Posted on 02/19/2007 7:47:52 AM PST by meg88
I think I'm done with the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney. I'm tired of it. His campaign and the potential for his nomination has jumped the shark. No Republican candidate for President has ever more deserved the title "Multiple Choice Mitt."
I'm tired of the explanations and I'm tired of the dodges.
First there was abortion. He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it. Some of his supporters and people on his campaign have called Sam Brownback pro-choice. At least Sam has never been multiple choice. And when Sam became pro-life, he actually fought the pro-life fight. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney ever passionately fighting the fight for life. He has, at best, been luke warm -- playing it safe, but not actually advocating. And he's played it so safe, that on stem cell research, he's been willing to split the baby with parental consent.
Then there was campaign finance reform. Mitt was for it more than McCain before he was against it more than McCain He's tried to caveat his way out of it, but his caveats have been so nuanced as to be meaningless.
Read on . . .
Let's not forget taxes. Multiple Choice Mitt opposed President Bush's tax cuts and favored a federal gas tax hike as late as 2003.
Oh, there is homosexuality too. Mitt was going to be more gay and more abortion friendly than Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now he's not. At least he's been consistent on gay marriage since he came out in opposition to it in his gubernatorial term.
Finally, there is voting for Paul Tsongas. In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Tsongas. He explains this now as trying to pick the weakest guy to go up against George H. W. Bush. But, in 1994, Mitt Romney said he did so because "Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton."
I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.
Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.
LOL!
OUCH! RedState is one of the most conservative blog sites there is out there.
As Hunter easily passes by McCain and Mulitple Choice Mitt, it will be the showdown between Guiliani and Hunter.
Heck, its already started on FR. :o)
You can win votes from Liberals by saying you voted for it before you voted against it but when you start that crap with Conservatives it just doesn't have the same appeal.
I suppose in order to get elected in liberal Massachusetts , Romney had to perform like a liberal Republican toady. The problem is who is the real Mitt and is it worth the effort to find out.
All the running around in a circle being shocked seems pretty childish to me.
And once again many conservatives show how shortsighted they are, as they would ditch a pro life candidate (Romney) and end up with one who is solidly pro abortion (Giuliani). What matters are the actual POLICIES of an administration, not someone's pedigree from their earlier service, their age, their gender, and all the other ephemerals.
Couldn't have said it any better myself.
Romney will win the nomination.
What ever happened to the perfectly reasonable, "I'm against(for) it, but my constituents are for(against) it"? Ronald Reagan was personally against abortion, but as governor he signed the California law legalizing abortion, saying the majority of the state favored it. If a candidate has integrity, s/he'll generally do what s/he promises, regardless of personal beliefs. For me the test becomes whether I believe them.
the Dems will kill him in the election. Lord, did you see what we did to Kerry for being a flip flopper?
I don't think so. But I'd take him over the current frontrunner.
One of my darkest secrets is that I did just that, out of total frustration, and voted for Clinton once.
And ended up with 8 years of a First Rapist; and Kosovo (no exit strategy); and hi tech transfer to Red China; and throwing money at North Korea AND gave them the means to do nuclear weapon research; and entrenched thousands of "progressive" lawyers in the Justice Department (who are mostly still there); and got taxes imposed on Social Security; and had the first retroactive taxes in the history of the country imposed, with nary a whimper; and saw the neutering of our military, the new improved gay one, and...
Ask me if I'll ever do that again...
What positions will he take if elected president? And will he keep them?
Bush Sr did the same flip to become Ronald Reagan's running mate. Could be a political liability, but if the guy is a legitimate conservative candidate with good executive experience I wouldn't be so quick to toss him out. If we put this treatment of Romney in perspective, all the annointing of Giuliani (pro abortion, etc.) by conservatives is quite extraordinary.
Don't really know, but past history indicates that on abortion he will stick with the position he runs on.
Duncan Hunter gaining big mo among the 2nd tier GOP candidates! :)
gotta start somewhere. I see next to no enthusiasm for th eother "2nd tier" guys. And negative enthusiasm for the big 3 is a-growing.
Exactly. Understanding Romney and his success isn't all that hard - he got elected in Massachusetts because he was the perfect 'conservative' - pro-choice, pro-gay, pretty face, and a COMPLETE political EUNOCH!! He did nothing, zero, zip, nada of any lasting value for either the national or state Republican parties nor strengthen anything of conservative values while governor of mASSachusetts. Sure, he made some squawking noises but before he left he saddled the state with an abysmal, over-priced, unworkable health-insurance plan with the Republican party in as much if not more disarray than it was when we was elected.
I have no doubt that Romney is firm in his convictions as he states them today. He is just as firm in them as he was when he had an entirely different set in order to get elected governor. The problem is, what will be his convictions once he is in the Presidential office? Or getst the nomination?
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.