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 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-260 next last
To: Colofornian

Hey I appreciate your multitude of anti Romney posts, but in the end conservatives will give him a listen if Keene and Weyrich are will to do so. Apparently he is their guy for 2012 at this point.


151 posted on 02/09/2008 6:00:37 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: rbmillerjr
Hey I appreciate your multitude of anti Romney posts, but in the end conservatives will give him a listen if Keene and Weyrich are will to do so. Apparently he is their guy for 2012 at this point.

Hey, if there's one thing I believe in...it's a Free Republic! By all means, GOP folks @ leader & grassroots levels should give every candidate "a listen." I haven't questioned Romney's qualifications to run for POTUS; only his qualities. (BTW, that was the same angle Utah LDS voters took...the Salt Lake Trib this week said the main consideration Utah LDS voters took into was "personal qualities"...so they weighed him on this basis as well--only came to a 180 conclusion. And that's what's great about liberty in a free republic!)

152 posted on 02/09/2008 6:08:49 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Hey we agree on a couple of things then lol.

Btw, Romney beat McCain in the final CPAC straw poll. Bad news for John McCain.


153 posted on 02/09/2008 6:13:26 PM PST by rbmillerjr (Big Government Evangelicals.....leading conservatives to Landslide 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Are your reading comprehension skills that bad? That email was from Duncan D. Hunter, the SON, running for Congress. SHEESH!!


154 posted on 02/09/2008 6:27:16 PM PST by buckeye49
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: jmyrlefuller
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

This is the most uninformed BS I have read in this form

He lived in Mass. Just because he did work in other states doesn't mean anything. You run for office where you live unless your Hillary.

155 posted on 02/09/2008 6:58:55 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (It's about the illegalís stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

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

I never claimed Romney was Reagan.

I just asked you to look at Reagan's record. How did that in any way equate Romney with Reagan?

They are going to have to do a little more research on the cloning thing to get another Reagan.

156 posted on 02/09/2008 7:09:09 PM PST by ScratInTheHat (It's about the illegalís stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Will88

Colofornian: According to your logic, Duncan Hunter is killing babies in California every time he votes to fund Medicaid.

Says so here on Californiaprolife.org

Here is a snippet: you can check yourself: Duncan the baby killer.


“”It was the policy in twenty-seven states to fund abortions only when the life of the mother was endangered until the Clinton administration through threats and law suits forced funding for other exceptions in several of the states. (AL, AZ, AR, DE, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, OK, RI, SC, SD, TX, UT)

Eight other states choose to fund abortions only when the life of the mother is endangered or when the baby has been conceived by rape or incest— several also fund when the baby might be born with handicaps or for other exceptions. (CO, IA, NC, PA, TN, VA, WI, WY)

Eight states pay for abortions by order of their state courts. (California has been so ordered, but subsequently moved into the next category.) (CT, IL, MA, MN, NJ, NM, WV, VT)

Seven states and the District of Columbia fully fund abortions by legislative decision. Since 1990 the California Legislature put California in this group by voting to fund abortion on demand. (AK, CA, HI, MD, NY, OR, WA)



157 posted on 02/09/2008 7:16:53 PM PST by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Will88
“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.

Hardly sweeping statements. Unlike your falsehood about the Mass Court overruling Romney,
Romney's sacking of the Mass Constitution has been well covered on FR.
You will find it in the same threads where his imposition
of HillaryCARE=RomneyCARE was discussed.

158 posted on 02/09/2008 7:19:45 PM PST by Diogenesis (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

“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.”

In 1984?? Heck, Reagan had run for president twice before 1984, and had been a governor for years before. You don’t know what positions he took, or what statements he made beginning in the late 1960s. Here’s one:

“In May 1967, the Therapeutic Abortion Bill began to take shape. It was a measure to allow pregnant women to terminate embryos prejudicial to their “physical or mental health.” Reagan had to admit that he agreed with “the moral principle of self-defense.” If 100,000 California women were desperate enough to undergo illegal abortions every year, he could at least make it safer for some of them.” - Lol, open it up to “mental health” and you’ve opened it up to any and every whim of a woman who just wants to avoid the inconvenience.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Abortion.htm

Lots of territory you’ve got to cover there from 1967 to 1984. How long did it take Reagan to become pro-life?

