Skip to comments.Right wants Romney as standard-bearer
Posted on 02/09/2008 1:36:43 PM PST by loreldan
Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
How can you defend Romney’s pandering to bailout Detroit and to provide federal hurricane insurance to Florida?
That is not principled conservatism. Romney being called a “conservative’s conservative” is laughable, at best.
Like it or not, there are 70 or 80 ALREADY CREATED embryo’s that are frozen and sitting someplace in a research lab.
President Bush likewise agreed to have those donated for research.
Romney did NOT say we should be creating more embryo’s, and neither did President Bush.
Sometimes, leaders are called on to make hard choices.
Are you also out protesting and railing hatred against President Bush?
Your hatred for Romney goes so deep...
As far as Im concerned, Romney was the only person running from the git go who has the intelligence and experience to actually be a good president. I would support him any time.
So would I.
You are grabbing at straws now! Cannot wait for 2012, Reagan tried three times before winning with a strong conservative base behind him. Romney, if he chooses to run, will take only one more attempt. It just took the publicly known conservatives too long to get off their butts and see they had a great conservative right in front of them. Now, it is about making up for lost time, and the next four years will be enough.
Cannot wait to hear the speech Romney gives at the convention, he is the most eloquent speakers we have had in ages — since Reagan.
So in other words, anyone who has ever donated money to a Democrat nearly 20 years ago is unqualified to be a conservative Republican candidate in 2008?
“All you purists would never have supported Reagan in 1976, or 1980, because of his pro-abortion politics in California”
Lol, you must be a kid, many of us did support him then, and give us those quotes of Reagan’s pro abortion politics please, maybe you can show us some of his debate videos, or his pro abortion campaign literature.
How about some photos of Reagan at pro abortion fund raisers.
The mistake of Reagan signing that health of the mother bill in 1968 predated the pro-life movement and Roe vs Wade and 1980 and 1984 and the intense abortion wars of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but the 60 year old church Bishop and religious counselor Mitt Romney was unaffected by any of that until November 2005. Yeah just like Reagan.
Romney is not a “great conservative”. Most his support was from the anti-McCain forces.
“The mistake of Reagan signing that health of the mother bill in 1968 predated the pro-life movement and Roe vs Wade and 1980 and 1984 and the intense abortion wars of the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but the 60 year old church Bishop and religious counselor Mitt Romney was unaffected by any of that until November 2005. Yeah just like Reagan.”
============================================================That conversion was supposedly based on a CONVERSATION of November 2004 not 2005.
Romney, I truly believe, made pandering statements during that 1994 debate just to convince the Massachusetts voters that he wasnt this uber-white male who only accepts other uber-white Judeo-Christian males.
What was he like before that debate? Well he switched his registration to Republican a few months before the debate and he voted for Paul Tsongas in 92.
Here is the kicker, this is where his political donations were going before that debate where you said that he was only pandering.
Willard Mitt Romney donated $250 in 1992 to then-U.S. Rep. Dick Swetts (D New Hampshire) successful re-election campaign. The one-term congressman served another term before losing to Republican Charles Bass in 1994. Two years later, Swett ran unsuccessfully against Republican Bob Smith for one of the Granite States U.S. Senate seats.
In 1992, the former Massachusetts governor and current Republican presidential contender , also donated $250 to Rep. John J. La Falce (D New York) and $1,000 to Douglas Delano Anderson, an unsuccessful Democratic primary candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by Utah Republican Jake Garn, who retired that year.
So, between July 1989 and October 1993, Romney exclusively financed these three Democrats.
“Romney is not a great conservative. Most his support was from the anti-McCain forces”
I don’t disagree with that at this point. There are NO GREAT conservatives out there on social,economic,and political/nat security....and at the same time are effective speakers and communicators. Tancredo/Hunter had the issue but are horrible communicators and have no charisma on a presidential level. I’m very fond of both those guys on the issues though...Thus my support of Thompson who I figured would be a good communicator. Nope.
Who’s left? Nobody. Romney has the ear of Keene and Weyrich among others...so he MUST be at least worth a watch and see over the next couple of years.
You know, that's the most common line used by Obama, the most liberal politician on abortion there is, as to why women get abortions (have to "make hard choices").
Like it or not, there are 70 or 80 ALREADY CREATED embryos that are frozen and sitting someplace in a research lab. President Bush likewise agreed to have those donated for research. Romney did NOT say we should be creating more embryos, and neither did President Bush.
A half-truth. Even if Romney hasn't been calling for the creation of additional surplus embryos, he's still advocating & calling for the parents of these embryos to deepen the number of embryos "donated" to be dissected. (Bush has never done that)
When Romney told Katie Couric 3 months ago that a "parent" of an otherwise adoptable surplus frozen embryo (in fact he used the word "adoption") could be "donated to research" and concluded that was perfectly "acceptable," then it shows he's still got quite a ways to go...ESPECIALLY since he said the embryonic stem cell issue was THE VERY ISSUE that "converted" him to the pro-life side.
You can't get more "pro-choice" then a politician saying that a "parent" can acceptably "donate" their offspring to be "dissected" to death.
The fact that this doesn't bother many pro-Mitt FReepers tells me a lot about their own priorities about life in the womb.
Again, since his comment to Couric was only three months ago, what's really changed other than the fact he's now had three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years?
Romney fuller comment to Couric, Dec. 5, 2007: lmost 6 months later: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
This is why Romney was just a few points behind nationwide in popular vote to McCain? Wow, lots of anti McCain votes out there — you probably need to make another argument.
Talk to your girls in the RNC who worked with Fox and ABC to immediately start excluding Hunter from debates once the primaries began.
“Reagan tried three times before winning with a strong conservative base behind him.”
Reagan did not come out of no where and then in a largely self funded presidential campaign attempt to put on a new conservative image for that campaign.
Ronald Reagan was a famous conservative long before 1968 that is why he had been pushed into elective politics.
I agree with you that Romney has to become more hardline on the question of Life. Period.
At the same time, some of you Big Government Evangelicals need to improve on being comprehensive conservatives on all three legs of conservatism. I don’t doubt your intensity of belief on the Life issue - actually I respect it because it’s a huge issue for me too.
No. Romney’s support was mostly anti-McCain. There are lots of anti-McCain voters out there. They are the suckers who listen to the “conservative” media.
He spent time in Michigan and Utah... could’ve run there, but he knew full well he was too liberal to win a primary. So he went to Taxachusetts, the land of “moderate” Republicans.
Huck is a social conservative. In this election environment, that’s enough for me.
“Romneys support was mostly anti-McCain”
That’s not correct. The people who voted for Romney in the states he won and in critical Florida were overwhelmingly conservative. In addition, in the sub-group economic conservative he dominated.
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.