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

Skip to comments.

Tea Party to Back Any GOP Nominee— Including Romney [according to self-appointed tea party "leader"]
Fox News ^ | June 4, 2011 | Lexi Stemple

Posted on 06/04/2011 10:25:45 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie

The Tea Party will support whoever wins the GOP presidential nomination - - even if that person is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. That's the affirmative word from Tea Party Express chair Amy Kremer.

(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: amykremer; backstabber4romney; backstabber4romnmey; benedictromney; brutusromney; kremer; kremer4911mosque; kremer4anyrino; kremer4bigdig; kremer4dnc; kremer4gaymarriage; kremer4globalwarming; kremer4rino; kremer4rinoromney; kremer4romney; kremer4romneycare; kremer4soros; kremer4tarp; kremer4taxes; kremervsamerica; kremervsamericans; kremervsthepeople; likehellwewill; poser4bishopromney; poser4milt; poser4rinoromney; poser4romney; rhymeswithmitt; romney; saboteur4romney; shapeshifter4romney; teaparty; teapartyexpress
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next last
To: LibFreeOrDie

Looks like the fix is in or so they think.

Time to get back to those grass-roots folks! The TEA Party Folks ain’t sheeple. They are the ones educating themselves, family, and friends to just what those founding documents meant.

Time to start inviting these candidates to TEA.


201 posted on 06/05/2011 1:44:36 PM PDT by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

She appears to be back peddling. I don’t trust her. I don’t believe her. She’s already shown her true RINO leanings.


202 posted on 06/05/2011 1:45:11 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Some people forget last week, much less last year.

We have to remind conservatives that she said this until they remember.

Because of the timing of this statement it is obvious that if she isn’t in the Romney camp she is still a flip flopping Rino.


203 posted on 06/05/2011 2:08:23 PM PDT by Eaker (The problem with the internet, you're never sure of the accuracy of the quotes. Abraham Lincoln '65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

She called me a little while ago in response to an email I sent her this morning. I too wonder/think she is back peddling. She claims, and maybe rightly so, so as to not compromise the scheduled Tea Party debate in September, that the TPX needs to not endorse any primary candidates prior to the debate due to the lsm having a potential field day with such. also of note is the truncated video at the Fox link (it’s Mittens ‘turn’) lacks the reason why no endorsements yet.

She did express how in the past 24 hours she has learned how much aversion and disdain there is for Romney.

Just to CMA, I have no relationship what so ever with Amy other than emailing back and forth before the first Tax Day Tea Party...


204 posted on 06/05/2011 2:08:47 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Sounds like the fix is already in. Is it a sham or shame?

Holding our nose and voting for (R) is partly what has created the mess we are in now. Voting for an ineffective candidate isn’t going to help matters. Amy Kremer go back to those ...republican handlers and tell them we need leaders, not any more blood sucking RINO’s along for the ride. They put up a weak candidate they will split the party themselves.

The risk of a third party is only a risk to a lame GOP nominee. If there were not serious issues with the GOP’s own house and candidates, the threat of a third party would be mute. I don’t want to be voting for the slow train to socialist h*ll.

Every TEA Party member needs to be asking themselves if they are choosing to follow or are they ready to get out there and rally a few republican campaign stops? Whoever is the nominee needs to know he has to answer to We the People, this business that we are going to be beholden to the Republican nominee is just nuts. We’ve been there done that!


205 posted on 06/05/2011 2:09:40 PM PDT by EBH ( Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eaker
Amy Kremer is one of the so-called tea party "leaders" who is trying to ensure that the tea party does not take on social issues. I'm sorry, but this is not a conservative stance. You cannot concentrate only on fiscal issues. You cannot separate out life and liberty and expect America to remain a free country.

God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? ~~Thomas Jefferson

206 posted on 06/05/2011 2:24:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

When all all is said and done, My feelings are more in line with yours. Now thar you somewhat eplained it, I am not a turd partyer.


207 posted on 06/05/2011 2:48:04 PM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1; All

I did e-mail Kremer and have now two e-mails from her, one with request for my phone number so we can talk about the fact she was misunderstood in her interview comments.

