....
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I wonder how long it will be before some of the formerly-socialist or communist countries are more conservative than the USA?
You give Mitt such slack, and me none, from your little uber right wing social conservative prism. Why might that be? So tell. :)
First, you have to question anything the Boston Globe prints, since it is likely to be a lie or distortion of the facts.
By the way, you might be careful in trying to sell Romney, as the one the troll liberal Torie "hates," given Torie's actual opinion about Romney:
"I am trying to be fair. Reagan I don't think thought much about the issue, and it became a hot issue after he legalized abortion in California. It became a hot issue with Roe. Romney seems to have had new insights, during the time when the issue was red hot, and as I said, Romney is a very smart and analytical and curious man.
"Romney has many good qualities, no doubt about it, and I suspect it is more likely than not that he would make an excellent president."
And what did I do a chip shot on Mitt about? You guessed it. His dis-ingenuousness on abortion! Yes, that is what the urber liberal troll observed.
I really enjoy have you as an interlocutor. Well, actually not. It is not a fair fight.
In any event, my best advice is to do a mid course correction in your Mitt marketing missives. You are not helping him. JMO.
Absolutely. I'll bet that gun he tells the press about is a two barrel shotgun. This guy is pro-gun the same way John Kerry is pro gun. I guarantee you you will see photo ops of him going pheasant hunting just to show how 'pro gun' he is.
Travel convenience for hunters weighs small against the loss of the prime reason fopr the right to keep and bear arms.
Pandering I'd expect. At least Romney took responsibility for a gun in his house unlike Kerry who disowned the SUVs on his property. I expect Romney either has his own gun now or will shortly. ;-)
The Second Amendment is NOT about protecting the right to own sporting goods.
There's no agreement on what a true conservative is. Only agreement on who they are not and that's not very encouraging.
What's an assault weapon?
I wanted Steve Forbes to kick GWB's butt in the primary and I thought GWB was a liberal. People on FR accused GWB of being a RINO etc back then. Many supported Gary Bauer and the CRA (California Republican Assembly) voted to endorse Gary Bauer. REMEMBER?!!
Mitt Romney would be a great candidate. But first folks on FR were making fun of him and saying horrible things about his faith (Mormon) and that didn't really work too well so now they are pounding away calling him a liar etc.
I say give the guy a chance. Have a heart, people.
I used to be against the death penalty but then I grew up and changed my mind. Look at Romney's voting record. I think he'll make a great candidate for us. Meanwhile, the democrats are creating the perfect storm for a conservative candidate.
By the way, I am registered as "decline to state" - I quit the Republican Party because I can't stand the way Republicans pick on each other over petty crap.
Sheeeeesh already.
I see Mitt as the one RINO who has a shot at winning the nomination. If he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
My candidate? See my tagline.
I could support Keating too. I'm very flexible.:)
Romney possibly would be a good or even great (doubtful) candidate for the Republicans next year. What most posters on FR want is a great president, though, and that is where Mitt is clearly lacking.
The only two possible GOP nominees I can think of offhand who have strongly supported 2nd Amendment rights since day one are Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich. But unfortunately I don't think either of them can win the primaries, and even if one of them did he would probably lose to either Hillary or Obama, one of whom is almost certain to be the Rat nominee. We finally seem to be making progress on 2nd Amendment issues at the state level, but at the national level it's not looking very good on that issue
Some Freepers won't like this but........
I don't care if he is/has changed positions. He's a pol just like most others. He didn't win in '94 so his statements are mute. He did win in 2002 and he kept his promises. I believe he will keep whatever promises he makes in the campaign and that is what counts. Whether the positions he takes are his true core or not is unknown but that is a fact of politics. Romney can win because he is engaging, quick-witted, attractive and forceful when need be....he kill Hillary/Obama etc. in a debate. Romney will/has a quick response team that will counter immediately any bs. He is a candidate that is able to use the media coverage to his advantage which is imperative because of the blatants "assists" the LMSM gives any Dem nominee.
He has a stellar private sector record.
So am I using superficial criteria? Sure. Can he win? Absolutely.
Shades of John sKerry. "Can I get me a hunting license here?"
Of course Reagan supported the Brady Bill!
My goodness, Reagan was the target of the bullet which put Brady in the position he is in today!
He would have done anything for Jim Brady.
