Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Right wants Romney as standard-bearer
The Washington Times ^ | 02092008 | Ralph Z. Hallow

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2008; acu; elections; frpoll; gop; mitt; mittin2012; mittromney; ralphzhallow; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-260 next last
To: loreldan
He is certainly capable of presentation... He says all the right things. Before he can be seriously considered, he must DO all the right things.

He needs to be a Conservative governor for a while to make sure he fits in his new principles. Maybe a big Western state known for it's conservative nature (think Utah). He needs to move to the West, and embrace Western culture and values. A political alignment with Southern governors and congressmen would also be helpful.

He also needs to build serious bridges into the SOCON leadership, especially the Evangelicals and the conservative Catholic organizations. Their support is invaluable, and their disdain cannot be overcome.

101 posted on 02/09/2008 3:50:16 PM PST by roamer_1 (Conservative always, Republican no more.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Romney did NOT “step aside”. He suspended his campaign.

Those who know Romney know he is deceitful to get what
he want, and this pseudo-”step aside” only occurred because
Romney was LOSING. Romney does not want voters’ votes to
count and this is yet another way.


102 posted on 02/09/2008 3:51:39 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
Romney is not politically right.. he is leftist lite at best..
How could he be elected in Massachucetts if he was..
103 posted on 02/09/2008 3:52:00 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88; ansel12
And for someone living in Massachusetts, that took real courage. Much easier to just run as Democrat there, and much better chance of winning. But he changed to Republican and still won the governorship, then governed as conservatively as he could in uber-liberal Mass.

Yeah, that's what we want: Somebody who makes all kinds of campaign promises to get the vote, and then governs 180 distinctly from some of his promises, 90 degrees on others, and sticks to only a few.

Yeah, that's what we want: Somebody desirable to uber-liberal Mass voters by becoming a replica of an uber-liberal Mass politician.

Yeah, that's what we want: Someone who can perfectly mimic a Democrat just to get elected.

Yeah, that's what we want: Someone who has a great "image" as a financial investment wizard, pull-Olympics-out-of-a-hat businessman who gets economically ranked by the Cato Institute in the bottom 10 of GOP governors for 2005 ("C" rating).

Yeah, that's what we want: Someone who can follow in the fine Bay State POTUS losing tradition of Teddy Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, and John Kerry.

Sounds just "perfect" for the "face of conservativism."

104 posted on 02/09/2008 3:53:46 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: pissant
4 years as a liberal governor impressed you that much, huh?

He was the governor he had to be in that state.

Hell that's Teddyland!

105 posted on 02/09/2008 3:58:12 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (It's about the illegalís stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WVNan
As far as I’m 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.

Same here. And I was originally a Rudy supporter.

106 posted on 02/09/2008 3:58:23 PM PST by ContraryMary (New Jersey -- Superfund cleanup capital of the U.S.A.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: conservativeinferno

I do too, I am very happy about this news!!


107 posted on 02/09/2008 3:58:34 PM PST by Brandie (Just a Dittohead that loves America. NO to Traitor McCain and No to Huck the Hick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

He outspent the entire field combined. That is what really matters. I know Romney also raised a bunch. But he spent a staggering amount of money between his own wealth and the money he raised for only a small percentage of delegates. It is not an accomplishment.


108 posted on 02/09/2008 3:59:10 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: loreldan

Thank you so much for posting this.


109 posted on 02/09/2008 4:00:26 PM PST by Brandie (Just a Dittohead that loves America. NO to Traitor McCain and No to Huck the Hick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
I'd love someone who actually is as conservative as Mitt says he is!

I have just never believed his rhetoric, so sorry, give me someone who walks the walk!

110 posted on 02/09/2008 4:00:36 PM PST by codercpc (On the day abortion becomes illegal, I want to Thank God, and not praise allah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

“Romney ignored the Mass Constitution.
Perhaps he should have the opportunity to destroy
the US Constitution, too. NOT.”

Details to your sweeping statements?

No governor or president could destroy a constitution these days, not with courts being the ones who are ignoring and destroying constitutions in all too many cases.

There are other stories about how the Mass. Supreme Court overruled Romney’s attempts to take some conservative actions.