You Romney haters really make yourselves look silly smearing Romney for changing positions just as Reagan and umpteen other politicians have done over the years.

And trying spin Reagan’s flip-flops on abortion sounds as silly as trying to spin John Kerry’s flip-flops on Iraq. He was a great president, but he was also human. Not the saint some want to make him out to be.


159 posted on 02/09/2008 9:05:58 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Will88; Colofornian

“Romney’s claim, however, is just patently false. Reagan’s most able biographer, Lou Cannon, has documented* that in contravention to Romney’s claim that Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice” Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento.

Cannon documents that after the abortion bill passed the California Senate, Reagan was asked by reporters during a press conference about his stance on the bill. When asked if he would sign the bill, Reagan answered, “I haven’t had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that.” Such a reply certainly does not reveal an “adamant” position on the issue, as Romney claims Reagan held. Further, such indecision was not in any way a hallmark of the Reagan mode of operation.

In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that “those were awful weeks,” and that he would never have signed the bill if he had “been a more experienced governor.”

In light of the evidence it cannot be said that Reagan was ever an “adamant” pro-abortion supporter who later “grew” into an anti-abortion advocate. For Romney to invoke the spirit of Ronald Reagan in this way is a disgraceful attempt to co-opt the reputation of the most famous and successful politician of his age and an icon of the conservative movement to the aid of a candidate floundering on an issue. Mitt Romney’s abortion problem bears no resemblance at all to Ronald Reagan’s views “grown” or not.”

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27404.html


160 posted on 02/09/2008 9:16:42 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Here, let me go even further for the vein you're exploring: Legislatures commonly pay for funding that goes to Planned Parenthood, even if not earmarked for "abortion services." Still, it goes into the coffers of the abortion industry. Another example: Local & state & congressional legislatures fund corrections systems. Female inmates get abortion. Therefore, yes, the abortion industry is funded all throughout our systems. And it's not just legislatures involved in allocation of such monies. It's you and me, Joe Taxpayers.

So you take the $ line argument back far enough, we're part of the problem as well (especially when we don't object or try to make a difference).

But I've been saying for almost 20 years that our whole culture undergirds the abortion industry.

But does that then mean because of our own often indirect ties to abortion that we can never speak out against it or those who expand its availability? (I don't think so)

So, the answer to your medicaid question is obvious. Of course, Hunter & the other legislatures fund abortions...and it's not limited to the example you gave. Are we to be ho-hum about that? (No)

So what then is a "reasonable" level of accountability to expect of a legislator, governor, or POTUS? My answer to that is to hold them accountable for a reasonable determination of their sphere of influence.

Example: A POTUS can implement the Mexico City Policy (like Reagan & George W. Bush) to keep $ out of the hands of the international abortion industry. A POTUS can also effect embryonic stem cell research policy. A POTUS can also nominate pro-life justices & other judges. A POTUS can put pro-lifers in key administrative/bureaucratic positions. A POTUS can even diminish domestic funding for the abortion industry.

Notice I said "diminish." I don't think it would be "reasonable" that a POTUS would be able to totally eliminate domestic funding of Planned Parenthood.

So you hold a rep accountable for the reasonable exercise of their sphere of influence. Example of a consideration: Did they seek or lead a policy or initiative that expanded abortion services--even if it was not the main thrust of the policy? A legislator voting for appropriations $ for Medicaid services isn't necessarily doing so. (You yourself showed that Medicaid funding in certain states doesn't cover abortion; secondly some states have more recently added "after-the-fact" court orders to previous-already-legislature-decided appropriations decisions. IOW, the funding decisions for abortion came in thru side-door judges, not front-door legislators. Please note that in my crit of Romney I've been consistent with that.