McCain or Giuliani may not run on a pro-gun control platform, but their previous record on that issue will follow them around like a dog after a bitch in heat. Giluiani's record on that issue in NYC is as bad as Hillary's or any other Democrat's, and McCain showed his true anti-gun colors right after the Columbine shooting. Add Giuliani's NYC position on 2nd A issues to his outspoken support for abortion and homosexual "rights", and he would lose every state south of the Mason Dixon line and most of the interior western states to boot.
As for the Democrat nominee he or she would have to denounce the party platform's position in order to appear to be against more gun control laws, and even then that wouldn't fool anybody who hasn't lived in a cave in Borneo for the last 50 years.
The 'military' appearing semi-automatic rifles are the generally less tactically equipped versions of the very state-of-the-art military weapons the Second Amendment was written to guarantee the individual could keep and bear.
To target this particular group of arms and their more capable cousins, is to demonstrate a distinct antagonism toward Constitutional principle, individual liberty, and the citizenry in general.
thankyouverrymuch! Next, please.
If you think about, the average Southern RATs (at least on a local level) are more conservative than Rudy McRomney. It goes to show how the GOP lowered its standards. Roy Barnes and Zell Miller would make better Presidents than the GOP frontrunners.
Has he done anything to repudiate his earlier statements? If he hasn't explicitly repudiated them, I see no reason to expect he wouldn't attempt to "honor" them.
A candidate's stand on abortion or gun control is not "petty crap". For a great many of us who call ourselves conservatives those are extremely important issues, and how I vote depends largely on how a candidate stands on them. I absolutely positively will not vote for any candidate or nominee who supports spurious abortion "rights" or opposes authentic 2nd Amendment rights.
Boston Globe, enough said. Yeah, they really care about gun owners and how they're going to vote.
Which is why I don't understand the hyperventilating over Rudy and Romney when it comes to guns. The 2nd Amendment survived the Clinton years. I'm sure it'll survive a Rudy or Romney presidency.
As a Georgian I'm not totally sure I would agree concerning Barnes after he sold out so many of his conservative Democrat supporters with his "smoke-filled room" midnight deal with the Reeeeverend Jackson, but I would take old Zig-Zag Zell over any likely Repub who is now running except Hunter or Gingrich. Yeah I know the Newtster is currently "undecided", but you can put money on it, he's running.
Sounds like an enemy of the Constitution to me.
Mitt is saying the right things. Let it play out. Pick a Democrat to harp on.
As governor Romney has no voting record. The last thing he did of any substance (only last year!!!) was to impose Hilarycare in Massachusetts. Next, the revisionist Romneyites wil claim that Ronald Reagan was for socialized health care!
I'm not the type of girl who 'settles'.
Thats what the primaries are all about, to hash out who the best choice is for the nomination. If you don't like the debate fine. No on is forced to read this stuff.
Now, fast forward to 2009 and a hypothetical Romney presidency. Naturally, gun owners are nervous about what he would do if a Rat controlled Congress sent up some piece of excrement gun banning bill. Given his past recent performance in 2004, he'd probably sign it in and heartbeat and brag about it.
{Barnes after he sold out so many of his conservative Democrat supporters with his "smoke-filled room" midnight deal}
Barnes seriously thought about being a Veep in 2004. He needed to statisfy the moonbats in order to be in the running for consideration. Fortunately, Sonny Perdue defeated him in the biggest political upsets in GA history. Interestingly though, Barnes did receive NRA endorsements in 1998 and 2002.
The 2nd barely surived Clinton, and then only after losing it's heart and soul to the so-called "Assault weapon" ban.
And that was with 6 years of pro-gun Republican Congresses preventing him from achieving the worst of his plans for disarming Americans. Either Giuliani or McCain could do more damage to our Constitutional right to arms with compliant RINO GOP Congressional leaders to back him up than Clinton did with pro-gun GOP Congressional leadership holding him in check.
Your tag line gives you away. Amazing how you have it all sorted out this early.
Barnes was strong on 2nd Amendment rights, I'll give him that.
In fact, off hand I can't think of very many Georgia Democrats from outside of the Atlanta perimeter that haven't been at least reasonably good on 2nd A issues, except for the much venerated Senator Sam Nunn who somehow got away with supporting practically every anti-gun bill that came up for a vote.