111 posted on 02/09/2008 4:00:39 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Will88

“And for someone living in Massachusetts, that took real courage. Much easier to just run as Democrat there, and much better chance of winning.


True he replaced a republican governor, that had just replaced a republican governor, that had just replaced a two term republican governor.

Before all those republicans they had three democrat governors, and before them two more republicans.


112 posted on 02/09/2008 4:02:43 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: One Sided Media

“Actually, the day he suspended his campaign he had the Silver.”


History records a bronze for Romney.


113 posted on 02/09/2008 4:04:08 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Hey dude you need to look at ALL the things Reagan did in Cally.

He wasn’t spotless. You have to live in the real world.

Turning anything to our way is going to take time.


114 posted on 02/09/2008 4:04:46 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (It's about the illegalís stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican

Your right.


115 posted on 02/09/2008 4:06:54 PM PST by Brandie (Just a Dittohead that loves America. NO to Traitor McCain and No to Huck the Hick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

What you got in 1980 was a governor from California who’d signed into law one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. He become very pro-life when he realized he needed another leg to the proverbial three legged stool of the Reagan coalition.

All you purists would never have supported Reagan in 1976, or 1980, because of his pro-abortion politics in California.

But others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change, for a variety and reasons, and become strong advocates for the opposite of positions they once took.

And the biggest flip-floppers of 2008 have been McCain and Huckabee. They’ve flipped from major positions they had within the past year on immigration. People here are going nuts over things Romney said in the early ‘90s, LOl.


116 posted on 02/09/2008 4:11:16 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead
"I thought Jeb Bush should have run in 2008"

I understand what you are saying but I respectfully disagree about Jeb Bush.

I am sick of the Bush family. Enough is enough. Bush gave us the middle finger basically with his Kennedy/Bush/McCain amnesty bills, twice. I worked hard to get him elected both times and to have him treat we conservatives like that I will never forgive him and will never be forget.

I wish Jeb well and a happy life, but no way should this country have another one of the Bush family in the White House. Heck the Clinton's either.

117 posted on 02/09/2008 4:12:02 PM PST by Brandie (Just a Dittohead that loves America. NO to Traitor McCain and No to Huck the Hick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: ScratInTheHat
Hey dude you need to look at ALL the things Reagan did in Cally. He wasn’t spotless. You have to live in the real world. Turning anything to our way is going to take time.

I understand that. But Romney's no Reagan. (And trying to portray him as such is a disgusting display of redefining both of them).

118 posted on 02/09/2008 4:12:11 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: All

“If someone had suggested a year ago and a half ago that we would be welcoming Mitt Romney as a potential leader of the conservative movement, no one would have believed it,” Mr. Keene said to open the meeting. “But over the last year and a half, he has convinced us he is one of us and walks with us.”

He convinced me too. I was a Thompson guy until he got out, but Mitt Romney is a leader and is embracing conservatism. OK, there have been inconsistent policies on some cultural issues (show me a politician who hasn’t used epediency). Romney is guilty of expediency to get elected in uber liberal Massachusetts. Give the man a chance. Listen to him over the next several years.


119 posted on 02/09/2008 4:13:57 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Blogger
"Check out Huck’s CPAC speech. It was inspiring - something rare this election season."

I just watched his "I didn't major in math, I majored in miracles" sound bite; if nothing had done it for me before - that was it.

I'd write in the guy begging for change in front of our local 7-11 before I'd vote for this charlatan.

None of the dissent and vitriol we've experienced matters anyway; look at the numbers!

The party wants go merge in the center and republican voters aren't even showing up for the primaries.

120 posted on 02/09/2008 4:14:03 PM PST by norton (There is no longer any choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Will88

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.


121 posted on 02/09/2008 4:15:02 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

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...


122 posted on 02/09/2008 4:17:18 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: WVNan

As far as I’m 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.


123 posted on 02/09/2008 4:19:09 PM PST by Let's Roll (As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

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.


124 posted on 02/09/2008 4:20:28 PM PST by One Sided Media
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
So, between July 1989 and October 1993, Romney ... financed ... three Democrats.”

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?

125 posted on 02/09/2008 4:24:37 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Will88

“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.


126 posted on 02/09/2008 4:25:02 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: One Sided Media

Romney is not a “great conservative”. Most his support was from the anti-McCain forces.