The second e-mail then went on at length backpeddling and spinning her comment. She said she meant that the tea party would only vote for a conservative which the tea party would support, not just anyone thrown their way.

Did anyone else receive these e-mails?
I suspect she may have been hammered and why she sent the second e-mail.


208 posted on 06/05/2011 2:59:43 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

No I will not be working my tail off for anyone who is not a conservative...Obama win or not. Done holding my nose...it isn’t going to happen that way this time around. Nope Nadda.


209 posted on 06/05/2011 3:02:36 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

As the founder of the Mansfield North Central Ohio Tea Party Association, http://www.bloodofpatriots.org I can tell you with certitude...we will not support Romney or any other RINO.

Kremer doesn’t speak for us.

We are a RINO FREE zone and stand for PRINCIPLE OVER PARTY.
GOP flunkies like Kremer are ruining the Tea Party movement.
Speak up people...tell Kremer and others like her to shut their pieholes.


210 posted on 06/05/2011 3:15:51 PM PDT by bimboeruption (Clinging to my Bible and my HK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
This was the reply to my blast email:

Neil – using that kind of language about a woman – ANY woman – is just disgusting. Absolutely wrong and you should be ashamed.

With that said, I’m going to swallow hard and assume you are just extremely passionate about what you believe in, and you misunderstood what Amy said.

Amy’s comments were reflective of our confidence in the strength of the tea party movement, in which we don’t think a candidate can win the nomination without already having won over a majority of tea party support. Some candidate who doesn’t stand up for tea party values just won’t win – because they don’t have the footsoldiers, energy, and passion on their side. That’s what she meant by saying “the cream will rise to the top.” In this political environment, where the tea party is extremely engaged and active, only a candidate who wins their support will rise to the top.

Amy said that, “Whoever is the Republican nominee is going to HAVE to have the support of the entire tea party movement.” Just wanted to emphasize that for any candidate to win the Republican nomination, they will have to do so with the support of the tea party movement. The tea party is still an extremely massive and energetic force in American politics, and a candidate that doesn’t support those ideals of fiscal conservatism isn’t going to win the primary, let alone the general.

TPX has a reputation for taking on the RINO establishment EVERY TIME. Always has, always will.

IMO, TPX is back peddling furiously at this point. As for Amy and TPX, will NEVER trust them in the future. They've shown their RINO colors. Neil
REFUSE. RESIST. Do NOT Submit! ★FREEDOM!★

211 posted on 06/05/2011 3:16:42 PM PDT by Neil E. Wright (An OATH is FOREVER OathKeeper III We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: eaglestar

She’s in damage mode....I got the same e-mail. Backpeddling hard I’d say. Too bad the cat is out of the hat and it isn’t going back in.


212 posted on 06/05/2011 3:21:09 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

That’s where I stand, also. I don’t think the rino’s care either. They are for the cause of the ‘rats - so they will be happy with either a rat or rino. They only fight against conservatives or let conservatives fight SOLO!


213 posted on 06/05/2011 3:29:12 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“You cannot concentrate only on fiscal issues. You cannot separate out life and liberty and expect America to remain a free country.”

********************

Exactly right, Jim. Needs to be repeated over and over again. It is immoral to separate the social issues from the economic ones. It is also bad politics. Reagan never did it and he won three landslides (including 1988).

To win, the TEA Party needs to breathe from both its lungs, social and economic. The people who are suggesting the TEA Party ditch the social issues are either Dems or fellow travelers like Christie and Daniels and Romney. We need to ditch them, not the social issues.


214 posted on 06/05/2011 3:34:31 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: caww

I’ll hold my nose. I don’t need another 4 years of this.


215 posted on 06/05/2011 3:37:06 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Sarah Palin - SheÂ’s living rent-free inside the MSMÂ’s heads. Credited to Lurk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

"A political party cannot be all things to all people.
It must represent certain fundamental beliefs
 which must not be compromised to political expediency
or simply to swell its numbers."

--  President Ronald Reagan


"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party
 over to the traitors in the battle just ended.
We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged
 to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support.
Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates
wouldn’t make any sense at all.""