I want a real conservative.
Not some Johnny come lately to all things conservative.
Hunter is my pick so far. There are others I would vote for.
But you'll never catch me voting for the 3 RINOS, in any primary.
I think you misunderstood his point. No candidate is going to be overtly anti-gun during a nationwide campaign. Any serious candidate who is anti-gun will try to hide such leanings. Therefore, one must be cautious to avoid electing an anti-gunner in disguise.
I would consider the Lautenberg Abomination an even bigger attack on the Constitution than the AWB. Remind me about the pro-gun Senate that passed it 97-2?
Has anyone ever met a gun owner with just one gun?
Most pols say the "right" things when they want our votes. It's what they will actually do that matters, and Romney hasn't done much of anything as MA guv that makes me want to vote for him.
OTOH JRochelle's favorite Duncan Hunter has done quite a few things that would make me want to vote for him. I just have serious doubts that as a conservative CA Congressman he is well enough known nationally to win the primaries. If he gains enough support to be a viable primary candidate I would vote for him in a heartbeat. Unless that is, his congressional voting record has something in it that I can't stomach, and AFAIK at this point in time it doesn't.
Let it play out.
For my part I'm through letting it play out, all that has given us is tons and tons of RINOs. If the best the GOP can come up with is disastrous pro-abort, pro-homo, anti-gun northeastern liberal RINOS like Rudy, dangerous unbalanced nutjobs like MCain, and opportunistic quick change artists like Romney, I will vote for a 3rd party nominee next time and and change my registration to Independent after the '08 primaries. That would prevent me having a voice in future GOP primaries, but if there are no viable candidates in the primaries who I am willing to vote for what's the big deal about not having a voice? As far as I'm concerned the mainstream of the GOP is rapidly becoming just an unappetizing diet-lite version of the DImoRat party. Sure, the Dim candidates are worse, but if the whole shebang is going headlong into the dumpster what difference does it make who's driving the dump truck?
Would you bring a cold, lifeless rattlesnake into your home to thaw out? Character is something that doesn't change. This is campaign posturing, not a genuine support of the 2nd amendment.
I had somehow forgotten the Lautenberg abomination, and I agree that it is even worse than the now defunct AWB. The fact that 97 United States Senators including practically all Republicans voted to override the US Constitution with that bill is another disgraceful act of cowardice and betrayal to hang around the neck of the so-called conservative Republican Party.
When you get right down to where the rubber meets the road we don't really have a Constitution. What we do have is not much more than an interesting old historical document that means nothing in the real world of political ambition and the lust for virtually unlimited power over the lives and liberties of other Americans. In spite of my tagline I can't say that I feel optimistic about our future as a nation, although personally I enjoy great anticipation of nothing less than perfection in all matters concerning my eternal future.
Hmm... maybe we need a less depressing topic than RINOs; your comment above seems like a good starting point.
What do you think makes heaven different from Eden?
IMHO, the answer lies in the Prodigal Son parable. Eden was the home before the son left; Heaven is the home upon his return. Still pretty much the same place, fatted calf notwithstanding, and yet somhow better the second time.
Romney needs a FLIP-FLOP pancake on his head!
"...see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet" (Matthew 24:6 KJV)
PINGING ROMNEY COMMENTATORS.
Can we quit it with this Kerry-like "Flip-flop" comparison?
A "flip-flop" means to change ones position "the flip" and then to change it back "the flop". Kerry had tons of true "flip-flops" (I was against the war before I was for it before I was against it . . .) Romney has matured politically and seen the benefits of conservatism (call that a "flip" if you want . . . but there's no evidence of "flip-flops".)
Kerry was very circular in his reasoning and explanations.
Just like Samuel Brownback's flip on abortion (Sam was prochoice in 1994), Romney's political direction seems similar and quite linear to me.
Romney has repudiated his former opinions/statements on abortion and the federal non-discrimination act.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1753566/posts
"My position has changed and I have acknowledged that. ... I believe that abortion is the wrong choice, except in cases of incest, rape, ... "
Another confirmation is at the start of this interview:
http://richmedia.pajamasmedia.com/audio/politicscentral/glenn_helen_show/20070110-Romney.mp3
Sheesh. Reminds me of the Kerry 2004 hunting poses.
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.