127 posted on 02/09/2008 4:26:26 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“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.


128 posted on 02/09/2008 4:27:20 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican

“Romney, I truly believe, made pandering statements during that 1994 debate just to convince the Massachusetts voters that he wasn’t 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 Swett’s (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 State’s 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.”


129 posted on 02/09/2008 4:30:18 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead

“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.


130 posted on 02/09/2008 4:31:56 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican; Will88
Sometimes, leaders are called on to make hard choices.

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 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.

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

131 posted on 02/09/2008 4:35:57 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead

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.


132 posted on 02/09/2008 4:42:32 PM PST by One Sided Media
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Talk to your girls in the RNC who worked with Fox and ABC to immediately start excluding Hunter from debates once the primaries began.


133 posted on 02/09/2008 4:43:31 PM PST by pissant (Time for a CONSERVATIVE party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: One Sided Media

“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.


134 posted on 02/09/2008 4:43:52 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

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.


135 posted on 02/09/2008 4:44:27 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: One Sided Media

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.


136 posted on 02/09/2008 4:45:03 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: ScratInTheHat

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.


137 posted on 02/09/2008 4:45:35 PM PST by jmyrlefuller (NONE OF THE ABOVE IN 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: norton

Huck is a social conservative. In this election environment, that’s enough for me.


138 posted on 02/09/2008 4:47:00 PM PST by Blogger (Propheteuon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: WVNan

Exactly


139 posted on 02/09/2008 4:47:28 PM PST by NYC Republican (Romney/Barbour -the ONLY one to stop Huck, McCain, Rudy and Hillary!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead

“Romney’s 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.


140 posted on 02/09/2008 4:49:44 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

2 Democrat Governors before Slick Willie Weld, Dukakis and Ed King (Dukakis won in ‘74, lost in ‘78 to King, beat King in ‘82). King was a DINO who later became a Republican. King was the best and most Conservative Governor of MA in the past 50 years.


141 posted on 02/09/2008 4:49:47 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~~~Jihad Fever -- Catch It !~~~ (Backup tag: "Live Fred or Die"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead
As opposed to the suckers that listen to , and vote for John McCain.... Get over yourself, no one has ever said Romney is Reagan. People have said that he has the potential to possibly, one day become the voice of the Conservative movement. Which is why you see all of the big name Conservatives now lending him their support. Give him four years to work on his Conservative credentials, and to work hard for the base. Then you can fairly say one way or another that he is, or is not a Conservative.

_________________________________________________________________________________
"It is now our task to tend and preserve, through the darkest and coldest nights, that sacred fire of liberty" -Ronald Reagan

142 posted on 02/09/2008 4:51:13 PM PST by AKSurprise ("All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
Other conservative leaders in attendance included Indiana Republican National Committee member James Bopp Jr.; Freedom Alliance President Tom Kilganon; former Sen. Jim Talent of Missouri; Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis; Human Events editor-in-chief Tom Winter; conservative activist Bay Buchanan; Ann Corkery, a Catholic activist; and Rabbi Nate Segal, a Rush Limbaugh associate. Participating via telephone was Free Congress Foundation President Paul M. Weyrich.

Very impressive and conservative group supporting Mitt.

143 posted on 02/09/2008 4:57:58 PM PST by redgirlinabluestate (Blame the ones who supported the unelectables for too long)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AKSurprise

Credibility isn’t something that can be bought and sold. No matter how much money or time one has.


144 posted on 02/09/2008 4:59:40 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: loreldan
Exsqueeze me but I demand a REAL CONSERVATIVE as my defacto leader!

LLS

145 posted on 02/09/2008 5:10:52 PM PST by LibLieSlayer ("There is no conservative alternative in the race. It's just that simple." Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88; Rock&RollRepublican
What you got in 1980 was a governor from California who’d signed into law one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. He become very pro-life when he realized he needed another leg to the proverbial three legged stool of the Reagan coalition. [Will88]

What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, didn't slip back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.

All you purists would never have supported Reagan in 1976, or 1980, because of his pro-abortion politics in California.