Countless times (a dozen or more) of posts I've haven't tried to hold Romney accountable for all 7% of the uninsured in MA now covered by RomneyCare. When folks pointed out that MA was under court order to fund low-income women Medicaid eligible, I didn't contend that. What I did contend was the over 4% of the MA population who earn above Medicaid level. Romney himself said that almost 1/4th of the MA uninsured earned $75,000 or more. That's almost 2% of the female pop in MA.

From other figures I extrapolated that another over 2% earn above Medicaid & below $75,000.

I think it is "unreasonable" to hold Romney accountable for the court order in MA aimed at low-income women. But they were less than 40% of the uninsured in MA. Therefore, the crit of $50 abortion subsidies in MA still holds.

161 posted on 02/09/2008 9:32:40 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

“Governor Reagan had never really given the abortion issue much thought before he took office. Cannon demonstrates that when Reagan was first confronted with abortion in 1967 he was unusually indecisive and had a difficult time deciding what he should do with a liberal abortion bill winding its way through the state house in Sacramento.”

That’s some of the silliest (and least skillful) spin I’ve ever seen. One thing that can be concluded is that he was definitely not pro-life, or he would have had no problem deciding to veto the bill.

“I haven’t had time to really sit down and marshal my thoughts on that.”

Again, definitely not pro-life. He signed the abortion bill. This poor spinmeister concentrates on word games, whether or not Reagan was “adamantly” pro-choice. He was pro-choice based upon his actions, but his poor defenders play word games, Lol. It’s unreal that people present such nonsense as a reasonable defense for anything.

When do you think Reagan was able to conclude that abortion might be, er, wrong?


162 posted on 02/09/2008 9:35:40 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Will88
In 1984?? Heck, Reagan had run for president twice before 1984, and had been a governor for years before. You don’t know what positions he took, or what statements he made beginning in the late 1960s...Lots of territory you’ve got to cover there from 1967 to 1984.

I never said he turned pro-life in 1984. I said that after he turned pro-life (a position which culminated with that book), he didn't flip back & forth, back & forth (like Romney did).

How long did it take Reagan to become pro-life?

He ran for POTUS on pro-life platforms. (Not sure of his early 70s position).

Reagan’s flip-flops on abortion

Here, let me use the argument so many Romney supporters have tried (since they didn't know Romney actually changed his position more than once): "He didn't flip-flop, he only 'flipped.'"

163 posted on 02/09/2008 9:39:42 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Will88
...smearing Romney for changing positions just as Reagan and umpteen other politicians have done over the years.

I defy you to find all the Reagan quotes on abortion, or for that matter, pick out any of the "politicians...over the years": Make a list of their statements on abortion...put them in any order. Then do a "mock" interview of them. They won't even come close to the ridiculous flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop statements made by Romney. (What's just about as bad in my opinion is that Romney's 2007 statements consistently shows that he really doesn't know the difference between "pro-life" and "pro-choice." Here ya go! Enjoy the twists & turns...better than any amusement park thriller...well, at least it is until you realized some kids got killed on the Romney Abortion Romp Ride...)

So here's a "mock" "interview" of Mitt--using his own actual words as the substantive part of his "responses" (his actual words are underlined):

Q Mr. Romney, tell us about how you've switched your attitude on abortion.

A "Yes. While I never said I was pro-choice... my position was effectively pro-choice." [Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007]

Q So since you're not "effectively pro-choice" anymore, you've changed. But what do you mean, "I never said I was pro-choice?" According to the records, didn't you say in 1994 that Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's?" [Source: Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05] Didn't you follow that up 11 years later on May 27, 2005 after your pro-life "conversion" by saying "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice?" Isn't "free to choose" and "promise to maintain...choice" the same thing as "pro-choice?" (Or are you just parsing words?) Didn't you also make multiple 'pro-choice' promises in 2002?"