--  President Ronald Reagan


216 posted on 06/05/2011 3:38:10 PM PDT by Diogenesis ( Vi veri veniversum vivus vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carthego delenda est
She did express how in the past 24 hours she has learned how much aversion and disdain there is for Romney.

WOW! And she claims to be a leader in the Tea Party? It shouldn't have been she 'learned' something but it 'confirmed' her own feelings.

Shows where she is at! She needs to be put under the bus now.
217 posted on 06/05/2011 3:43:58 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Haven’t seen Mitt’s gold tooth in a while. Did Sarah punch it out in New Hampshire the other day?

Poor Mitt Romney! He missed the bus, again (beaten up by a girl)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2729366/posts


218 posted on 06/05/2011 3:44:40 PM PDT by Brices Crossroads
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz

Do you think it will be much different? When did a Rino make a difference with their cross the aisle mentality?


219 posted on 06/05/2011 3:46:38 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: mtrott

I won’t vote for Romney. The sneaky snake compromiser with abortion and same sex marriages. He created the precursor of Obamacare; a believer in fake man-made global warming, etc.

Obama and Mitt Romney, both are devils with hellish policies. If Amy Kremer and the Tea Party Express support Romney, they will suffer the same fate as the two devils.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36


220 posted on 06/05/2011 3:55:10 PM PDT by abcc2011 (Christian and conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
If Romney's "in," I'm out...perhaps permanently out of GOP.

Waffles for breakfast, supper/lunch, dinner 7-days-a-week anyone?

YEAR Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
1994 (Campaign) "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)
1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
2002-2004 “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
2005 May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "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." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
2006 April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). "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." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine
Early 2007 On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “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) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007 "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 '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" Then comes 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..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?) 5.5 years before – June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard December 5, 2007: Romney: ...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." Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic "candidate!"

221 posted on 06/05/2011 4:13:01 PM PDT by Colofornian (I already have a God as my leader. Why do I need ANOTHER one as POTUS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
We've been in this place before, haven't we? I seem to recall many here (myself included) holding my nose and voting for the despised one in 2008. Some say it was because of his running mate. I can tell you if Allen West were anyone's running mate I'd be thrilled.

When the time comes, it will be the decision of every person in that voting booth to make a choice that will impact Supreme Court decisions long after they are dead. For that very reason at least, I know I'll be voting GOP - WHOEVER that is. Trust me, I will sleep well knowing I did everything I could to stop the Marxist tyrant.

If that gets me kicked off this forum...well, that's life. It's been a long and good run.

222 posted on 06/05/2011 4:17:20 PM PDT by truthkeeper ( Life is a pre-existing condition - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

Yes it will make a difference. Even a Romney isn’t going to bring a cass Sunstein, van jones or any other communist into his cabinet. Plus if we can take the senate, a lefty president becomes irrelevant.


223 posted on 06/05/2011 4:22:56 PM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Sarah Palin - SheÂ’s living rent-free inside the MSMÂ’s heads. Credited to Lurk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
You cannot separate out life and liberty and expect America to remain a free country.

Amen!

YEAR Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life'
Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"
1994 (Campaign) "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)
1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)
2002-2004 “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
2005 May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "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." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
2006 April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). "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." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine
Early 2007 On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “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) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!
Summer 2007 "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 '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" Then comes 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..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?) 5.5 years before – June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard December 5, 2007: Romney: ...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." Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic "candidate!"

224 posted on 06/05/2011 4:38:10 PM PDT by Colofornian (I already have a God as my leader. Why do I need ANOTHER one as POTUS?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 206 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

I think most of us are willing to do that regardless of our tea party affiliation. ABO... good enough for me.


225 posted on 06/05/2011 4:38:38 PM PDT by Katya (Homo Nosce Te Ipsum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

No Name,

You are absolutely corret regarding “it should have ‘confirmed’ her own feelings.” Better yet, through cognitive process she should have thought better.

My original email to TPX early this morning:

“Howdy,

Amy sure has become full of herself thinking she speaks for all the Tea Partiers by saying we’ll vote for the GOP nomination even if it is Romney. Such a disappointment. Did she sell out? Has fame and fortune ruined her? Is her intent to divide the Tea Party as the socialists desire? I respected the ideas and interactions I had with her before the first national Tea Party.

