Posted on 12/07/2007 4:58:46 PM PST by JRochelle
Teeing off Romney's "faith" speech Thursday, the campaign of Fred Thompson today called Mitt Romney a "Believer of Convenience" and assailed his new campaign ad.
The Thompson campaign cited a host of media reviews of Romney's new ad -- in which he says he stood against abortion and same sex marriage and for things that were "politically incorrect" in Massachusetts.
Thompson's minions did so to portray Romney as a flip-flopper on social issues, including a charge that the ad "engages in revisionist history" (Washington Post) and "outlines positions that may renew charges of flip-flopping" (New York Times).
The campaign quoted Romney's speech, in which the former Massachusetts Governor said "Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world."
Added the Thompson campaign, with snark, "We Couldn't Agree More."
Words are cheap. Actions mean far more. Let's pick someone who has not been all over the map politically. Then maybe we'll have at least a chance of him staying with us for 8 years and not morphing into something else.
Those two remind me of the business card of Joe Higgins, the original Dodge Motorcars Sheriff. He had two buzzards in a tree over a guy dragging himself over the desert. One buzzard says to the other, “Wait hell, I’m gonna kill somethin’.”
Thompson is a total loser.
Have you known him WELL?
There is something in me that recoils when I see/hear him. At this moment, he’s the last Pubbie I’d choose in the voting booth, and I’m not sure why. He seems so SLICK, wiley. But I have nothing on which to base that opinion.
Yep. I thought it both odd and tasteless that Romney supporters used the occasion of Bush's 2nd inauguration to hype their candidate. There were at least 2 events at which I was present where it occurred (both wholly inappropriate) but I chalked it up to unsupervised and unauthorized groupies imagining themselves attached to the star of the next show. Now, I'm not so sure.
“Everytime Fred calls attention to the hypocrisy of one his opponents or to the differences between them, it’s an attack.”
Yes, and it’s positively Clintonesque. How long before we hear that Fred’s engaging in the “politics of personal destruction?” Legitimately pointing out an opponent’s record used to be called “campaigning.” Now, thanks to the Clintons, it’s an “attack.”
Keep “attacking,” Fred. Stay on offense. Somebody has to call out these RINOs, and the media sure isn’t going to do it.
He wasn’t attacking Romney’s faith. He was attacking Romney’s lack of adherence to his faith. Mormonism is staunchly pro-life and anti-gay. As governor, Romney was neither. In short, Romney puts on and takes off his Mormon faith when it’s convenient, while asserting in the speech that he does not.
****************
That was tacky.
Thompson is a total loser.
Hmmmmmm....what to give that statement some support of fact?
Or are you one of those that just attacks? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I’m a former supporter. Knowing him in respect to having closely followed him (I was up in MA briefly during Election season in ‘94 when he was running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate). Back then, a lot of us just would swallow any Republican candidate on the presumption that they would be better than any Democrat. Boy were we wrong.
Romney is a Weldite, and if you’re familiar with William Weld, you wouldn’t let any follower of his anywhere near elective office. Weld made it his mission to purge the center-right from the MA GOP and — get this — at the same time, even left liberal Republicans that he proclaimed to champion, to wither on the vine. In other words, he f*cked ANYTHING that had an “R” label attached to it. In the period between Weld’s taking office and his disciple Romney running away from it this past January, they absolutely and completely decimated the growing GOP minority in the state. When Weld took office in 1991, we had 5 statewide offices, were competitive in half the Congressional districts and the Senate races, had about 1/3rd of the House and 40% of the State Senate (indeed, we were 5 seats away from the MAJORITY of a legislative body in this state). Flash forward to 2007, and we held zero statewide offices. Zero federal offices. Were competitive in ZERO Congressional districts (excluding the highly unusual special election a few months back, which we still failed to win), and now have barely over 10% of the legislature (and what few seats we do have, almost all of them are liberal RINOs with nothing to distinguish them from the Democrats). Complete and total annihilation. Now Romney wants to go to DC and work his magic on the national GOP, which Weld was looking forward to doing before Jesse Helms stopped him.
While all of the RINO candidates have serious shortcomings, Romney is absolutely the most dangerous with respect to jeopardizing our national party standings. He has zero interest in improving our fortunes. He simply doesn’t care. It’s all about himself and nobody else. I’d expect if he follows the Weld model, he may leave after a single term and bequeath the office — to Obama. He already turned the Governorship over to a Black Marxist named Deval Patrick in MA after a single term, so he’s already proven what he’s capable of.
Don’t worry, that’s Sheena’s stock and trade. That, and not taking showers in her jungle.
There are times I am almost speechless. :)
Romney also engages in the wearing of mystical magical Mormon underpants.
He won't admit it, but he has the pants of power.
Romney was endorsed by Weld just this week!
Rudy is the biggest threat, IMHO. Since Huckabee and Romney are seem to be going after each other, I'd think Fred would do well to let them battle between themselves while saving resources to go after the winner.
I suppose someone who outlines realistic but unpleasant solutions to problems is more "pessimistic" than someone who outlines nice pleasant "solutions" that would actually make the problem worse. Nonetheless, the former is what is actually needed--and badly.
I know. Quelle suprise, eh ?
With all due respect, the “attack” on Fred is that he is lazy. Also, the “attack” on Fred is that he is too quick to “attack” his opponents.
Which is it? Lazy people are too damned lazy to “attack” anyone.
MOgirl
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.