Oh, did Reagan have a 13-year hand-holding affair with Planned Parenthood like Romney did? (attended Planned Parenthood promo events with his wife's $150 check in hand...enough to pay for 1/2 abortion--in 1994; answered Planned Parenthood's political questionnaire all to PP's liking in 2002 + did same for NARAL & Majority for Choice--even personally sought the one for MFC; then put a PP rep as a permanent oversight rep for RomneyCare board...the latter supposedly after he was "pro-life.")

Did Reagan attempt to obfuscate his previous role like Romney did in 2007?

How could both of the following 2007 statements be true? (a) "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." and (b) “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)

And then, of course, 11 days after saying he was "effectively pro-choice...over the last multiple years" he then announces in the same state: "I am firmly pro-life…I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)

"Always for life?" (Does he even know the difference?) Reagan did. The 1984 book proves it. But of course Romney's not done there...even before his "parent...donate" embryos for dissection comments to Couric in December, he told Iowa folks in August:

"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)

OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(Signs of a serial liar popping up here...What? Are you now going to call Reagan a "serial liar" to bring him down to Romney's level?)

Oh, but Romney's still not done even for August of '07.

He does his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. 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, and so...

Oh. So now he wasn't pro-choice just because the other side of him censored him...I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice... Why the self-censorship? All because of the typical Mormon fallback position the most important things in life are determined by "feelings"--a burning in the bosom: I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice (Oh, yeah, that settles it...so why are YOU arguing with him then...he said he wasn't pro-choice, didn't label himself pro-choice, didn't feel pro-choice...now, why did you say he "changed" again? Changed from what?--Since he wasn't ever "pro-choice?"

But others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change, for a variety and reasons, and become strong advocates for the opposite of positions they once took.

And others are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change...and change...and change...and keep changing!

He was pro-abortion in 1994, 2002-2004 & May of 2005...but he "wasn't pro-choice" in a letter-to-the editor in a Utah newspaper in 2001 and made pro-life actions in 2005 SANDWICHED between a pro-abortion comment in 2005...but then back to pro-abortion actions in 2006 with RomneyCare...supposedly "pro-life" in 2007...but then he was "always for life" in early '07 and wasn't ever "pro-choice" in the Summer of '07. [Further documentation available]

And the biggest flip-floppers of 2008 have been McCain and Huckabee. They’ve flipped from major positions...

If we could only get the convo down to Romney's "mere" flip-flops, that would be something in and of itself. The fact is that in addition to his multiple abortion switches, he took three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years; and he took three different positions on forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual minority employees; and he...

146 posted on 02/09/2008 5:22:07 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Nice recap of Romney’s twists and turns over abortion. He should have just stuck to being pro-choice. It would be more coherent, if nothing else.


147 posted on 02/09/2008 5:29:04 PM PST by zebrahead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
If you can figure some way to get them into the process, I agree.

Hey, I'm the idea man. Y'all work out the details. ;-) I sound like a Hollywood producer or something.
148 posted on 02/09/2008 5:30:22 PM PST by Rastus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: zebrahead
Romney would have gone NOWHERE without his money. Absolutely nowhere. He outspent everybody combined on the GOP side and still couldn’t win. He was not a heavyweight candidate. He benefited from the weak GOP field as much as McCain or Huckabee. None of them are top-tier candidates, in my opinion.

In particular, Romney benefited from the lack of real conservative candidates so he could pass for conservative. Had Newt been in the field (or if Thompson had bothered to campaign), Romney would have been luck to achieve double digit support among conservatives. For most conservatives, Romney only because their candidate by default.

149 posted on 02/09/2008 5:54:02 PM PST by CommerceComet (Mitt Romney: Boldly telling the audience whatever it wants to hear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: paltz

“1976 is to 2008

as 1980 is to 2012”

That is the dream scenario of some. It would then follow that one of the candidates who did not win the nomination in 2008, would reappear in 2012 and get the nomination.

To complete this scenario, it would be somebody with a previous successful non-government career, a successful government career, years of writing and speaking teaching the benefits of conservative politics.

It also follows the democrats win the 2008 election, turn out to be inept in the face of foreign acts of terrorism (could quite possibly be Iran, all over again).

Looking at the list of 2008 candidates, tell me who would be that Republican person?


150 posted on 02/09/2008 5:56:27 PM PST by truth_seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-260 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson