Posted on 11/03/2011 3:25:16 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote
Mitt Romney’s problem with the Republican Party is not just that he previously held liberal positions on a wide-ranging array of issues. That can be explained away, at least a bit, as pandering necessary to win votes in a Democratic state. The deeper problem is that Romney was promising behind closed doors to act as essentially a sleeper agent within the Republican Party, adopting liberal stances, rising to national prominence, and thereby legitimizing them and transforming the Party from within. Today’s Washington Post has more detail:
Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.
Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.
He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.
“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.
That’s a very smart argument. Liberals have far more to gain by having a Republican advocate their views than by having a Democrat advocate their views. The article proceeds to detail meetings in which Romney told gay-rights activists the same thing:
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Granted this is a lib magazine - but even they realize that a scam is being played.
Mitt Romney is a politician. He is concerned with only one thing at the moment - winning. I have said this with regard to other politicians, but will repeat it, as I feel it applies: If Mr. Romney thought his best chance of winning was by running as a Communist, he would be waving the red flag and singing “The Internationale” at the top of his lungs.
He is conning everyone... and the easy ones twice.
LLS
Democrat Supporter Says Romney ‘Masquerading as a Die-Hard Conservative’
http://theothermccain.com/2011/11/03/romney-masquerading-as-a-die-hard-conservative/
Given that his poll numbers haven’t gone up in two years ... the answer is: no one.
Anyone who is a sucker!
You have to give Obama credit. He pretty well told us he is a Marxist intent on destroying America and erecting a Marxist state in its place. No one who listened to him in 2008 should be surprised. We just didn’t know that he and those around would turn out so inept.
FYI: Rush Limbaugh endorsed Romney over McCain.
Rush has stated many times and again just last week, that he has never endorsed any primary candidate and that he has no plans to ever do so.
LLS
mitt romney pro-abortion.
I will NOT, under any circumstances, vote for Mitt Romney.
I will NOT, under any circumstances, vote for Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney is an opportunist.
He swept into the MA primary and took down Jane Swift (who was the R Governor) without any communication with her. (NOTE THE LACK OF CLASS,
and just RAW NARCISSISM THIS SHOWS)
His one term as Governor of MA — he was never there the last two years. (NOTE THE NARCISSISM)
He was running for President. He didn’t do anything good. I didn’t see
any of his business acumen, although he had a very large Dem House and Senate to work with.
He did not run for a second term. (HURTS HIS OWN STATE BECAUSE HE DOESN”T WANT TO RISK HIS POLITICAL RECORD TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT).
Mitt -— I’ll do anything to be President. And I mean anything.
Creepy in a way.
Personally, I don't think he has any convictions about the issue but will say what will get him elected. Which isn't all bad. If elected he'd have to stick to the pro-life side so he could be renominated.
The more that comes out, the worse this looks.
bump
The problem I have is he’s not even consistent after his “conversion.” For years he said he believed in the Mormon position, which carves out exceptions for the life or physical health of the mother. OK, reasonable people have gone there. But now he takes the life begins at conception argument, which usually means no exceptions. So, what does post-conversion Mitt claim to believe??
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.