Now, her words and actions may be the biggest political coup I have ever witnessed. Of course I could just write her off because she was acting without the supreme authority of the Intergalactic Tea Party Ginormas’s Chairman Zot’s approval, which everybody knows is the One True Tea Party spokesman.

So basically, Amy can KMA and so can the Tea Party Express if they do not act to dismiss her and her statement.

xxxxxxxxx,
Grant County New Mexico”

PMSNBC “Tea Party Express Implodes, Romney Joins Democrat Party Over Controversy”


226 posted on 06/05/2011 4:48:46 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name
It shouldn't have been she 'learned' something but it 'confirmed' her own feelings.

I agree 100%!

Anybody who claims they can read and didn't know that Romney is a RINO is a liar or they really can't read.

227 posted on 06/05/2011 4:55:57 PM PDT by Eaker (The problem with the internet, you're never sure of the accuracy of the quotes. Abraham Lincoln '65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Katya
I think most of us are willing to do that regardless of our tea party affiliation

You might want to read a little further.

FUMR!

228 posted on 06/05/2011 4:59:41 PM PDT by Eaker (The problem with the internet, you're never sure of the accuracy of the quotes. Abraham Lincoln '65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Isn’t the Tea Party Express affiliated with this site?


229 posted on 06/05/2011 5:05:48 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Not to my knowledge. It isn’t listed on FR’s home page under “Alliances.” You’d have to ask JimRob.


230 posted on 06/05/2011 5:26:57 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie
NO RINOS!
The Place for Conservatives
Period!!


231 posted on 06/05/2011 5:41:15 PM PDT by RedMDer (Throw the Rats and RINOs out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
If a true conservative doesn't win the primary....you most defiantly will get ‘four more years of this’.
232 posted on 06/05/2011 6:18:34 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Romney doesn’t only flip flop...he lies outright. Most can see this, those who can’t are not paying any attention in the first place.


233 posted on 06/05/2011 6:25:52 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“If Amy Kremer is still with them after this, they can count me OUT!!”

I am with you on this one, Jim.

But I am not too worried. I really, honestly do believe Palin is going to be our next president.

We have seen this all before, in 1979.


234 posted on 06/05/2011 6:32:05 PM PDT by Nik Naym (It's not my fault... I have compulsive smartass disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Nik Naym; Jim Robinson

Here is Amy Kemer’s response to my e-mail to her still backpeddling...as follows.

CW,
I am sorry that you feel that way, but you are wrong! Have you seen the entire interview?

I stated in the interview, for full disclosure, I was/am neutral and unbiased because of the TPX/CNN Presidential debate we are hosting in September. No one has my support or the support of Tea Party Express at this time.

In the interview, I stated, “Well, I think that whoever is the Republican nominee, they are going to have to have the support of the tea party movement, the entire tea party movement.” This statement is reflective of my confidence in the strength of the tea party movement, which specifically means that I don’t think a candidate can win the nomination without our support, much less won the general election.

If you haven’t seen the entire interview, you can watch it here: http://video.foxnews.com/#/v/976326533001/tea-partys-role-in-2012/?playlist_id=87937

While you and others may not believe in the movement, I have full faith in these people and know that we will have a significant impact in the primaries. I am sorry if you do not share that faith. We proved the strength and power of the movement in the primaries of 2010 and again in November of 2010. I think the same thing will happen again in November 2012.

As an additional piece of information, the Tea Party Express will get involved in the primary, but it will not be until after the debate. We will be working to elect the strongest constitutional conservative that emerges from the field of candidates.

We have been the only tea party groups that has put our money where our mouth is and supported true conservatives. I can promise you that will not change!


235 posted on 06/05/2011 6:35:36 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

To: caww
I did e-mail Kremer and have now two e-mails from her, one with request for my phone number so we can talk about the fact she was misunderstood in her interview comments.

The second e-mail then went on at length backpeddling and spinning her comment. She said she meant that the tea party would only vote for a conservative which the tea party would support, not just anyone thrown their way.

Did anyone else receive these e-mails?

I suspect she may have been hammered and why she sent the second e-mail.