A "I've made it quite clear since at least the Summer of 2001 that I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." [Source: Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01]

Q "If you didn't want to be labeled as 'pro-choice' as of 2001, then why 'promise to maintain...choice' multiple times in both 2002 & 2005? (I guess I'm a bit befuddled here)"

A "Listen, 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..." [Source: Mitt Romney, interview with Fox Chris Wallace, Aug. 12, 2007]

Q "...But excuse me, sir, just because you in your internal conversations haven't labeled yourself 'pro-choice' doesn't mean that you haven't spent a dozen-year period between 1994 and 2005 spouting 'pro-choice' expressions. Isn't that so?

A "Listen, I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]

Q "But we started out this interview where you were totally coming clean on your past years and you said your 'position was effectively pro-choice.' What was your record as governor of Massachusetts, then?"

A "I've been quite forthright on my positions ever since I took the campaign trail in South Carolina in January of 2007. I'll repeat what I said then: 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.'" [Source: Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07]

Q "So we have established, then, that you were indeed 'pro-choice' over the last multiple years..."

A "...But you didn't let me finish. Eleven days after I made that statement, I also told South Carolina's citizens that 'I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life.'" [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]

Q "OK, I'm getting rather confused again. How can you be 'pro-choice'...over the last multiple years and yet 'always [be] for life?'"

A "Well, that's because of my track record as governor. You see '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.'"

Q "But why did you then tell me that 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice?'"

A "Well, some people interpret it that way because of $50 Commonwealth Care abortions and a Planned Parenthood League representative who in now permanently attached to that process."

Q "But you've told me that 'every action' you took 'as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life' you 'stood on the side of life?'"

A "Uh, excuse me, but my press secretary just handed me a copy of my Katie Couric interview on embryonic stem cell research, and I want to review it...feel free to watch":

COURIC INTERVIEW: "...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos..."

Q "Wow, Mitt, that's great. I don't think I've ever heard a POTUS candidate ever talk about adopting frozen surplus embryos before. That's great!"

A "Shh. (You'll miss my next sentence)"

COURIC INTERVIEW: "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." [Dec. 5, 2007 interview with CBS' Katie Couric]

Q "So 'pro-choice' parents--and you admit they are 'parents' of adoptable embryos--if they 'decide' to 'donate' a young one for purposes of dissection...that's 'acceptable?' [More head shaking] And this was the very issue that 'converted' you to the "I was always for life" 'new' position, eh?"

164 posted on 02/09/2008 9:48:27 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Will88; Reagan Man; Jim Robinson

You ignored this quoting from 1968 ‘In fact, Cannon writes that in 1968, the year after the bill passed, Reagan said that “those were awful weeks,” and that he would never have signed the bill if he had “been a more experienced governor.”’

I don’t think that you realize how little abortion was on the radar then, but here is an excellent description of why your attack on Reagan has nothing to do with clearing up the 2005 Romney.


“”On FOX News Sunday this morning, Presidential candidate Mitt Romney made an awful move for a Republican: He lied about the Gipper. When asked by host Chris Wallace about his change of heart on abortion, Romney uttered:

“”And I laid out in my view that a civilized society must respect the sanctity of life. And you know what? I’m following in some pretty good footsteps.

It’s exactly what Ronald Reagan did. As governor, he was adamantly pro-choice. He became pro-life as he experienced life.””

Adamantly. Romney told us that as California Governor, Ronald Reagan was stubbornly unyielding in his support for abortion rights. Oh, please forgive me if I’m shaking a little, but for gawdsakes, the President isn’t alive to defend himself from this stuff. This is a “fib,” and we have discussed this here last month.

Here is a description of the Therapeutic Abortion Act, which Governor Reagan signed in 1967:

It was “sold” as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the “hard cases.” This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would “gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother,” or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. However, the law did provide that no termination of pregnancy could be approved after the 20th week of pregnancy.

