Posted on 09/29/2005 10:45:04 AM PDT by txzman
It would be a valid point IF we could locate even ONE gay activist in Massacutttes who endorsed Romney and fawned over his leadership. Last time I checked, every gay lobbyist group in the state is foaming at the mouth with hatred over Romney because of his streadfast refusal to recongize gay marriage.
Romney ain't no hard core conservative but compared to the last three Republican governors of Mass., he's Reaganesque. Romney a RINO? Gee, then how come every conservative in Mass. was beating down the door to REPLACE RINO Jane Swift with HIM?
Not to mention the FACT that Romney ran as pro-abortion to get elected Governor in Kennedyland, and has since come out as a closet pro-lifer. If this makes him unacceptable, what about the FACT that George H. Bush ran as a pro-abortion candidate in TEXAS and NATIONWIDE from 1972-1980, and only "converted" to the pro-life cause AFTER Reagan put him on the ticket.
So let's get this straight, according to Johnny Z, it's okay that George H. Bush ran further left on abortion than Romney, and it's okay that George W. Bush was more "pro gay" than Romney, but it's not okay when Romney moves RIGHTWARD on these positions?
Yup, Mitt made that comment to get elected in the people's Republic of Mass.
Here's some other "conservative Presidential candidates" who ran as openly pro-abortion candidates in FAR more conservative regions where they could have EASILY been elected as a pro-life candidate. What's THEIR excuse?
"I've always said I belive in a woman's right to choose"
-- Gov. Zell Miller, 1996
"I would describe my position as mildly pro-choice. I am a pro-choice evangelical"
-- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, 2004
"Yes, I do think Roe v. Wade was a prudent and wise decision"
-- George H.W. Bush, 1979
So, why was it OKAY for them to run as "pro-choice" when they DIDN'T have to?
Nobody HAS to support slaughtering children.
I agree that Mitt will say anything to get elected. He may not be a liberal at heart, even though he's espoused a raft of liberal causes. In that case he's an unprincipled whore. Either way, he's completely ruled himself out as a candidate a conservative could honestly support for president.
The elder Bush AND Romney had a long, long track record of being pro-abortion. Romney stated he was pro-abortion since even before Roe. And incredibly HE STILL HAS NOT RECANTED HIS SUPPORT FOR LEGAL ABORTION. He has called himself "pro-life" -- personally pro-life. You know, like Mario Cuomo.
it's okay that George H. Bush ran further left on abortion than Romney,
GWB did not support gays in the Boy Scouts, gay hate crime legislation, campaign as a gay rights candidate, and propose gay civil unions. Nice lie, though.
it's not okay when Romney moves RIGHTWARD on these positions
Oh, it's nice that Romney is at least talking conservative. But talk is cheap when you have a consistent record of liberalism. Hillary talks conservative too. Do you believe her too?
Polls show George Allen would lose his own state in 2008 if he had to go up against Governor Warner. Even time this fact is brought up to the Allen supporters, they dismiss the polls and proclaim anyone with an "R" next to his name will magically win VA (except Mark Earley, apprently).
Not sure what the latest numbers are in Minnesota, but I'm guessing Coleman would also have a squeeker since Minn. has not voted for a Republican presidential candidate since 1972. The home state advantage helps though.
This one's a non-starter. The only GOP cnadidates who have their home state's in the bag are Barbour, Brownback, Gingrich, and Huckabee.
Pawlenty/Tancredo 2008
BillyBoy, you forget one tiny detail:
Warner won't be on the democratic ticket.
So how will Virginia vote if it's Allen vs. H. Clinton?
Me thinks Allen wins 56% to 44%.
As far as Coleman goes, I think he could make Minnesota very competitive. I think the libs will freak if they think they might lose Minnesota which has been Blue way to long.
Hmmm. Nice of you to admit it. Does that mean GHB was an unacceptable candidate in 1988?
>> it's okay that George H. Bush ran further left on abortion than Romney, GWB did not support gays in the Boy Scouts, gay hate crime legislation, campaign as a gay rights candidate, and propose gay civil unions. Nice lie, though. <<
Which are we talking about now, GHB or GWB? GWB ran further right, but he didn't object to gay unions in 2004. Someone already posted his pro-civil unions quote on this thread. Secondly, Dick Cheney, after the media hit him over the head with the "openly gay daughter" thing, came out in favor of the most of things you claim is a "lie". If you don't believe it, I will be happy to post excerts from the 2004 campaign where Dick Cheney said he supported civil unions, gay rights, opposed hate crimes, etc.
Zell Miller, who is frequently worshipped on this forum, campaign in conservative GEORGIA as a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights candidate, and pretty much everything else you mentioned -- but THEN "adjusted" all his views later on AFTER he longer had to run for re-election under the the "D" nomination. He was, and STILL is, favor of "hate crimes" legislation, and voted accordingly in 2004.
The only issue you mentioned where Zell differed from Mitt is that Zell was consistantly pro-gun, although Zell is probably to the left of Mitt on a number of other issues, because Zell was a HUGE proponent of McCain-Feingold and other unconstitional violations of free speech.
So was it OKAY when Zell got elected in Georgia as a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, anti-hate crimes candidate and THEN "adjusted" his views, or is it only bad when Mitt does this? If it's so terrible, will you object to the freepers who fawn over the idea of drafting Zell for President?