Yes, I also received two emails from Amy Kremer asking for phone contact info. She tried to explaining her point in the interview was... that the "cream will rise to the top" (I guess she means Mitt Romney). She would be a very busy woman to talk individually to everybody who is pissed off at her now. It would be easier if she just started her own Tea Party group and invite her Mitt Romney RINO loving friends to join her (that should be a small gathering)

236 posted on 06/05/2011 6:47:14 PM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Well I could swear it used to say Tea Party Express on the front page and one of their tours was heavily supported here.

It does say Freedom Works and they are affiliated with a Tea Party Express, maybe a different one with the same name?


237 posted on 06/05/2011 6:54:59 PM PDT by Lorianne (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

No.


238 posted on 06/05/2011 7:16:49 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Rebellion is brewing!! Impeach the corrupt Marxist bastard!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

Maybe JimRob removed the reference after reading this thread?

I think Dick Armey’s Freedom Works co-hosted the tea party rally in DC with the Tea Party Express, but I don’t think they’re associated. The Tea Party Express that Amy Kremer runs is associated with this PAC:

http://www.ourcountrydeservesbetter.com/

(It’s too complicated for me to keep track of!)


239 posted on 06/05/2011 7:19:29 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Hey Amy Kremer stuff your support up your butt.


240 posted on 06/05/2011 7:20:52 PM PDT by bmwcyle (It is Satan's fault)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

Jim answered the question just before I posted a response.


241 posted on 06/05/2011 7:21:40 PM PDT by LibFreeOrDie (Obama promised a gold mine, but will give us the shaft.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: broken_arrow1

Well I just responded to her latest e-mail to me...she is soooo backpeddling!

One of the things I mentioned was if she had any inclinging of the pulse of the people, concerning Romney, she would have never dared saying the tea party would support him if he won the primary...and asking her how it is she did’nt know? But then if she is supporting him herself that would account for it.

Will see what she has to say in response....but I have a feeling she might be using staff to answer these....I will be able to tell by how she responds this time...I set her up in order to see if that’s so. If so I won’t be continuing the communication.


242 posted on 06/05/2011 7:32:46 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeOrDie

NOT gonna happen. Push your RINOs on someone else. The Dems maybe?


243 posted on 06/05/2011 7:38:19 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

I agree Citizen. I refuse to vote for “the lesser of two evils”. It’s still evil and I won’t do it. If I do, what’s the point of it all?


244 posted on 06/05/2011 7:38:26 PM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

You need to watch the entire interview.

Amy says she and the Tea Party Express will not be endorsing ANY candidate until after their debate.

She also said that the Republican nominee will have to have full support of the Tea Party movement.

So the question that was asked was redundant and assumes that the nominee already has Tea Party support, “Will you support Romney if he is the nominee?”


245 posted on 06/05/2011 7:43:30 PM PDT by DoctorJimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Minus_The_Bear

Tea Party Express also endorsed candidates like Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Allen West and Raul Labrador


246 posted on 06/05/2011 7:43:40 PM PDT by DoctorJimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
IMO, it would have been far wiser to make that declaration in September/October of 2012.

I was thinking the same thing. First things first. We don't even know the announced candidates and we aren't even in the primaries yet. The first priority is to stop Mitt Romney. Second priority is to rally around a conservative - best one we can get.

247 posted on 06/05/2011 7:50:46 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoctorJimmy

Well thank you for signing up today to set us all straight.

However, I do hope you understand that you have no credibility whatsoever.

Oh, and most of FR will NOT support MittWit if he is the nominee no matter what Amy Kremer thinks.

Thanks again for playing.


248 posted on 06/05/2011 7:55:30 PM PDT by Eaker (The problem with the internet, you're never sure of the accuracy of the quotes. Abraham Lincoln '65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Eaker; All

“the Lord is my Shepherd...”


249 posted on 06/05/2011 8:44:36 PM PDT by Carthego delenda est
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Carthego delenda est

Huh?


250 posted on 06/05/2011 8:48:47 PM PDT by Eaker (The problem with the internet, you're never sure of the accuracy of the quotes. Abraham Lincoln '65)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 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