The law Reagan signed would be “unconstitutional” under Roe v. Wade; in fact, the California Supreme Court tossed it in 1972.

In Reagan’s owned words from In His Own Words, transcribed by commenter Thomas TomlinsonDouthat, Reagan wrote:

Now, with regard to the permissive bill I supposedly signed, let me give you the correct history of what took place early in my term as governor. A bill was introduced that was permissive, indeed was abortion on demand. Naturally, there was great controversy about this bill. The author finally sent word that he would amend his bill to anything the governor would sign. Faced with this responsibility, I probably did more study and more soul searching on the subject that I had done on anything in my eight years as governor. I came to the conclusion, as I have already stated, that it [abortion] could only be justified to save a human life. The matter of health—meaning the permanent damage to the health of the mother if she went through with her pregnancy—was brought up. It seemed to me that the mother would have the right to protect herself from permanent damage just as she would be able to protect herself, even if it meant taking a life, from someone threatening her with mayhem, so I agreed to that provision. I thought there was adequate provision in the bill requiring responsible boards in the medical profession to declare such permanent harm would follow the birth of the child. Perhaps it was my inexperience in government, but, like so many pieces of legislation, there were loopholes that I had not seen, and the thing that made the California abortion bill become somewhat permissive in nature was violation of the spirit of the legislation by the groups that were supposed to police it. This was particularly true in the case of psychiatrists. If faced with the same problem today, I can assure you I would make sure there were no loopholes in the bill....

At the point that he signed the bill, Ronald Reagan was adamantly pro-life. Romney had said, in his previous incarnation, that he would support Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, no matter what. Reagan said that he would support abortion only if it would save the mother’s life and, in the extreme circumstance, health.

But as Reagan admitted, he had been snookered. Romney was not.

Note that Romney said that Reagan’s soul searching came in the years following his signing of that bill, “as he experienced life.” That is not the case. His soul searching came before he signed the bill, though his advocacy of life became stronger as infants became more threatened.


165 posted on 02/09/2008 9:51:22 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: pissant

You’re right. It’s obvious Duncan Hunter is the man who can lead the conservative movement out of the wilderness. /do I really have to type “sarcasm”?


166 posted on 02/09/2008 9:55:49 PM PST by streetpreacher (Arminian by birth, Calvinist by the grace of God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: streetpreacher

Perhaps not Hunter, but can we at least insist on it being a f****g conservative?


167 posted on 02/09/2008 9:56:56 PM PST by pissant (Time for a CONSERVATIVE party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: VictoryGal; Maelstorm; Moonman62; Bernard; pissant; Mr. Brightside; no-to-illegals; ejonesie22; ...

It would sure be nice if one of you guys that know how to do ping lists and such, would start a ping list to defend Ronald Reagan.

It looks like the anti Reagan efforts are not going away.


168 posted on 02/09/2008 10:17:14 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The more you try, the sillier it becomes. Everyone spins and revises to explain the prior mistakes. I don’t think it’s any grave sin that Reagan or Romney committed. But what was it Regan didn’t understand in 1967. Did he know how babies were conceived, gestated and born? Why did he think abortion had been illegal almost forever?

He and his worshipers are just spinning to explain away his mistakes and inconsistencies in the past. The same as other politicians and their spinners do, like the pro-life, and pro-second amendment Clinton and Gore when they were running for state office in the South.

You’re recycling the same old spin about “adamant” or not. All political spin.


169 posted on 02/09/2008 10:17:28 PM PST by Will88 ( The Worst Case Scenario: McCain with a Dhimm majority in the House and Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: loreldan; redgirlinabluestate
"The movement needs someone of Ronald Reagan's stature and Romney could fill that role," Mr. Sekulow told The Washington Times yesterday"

Much agreed. Many of us have seen the same ability in Romney that Reagan had to articulate conservatism. Wonderful that other's also see it and approached Governor Romney about it. : )

170 posted on 02/09/2008 10:24:12 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Oh go take your flea powder you are starting ot make everyone itch!