>> Oh, it's nice that Romney is at least talking conservative. But talk is cheap when you have a consistent record of liberalism. Hillary talks conservative too. Do you believe her too? <<
Hillary talks CONSERVATIVE? I must have missed the memo on that one. Seems to me she only watered down some of her ultra-liberal views and is campaigning a MODERATE candidate, NOT a conservative. Let me know when Hillary gives a speech proclaiming to be pro-life or blocks efforts to legalize gay marriage, then you can compare her campaign to Mitt Romney's.
Zell Miller's "change of heart" on the issues closely mirror's Mitt's, whereas your comparsion between Hillary and Mitt has no basis.
Hmm. I must have missed the memo on that one too. Warner is far from announcing he won't be a candidate, and in fact, the reason why he passed on the Senate race this year is probably because he IS planning a Presidential run. Or I am just supposed to presume Hillary will AUTOMATICALLY get the D nomination in 2008 no matter who runs?
He certainly wasn't the best candidate in the primary. He'd been pro-life for years by the time he ran, though, and ended up okay, not the best, on the issue. If you think I'm going to defend GHWB as a great conservative, forget it.
Which are we talking about now, GHB or GWB?
I posted the wrong quote of yours on the gay thing. GWB.
Zell Miller, who is frequently worshipped on this forum, campaign in conservative GEORGIA as a pro-choice, pro-gay-rights candidate
Zig Zag Zell? He's been on at least two sides of almost every issue. Do you think this excuses Mitt for being a flip-flopping panderer devoid of conviction?
My criticisms are not confined solely to Mitt Romney. I'll publicize anybody's liberal record when they're trying to pull a fast one. But this thread is about Mitt, and he's been more successful at fooling people than others like Rudy and Condi who are upfront about their views.
If it's so terrible, will you object to the freepers who fawn over the idea of drafting Zell for President?
I wouldn't waste time doing so. Zell ain't running for Prez. If he were a serious candidate, of course I'd be all over the Zigging and Zagging of Zig Zag Zell. There's no way of knowing what Zell will believe next. Romney is more predictable, because you know he'll saying whatever his audience wants to hear. Running for US Senate? He'll go to the left of Ted Kennedy. Running for Governor in the Republican primary? He'll be pro-life. As soon as he wins the primary, he switches back to pro-abortion to position himself just to the right of that idiot woman he beat. Running for President in the GOP primary? He'll say whatever you want to hear. Running for Prez in general election? He'll position himself just to the right of Hillary.
Why do YOU excuse Mitt for all these things, leap to his defense? Is he your pet RINO? Do you think he's okay because he talks a better game than frickin' Ray Lahood or George Ryan?
When I came upon the word cult in this thread, I had to speak out...even though afterwards I wondered if I should have said anything so personal.
I have shared these things on this site, (I think) and one other site.
The way they got my sister and her family was through their so-called "self-help programs". Many hundreds of thousands of $$$ later, she had given up 9 years of her life.
History. If common knowledge is not enough, then look it up as he was a candidate. As far as whether a pro-slavery bullet hit him or not is not determinable as no one was ever charged. There were lots of bullets fired. In the border state of Missouri he was very unpopular for his anti-slavery views.
My point was that he wasn't murdered for running for President.
You are probably right. We don't know all the reasons why it happened. He had lots of enemies. One group was the pro-slavery group and that is all I was saying. Since no one knows all the reasons that motivated the mob we cannot with certainty say which reason predominated.
Yes, it's always the "self-help" programs, which usually don't identify themselves as affiliated with Scientology. They are currently having huge success with their "there's no such thing as ADD, and your child doesn't need medication" programs. While ADD is obviously being wildly overdiagnosed and many children medicated inappropriately, the second you hear "no such thing as ADD", you're listening to a Scientologist or someone whose beliefs on the subject have been formed via Scientology propaganda.
It's a huge opportunity for them, because with so many genuine experts saying, correctly, that ADD diagnoses are often incorrect and/or could be handled without medication except in severe cases, there are hordes of parents eager to sign up for expensive programs which claim to solve the problem without drugs. The "treatments" always involve heavy participation by the parents, so that Scientology can suck in the whole family. Better a kid should be pumped full of Ritalin unnecessarily, than be dragged into Scientology along with his/her parents, who s/he trusts to protect him/her.
How true. And klintoon's administration recognized Scientolgy as a 'religion' for IRS purposes. Something Bush has never done anything about...It is not a Church, it is a cult!
Although I am LDS, I never forgave Mitt for the way he closed the door on Boy Scout participation in the Olympics.
He said "of course Boy Scouts can participate" then the thumper "as long as they wear the approved uniform of the SLC olympics".. Everyone knows if the Scouts are wearing their uniforms, then they are not participating. He is a little too clever for his own good.
The only reason the government recognized Scientology is that they had the goods on the IRS. The government had to fold...period.
I don't understand that. I do know how they threaten even very well-educated individuals, but threatening the IRS?That does not compute for this normal person...
Scientology was geared up in the legal and PR arena to bring the fraudulent nature of income tax information to the people. They were very agressive in getting that information out and it was having an effect on tax revenues.
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.