Posted on 02/06/2012 8:11:35 AM PST by mnehring
Mitt Romney’s 1992 Democratic Primary vote for Paul Tsongas — a technocratic modernizer and reformer, but very much a Democrat — raised some Republican eyebrows last week.
What hasn’t been mentioned: Romney’s vote formally enrolled him in the Democratic Party. more…
For anyone who either believes in leprechauns or that Mitt Romney is a conservative this should be of significance, especially since his minions haunted this site making much of the fact that Rick Perry was a Democrat before 1989.
The speculation is that Romney had originally intended to challenge Ted Kennedy in the Democrat primary then decided to run as a Republican. This makes his 1994 campaign strategy much more understandable.
According to a Romney campaign spokesperson, Romney “switched back.” One doesn’t know how Romney managed to “switch back.” According to the town clerk, Romney became an Republican only on October 19, 1993. The implication is that Romney had either never voted between his registration as a independent in 1979 and 1992 (so his vote in 1992 automatically enrolled him as a Democrat) or that he was a regular Democrat voters in those earlier elections and changed to Republican to run for Senate.
Now I’m off to National Review and Jennifer Rubin’s precious little blog to read some more on how conservative Willard Romney is.
I just hope none of the conservatives who decided to participate in Operation Chaos in 2008 ever run for office, or I guess they’ll be in trouble over this registration problem.
Isn’t the issue with Romney that he was pushing democrat’s ideas in 1994, not that he happened to be registered as a democrat in 1992?
Nope, I support Newt. If Romney gets the nomination...I will vote Romney. Each and every Republican should feel the same way. If anyone says that obummer & Romney are one in the same...they need to do their homework.
There aren’t any Romney supporters here, and if they were, they wouldn’t be giving you a list like that, or they wouldn’t be here anymore.
If you want to debate Romney folks, go to the comments at NR, there’s plenty of them over there to tussle with.
You are right. There is a difference between them. But I won’t vote for Obama half black or Obama all white (Romney). Their skin color may be different but there is no difference between them in substance. Mitt is a socialist communist. Obama is a marxist communist. Both think it is perfectly alright to take my money and arms. Both believe in the govt. uber alles. Both have no scruples and will lie, cheat, steal, pay off, and out right buy whatever they feel they are entitled to have. They don’t care how many innocent people they injure on their way to what they want. If you stand in their way, both will do all they can to crush and destroy you. If the truth stands in their way, they will do all they can to remove or obfuscate the truth.
Some people think Mitt’s ability to go dirty is an advantage. There are two reasons why that is wrong. One, sinking down to the level of Obama makes you just as bad as he is. Two, no matter what Obama does during the campaign, Romney will only use these tactics on his republican opponents. If he has to face Obama, he will fold like McCain. These elites have a dreaded fear of running against Obama.
You’re post is dead-on!!! I’d just add that, like Obama, Romney supports abortion on demand and gay “marriage”
As I said before there is no ideological difference between the two.
You’re blind if you don’t see Romney supporters here. They don’t specifically say “we support Romney”. They say things like “we must defeat Obama even if we have to support an imperfect candidate” (Romney). I wasn’t challenging them to a debate. I was asking them to tell everyone why they support him without using notions of “electability” etc.
Oromney knows there isn’t a hair’s width difference between being a liberal Democrat and a progressive Republican, apart from the fact that progressive Republicans have a deeper appreciation for big government.
That was the 2nd point of my response — if they are here (and sure there must be), they are only here because they have specifically chosen NOT to post anything like what you asked them to post. That type of post would get them banned, and they’d be gone.
I’m not one of them (although I’m regularly accused of it, since I endorsed Romney in the final 3 competition, after Thompson dropped out, and I defended Romney way too often before that). But I can’t think of any reason to pick Romney over Santorum or Gingrich. I don’t think Romney would be a better President overall than either of them, and he’d be a lot more problematic in terms of trust on conservative issues. The only reason I can see to want Romney over Gingrich or Santorum is the electability issue, which I don’t see as clearly favoring Romney enough to overcome the strong negatives against him on actual policy and trust, relative to the other two candidates.
I’m ignoring Paul because I don’t want to think about him. That way, I don’t have to decide whether my reasoning would apply in a Paul/Romney race, and so I don’t have to feel like I’m compromising myself to keep quiet here. Because I wouldn’t keep quiet if I felt it was important to speak out, and I would get banned (a lot of people don’t understand that, and assume I’m happy to lie about my positions to keep my place here, which would be antithetical to my nature and to my posting history).