171 posted on 02/09/2008 10:29:19 PM PST by restornu (People do your own home work don't reley on the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Abbeville Conservative; ajay_kumar; alpha-8-25-02; americanophile; angcat; Austin1; bethtopaz; ...

Ping! A most appropriate role for Romney!


172 posted on 02/09/2008 10:29:57 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seekthetruth

Now that FDT is in the job pool again, he needs to find a forum like Reagan had with General Electric Theatre to put his views out there in with commentary on the issues of the day, downright wholesome entertainment, etc. Maybe he can get his ol’ boss Dick Wolf to produce it. Despite cancer issues, Thompson’s not that old, and could still serve a good 4-8 years starting in 2012.


173 posted on 02/09/2008 10:32:28 PM PST by Schwaeky (The Republic--Shall be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure Society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thanks so much for posting the link!


174 posted on 02/09/2008 10:34:28 PM PST by jan in Colorado ("It's easier to believe a lie one hears 1,000 times than to believe a fact that one has never heard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

When you really think of it who spend their 24/7 time, money, and effort, and being gracious at the end.

He never got the excessive free media coverage that McCain and Huck did, and the many good things he did if it was reported the titled were negative and if one did not take time to read it, they would just log in their mind that distorted title.

So many have said when they did take the time to listen or to catch something Mitt said, or did they were pleasantly surprised!


175 posted on 02/09/2008 10:37:52 PM PST by restornu (People do your own home work don't reley on the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Ladies and Gentlemen, the only way we will get Reagan back is if we clone him (like they did on ST-TNG where the Klingons cloned Khaless), and then we’re running into a slight inconvenience called the 22nd Amendment.


176 posted on 02/09/2008 10:41:19 PM PST by Schwaeky (The Republic--Shall be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure Society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: restornu

LoL! Good one. : )


177 posted on 02/09/2008 10:44:34 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Will88

“But what was it Regan didn’t understand in 1967. Did he know how babies were conceived, gestated and born?”


You have made a couple of posts which seem to indicate that you are young, that is one of them. I remember that bill, and like Reagan I thought that it was for the life of the mother.

By 1968 Reagan had made public what a mistake he had made.

What does any of this have to with a man that is older than me, the 60 year old sometimes abortion counselor Bishop Mitt Romney.

How is it that the he didn’t change his mind about the bill in 1968 like Reagan, why did he never change, decade after decade, election after election, Reagan came and went and was replaced by the 1994 Gingrich revolution, the 90s, Bush vs Gore, nothing affected Romney until the beginnings of this present campaign.

During the later of those years Romney was one of the most passionate, eloquent defenders of the pro abortion position in the nation from either party (we have video of his sincerity and passion).

Time and history and movements had no effect on the man.


178 posted on 02/09/2008 10:52:18 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: restornu
He raised far more money than McCain or the nothing Huckabee (who raised almost nothing) also.

Governor Romney was optimistic and gracious to the end, you are right, resty. All his supporters, his Mormon brothers and sisters and his family and friends have so much to be proud of!!!

He will be back in 1212, as long as the good Lord sees fit to keep him healthy, I am sure of it. And he will win! : )

179 posted on 02/09/2008 10:52:27 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: restornu

What is tiresome is being stalked by you through various threads with nothing but personal attacks in violation of FR rules and respect.

Constantly trying to make it personal with me is against FR policy.


180 posted on 02/09/2008 10:56:05 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

There are always two sides to any political activity—appearances, and actual motivation.

Paul “Tax-on-gas” Tsongas was unelectable, he had cancer in 92 and would not have carried the Democratic nomination regardless of delegate count. It was their year w/ or w/o Slick Willy and they weren’t willing to lose.

Without necessarily having all the facts in hand

$250 for a congressional candidate, even in 1992, was essntially a joke in terms of contributions, and may have been done for access or to keep communication channels open with a representative working on something which Romney had an interest in.

Romney’s business interests had a substantial presence in New York, as well as nationwide, and John LaFalce was on a number of committees whose regulatory oversight affected his business interests. At this time, he was neither Gov. nor Senate candidate, but citizen Romney, and as a private citizen had every right to maintain good relations with persons in power (via campaign contributions) who could either make business go smoothly for them or put their foot on their nuts.

IIRC, Doug Anderson couldn’t get elected dog catcher.. Also its a common practice to contribute to the weakest democrat candidate to give them a shot at the general election to be clobbered by the GOP nominee. Think that doesn’t happen, its a REGULAR practice here in Kentucky, I know that much, I contributed to Bruce Lunsford’s unsuccessful primary campaign last year for Governor (paltry sum, only $50) because i thought he would get clobbered by ANY Republican here in the Gubernatorial race.


181 posted on 02/09/2008 10:56:11 PM PST by Schwaeky (The Republic--Shall be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure Society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
No one on this board loves Ronald Reagan more than I do. He is my second greatest hero!

But he wasn't perfect and made mistakes, which btw, Reagan himself acknowledged. One of them, was the bill he passed in CA, permitting abortions in limited circumstances, which helped paved the way for Roe vs. Wade, something Reagan also admitted. While it is true that Reagan never supported abortion on demand, it is also true that he changed his opinion on abortion.

While it is true that Romney did support abortion on demand, it is also true that he never passed a bill which expanded a right to abortion. Quite the contrary. He passed several bills intended to narrow the scope.

182 posted on 02/09/2008 11:01:41 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Schwaeky

“$250 for a congressional candidate, even in 1992, was essntially a joke in terms of contributions”


100% of Romney’s support went only to democrats for years, when you couple that with his anti Reagan position and opposition to the Contract with America, and the fact that he was not even a republican, and that he chose all this during the years of our great conservative battles, it means something, we cannot just suspend all common sense.


183 posted on 02/09/2008 11:07:26 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

“true that he changed his opinion on abortion. “


That means you can show me all of the pro abortion quotes, campaign literature, and since he was a nationally known figure, video and at least audio of the pro abortion position that he “changed his opinion on”.


184 posted on 02/09/2008 11:11:43 PM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

McCain seems to be Bipolar and if so we never know from day to day which side of the isle he is pulling towards!


185 posted on 02/09/2008 11:18:53 PM PST by restornu (People do your own home work don't reley on the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Here's a good article on it which also documents the effort Reagan made after becoming president to make amends for signing the CA law liberalizing abortion.
186 posted on 02/09/2008 11:19:03 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Freee-dame

Exactly!


187 posted on 02/09/2008 11:21:01 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

BTW, I believe the comments I made in #178 were fair and accurate.


188 posted on 02/09/2008 11:21:43 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

BTW, I believe the comments I made in #178 were fair and accurate.


189 posted on 02/09/2008 11:21:44 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: restornu

LOL! No we most certainly don’t. : )


190 posted on 02/09/2008 11:22:48 PM PST by TAdams8591
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591

3 months ago I did not know anything about Romney.
After observing his campaign this season, I am sold on him as long as he wishes to compete. Now he has the name recognition which he lacked before this contest began. He will be a strong candidate in 2012.


191 posted on 02/09/2008 11:25:16 PM PST by ajay_kumar (United we win, divided democrats win. How difficult is that to understand?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican; conservativeinferno; WVNan; loreldan; seekthetruth; lookout88; K-oneTexas; ...
Romney IS a very conservative, straight-laced morals-based man

You have got to be kidding. I'm sorry, but I'm truly surprised that words alone and an "R" by one's name is enough to fool so many people. (or maybe it's the good looks and great hair) He is no conservative and never was.

And one of the biggest problems I had with him was his character, so your statement about him being "morals-based" just amazes me. The guy was caught in numerous lies. And the scary part is, the lies seemed to come so easy for him, they just rolled off his tongue. It is almost Clintonesque. His nickname could be Slick Willard.