Anyway, the people who seem to argue for Romney on things other than electability (like my current Governor) believe executive experience is the be-all of the argument. Since Romney’s the only governor left, it seems to have forced their hands. And while I would have prefered a governor to a congressperson, all things being equal, it’s not like I’m going to support Buddy Roemer just because he was a Governor. And it’s not like Mitt was a governor that long. Perry had a decade of experience running a pretty large state, really well. Not Mitt. I’d rather have had Pawlenty, or Mitch Daniels, than to have to consider Romney for his experience as Governor.
BTW, decades ago in high school, I learned debate, and served on our school’s debate team. So I learned how to analyze and espouse arguments I didn’t personally believe. I find it helpful in understanding why other people believe what they believe, and it helps me when arguing for unpopular positions here, which I like to do sometimes just to make people examing an issue more closely, and to be less polarized about the PEOPLE who believe differently.
So, while I don’t support Romney, I don’t feel the emnity toward those who DO support him that a lot of other people around here do. I’m not ready to disown my Governor for his falling into the dark side, for example. I don’t agree with him, but I understand his argument.
I was expressing my frustration with the entire Romney campaign (not just supporters here). It’s primarily based on electability (which is ridiculous; even if he can beat Obama, which for reasons I have previously stated he can’t, what is it exactly that we have won?).
“Nope, I support Newt. If Romney gets the nomination...I will vote Romney. Each and every Republican should feel the same way. If anyone says that obummer & Romney are one in the same...they need to do their homework.”
-—and that’s the difference between a conservative and a Republican.
I will never support Romney. Conservative principles first, party second.
You’re grasping at straws to hold this against Romney. That was like 20 years ago, when he was a bright young age of 40!!!!
So, Mitt gets the nomination...you vote for? Just don’t bother voting? Write in Elmer Fudd? By not voting for the republican you are voting for obama. Did you vote for McCain in 2008?
“By not voting for the republican you are voting for obama.”
No...voting for Elmer Fudd is a vote for Elmer Fudd. Quit trying to turn every vote into a mutually exclusive event. Thats not how it works. Nonetheless if we are going to have a pro-abortion, gun grabbing socialist in office, I would rather it not be a Republican...and someone who can be improperly portrayed as a conservative in the media. I really don’t want to sully the party’s name any further than the Romney pusher’s already have.
And yes...I did vote for McCain....although I am ashamed to admit that. I won’t do this lesser of two evils BS again.
Then why did Romney donate money to 3 Democrats the same year he voted for Tsongas? It looks more like he was trying to establish a record as a Democrat to justify running against Kennedy in the primary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2836871/posts
Whatever. Sit the election out because you can’t see a difference between obummer & Romney.
“I’m not one of them (although I’m regularly accused of it, since I endorsed Romney in the final 3 competition, after Thompson dropped out,”
You should tell the truth, you supported Romney way before it was down to the final three in 2008. In fact, prior to that, you did all you could to convince people on this site the Mitt Romney was a social conservative and that anything said contrary was an attempt to smear Romney.
You had the love of the contingent of lying Romney pimps and Mittbots who used to frequent this site. I say used to because most of them have ridden the zot out of here.
I’m glad to see that now you have come to your senses and have been behaving yourself lately. It’s good to know that you believe Newt and Santorum would be better than Obama-white. But when you tell lies like saying you supported Mitt only when it got down to the final three, I have to wonder, what else you are lying about and why are you doing it.
Remember you can look up former posts here. You had been posting your love for Mitt throughout 2007 before you made the post below. Look at the date and remember Thompson did not drop out until late January 2008.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945665/posts
Now you can stop telling that lie about supporting Mitt only when it got down to the last three.
I’m not one of them (although I’m regularly accused of it, since I endorsed Romney in the final 3 competition, after Thompson dropped out, and I defended Romney way too often before that).
So, contrary to your lie, I explicitly stated that I defended Romney before endorsed him. I used the term ENDORSE for a specific reason, because, as everybody who was around in 2008 knows, "support" and "endorse" mean two different things. Your taking my "endorse" and pretending I said "support" is misleading. Your failure to quote my entire sentence was deliberate, because it said exactly what you accused me of hiding. SO you should take your own advice, and tell the truth. You also are misleading about what I did defending Romney, but that's a trivial matter compared to the obvious lie you committed right in this thread.
I am sorry. You did post that you supported him. I was so used to seeing that part left off that I missed it. It was not intentional. That is a change and as I said, I’m glad to see that you have come around to the light. Keep up the good work.
I am sorry. I came back to ask the mods to delete my post, so I could write a less confrontational response, and found your reply.
I’ll leave it so people can see my overreaction with your response. Thank you.
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.