And what was equally troubling is that the man seemed to have no core principles one way or the other. Typical politician, in that it wasn't about principle but about saying whatever it takes to win a race. Some people bought it, many saw through him like a pane of glass.

I'll ask some questions that I asked someone else on another thread, a couple weeks ago:

Is going back and forth on abortion a "conservative" value? Is going back and forth on the 2nd amendment conservative? Is being a backer of the Brady Bill conservative? Is having a socialistic mandatory health care plan that is endorsed by Ted Kennedy conservative? In regard to judicial appointments, is appointing more Democrats and liberals than Republicans a "conservative" value?

Is being a chameleon and pandering to people only to turn around and betray what makes him "conservative" and "morals-based"? Is lying, stretching the truth and not being principled "morals based"? Is allowing gay marriage to go through "conservative"? Is raising taxes and being for big-government programs a "conservative" value? Is being aligned with the CFR, a globalist group who is pushing for the NAU, a "conservative" value? Is not having served in the miltary and having 5 sons who aren't serving "conservative"? Is that enough, or should I go on?

And lastly, if you don't click on any of those other links... at least click on this one, a little video that I put together.

*gets ready for the tar and feathering* lol

192 posted on 02/09/2008 11:26:32 PM PST by incindiary (wake up, people!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas
MSM screwed the voter royally this time around. Course they always do.

Big time!
193 posted on 02/09/2008 11:26:59 PM PST by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: loreldan

These bluebloods don’t get it. We didn’t “want” Romney anymore than one wants to go to the dentist. It was just that the alternative is worse.


194 posted on 02/09/2008 11:28:54 PM PST by Redcloak ("A plague o' both your houses!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: incindiary

Do you think that McCain is the better candidate?


195 posted on 02/09/2008 11:37:25 PM PST by alicewonders (Conservative without a country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: restornu

OMFG, (pardon my abbreviated french JimRob, but I about had a heart attack on that one—had a sense maybe he was but didn’t ever say anything about it and I have watched his political career since I was a proverbial political toddler) but I do not want someone that is bipolar with their finger on the nuclear button. We may need to find out if anyone in the know can dig anything up on this that can be politically useful. Remember, the Rats dumped Thomas Eagleton as the Veep nominee with McGovern when they learned he went through Electroshock therapy. and changing nominee at convention is not without precedent...


196 posted on 02/09/2008 11:44:56 PM PST by Schwaeky (The Republic--Shall be reorganized into the first American EMPIRE, for a safe and secure Society!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: alicewonders
Do you think that McCain is the better candidate?

To me that's like comparing (to borrow a quote from someone on another thread) syphilis and gonorrhea. I don't like either one, and I would never vote for either one. I think people should vote their conscience. I explained my position in this post, but to sum it up, I won't be voting for McCain if he is the nominee.

197 posted on 02/09/2008 11:50:20 PM PST by incindiary (wake up, people!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Schwaeky

What does this mena OMFG?


198 posted on 02/10/2008 12:15:59 AM PST by restornu (People do your own home work don't reley on the media!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I’ve been defending Reagan for many years, going back to the 1970`s, against falsehoods, half-truths, obfuscations and outright fabrications. Been battling the anti-Reaganites on FR going on 9 years now. Its a never ending process. Thankfully many of Reagan’s most ardent detractors have moved on from FR. Educating the ignorant and correcting historic revisionists is a significant task, but well worth the effort.

Thanks for your help in defending Reagan.

199 posted on 02/10/2008 12:24:18 AM PST by Reagan Man (McCain Wants My Conservative Vote --- EARN IT or NO DEAL !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

Yeah but one of you guys needs to start a Reagan defense ping.


200 posted on 02/10/2008 12:28:00 AM PST by ansel12 (The conservative boat sailed long ago, it is every man for himself now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-260 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