Posted on 08/13/2006 7:11:07 PM PDT by bitt
"The rap on Mitt Romney is that he's scripted,safe, skin-deep.But if you saw your dad endure what his did, you might watch what you say,too.
There, you said it.There's no taking it back. Maybe the regret formed in your mind even before the last syllable of the Godforsaken comment had left your lips. Maybe you thought nothing of it until 12 hours later, when a voice woke you out of your REM rebound, demanding to know,"What in the hell were you thinking?"Either way, it was too late. We've all said something at some point in our lives that we desperately wanted to take back. In 1976,I was a precocious second-grader listening to my mother explain that she was going to a baby shower for a friend. "Wouldn't it be funny," I asked her, delighted to show off my knowledge of a new word I had picked up, "if she had a miscarriage and she had to give back all those baby gifts?" Not funny.All these years later, and I can still recall the look of sadness and disgust frozen on my mother's face.I'm sure she has long since forgotten that comment,but I haven't.
On August 31,1967, George Romney, the voluble,vigorous three-term governor of Michigan and former automotive executive, walked into a Detroit TV station to be interviewed by a local broadcaster with a lousy hairpiece. For more than a year, Romney had been talked about as the Republicans' best chance for winning the White House in 1968. But the national campaign trail, at first welcoming, had become bumpy. Reporters pressed Romney repeatedly to explain his ever-evolving and often confusing position on military involvement in Vietnam, which he had strongly supported after a visit to South Vietnam in 1965 but later declared a tragic mistake. Polls showed his lead fading.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Thanks for sharing.
Everything I need to know I learned in kindergarten :)
Happy to enlighten you.
Keep giving me hell. I need to get used to the climate in my after life.
From what I read he is anti illegal amnesty, which puts him at the top of my list(as of yesterday). I like what I have seen of him.
Duly noted. Stranger things have happened, I guess, though I can't rightly remember such.
Anyway, it's a mite early for prognosticatin', I reckon. Twenty-six months before the 1996 election, I was in Phil Gramm's presidential corner. How'd that work out?
Should I hit the post button on this reply or not, I ask myself. Hit it, my id says, what the heck. Go for it.
Which single issue are you referring to? Abortion, gays, guns, and the dozens of issues related to those major issue categories?
Will you graciously grant people permission to oppose a candidate if they disagree on 20 or 30 "single issues"??
Heck, go for it. If your id can throw it, my ego can withstand it. My backing of Gramm was not my best political choice, but it was an error of youth. OK, an error of earlier middle age.
At this point, it's all a game. But I am bemused by the fact that the pundits (most of whom seem to think that the Hudson River is the western frontier) would have us believe that the frontrunners for the GOP nomination are McCain and Rudy, with Mitt closing fast. Have they forgotten who the GOP primary voters and convention delegates will be? The pundits should get out more.
OTOH, it is (almost) equally amusing to note that the two FReeper faves seem to be Newt and Tancredo.
The race for the nomination will take many twists and turns. But I'll give anyone the five names above, and give 2-to-1 odds, while taking the field.
Buy a lottery ticket instead, is my best advice. There is no white knight out there in the "field," except maybe the governor of Arkansas, who lost a lot of weight. He is an interesting "figure."
Teddy Kennedy's weight used to fluctuate a lot, dropping as election days approached. William F. Buckley, Jr., upon noting such a weight loss, proclaimed that the Republic was in peril. I trust no such omens attend Gov. Huckabee's avoirdupoisal oscillations.
The nomination contest may begin to take shape after this November's election. My guess, as it has been for a while, is George Allen. I don't place his nomination chances at more than 20% or so, but that's still more than I figure at this time for anyone else. It's wide open, but I still think that anything short of a strong pro-life position will be fatal as far as the nomination is concerned. That may or may not be a good thing for the eventual nominee as of 11/08, but that nominee will be, I am convinced, unambiguously pro-life.
Man, Chapel Hill must actually have some intellecual activity going on in that zip code. On the other hand, I did a google on "avoirdupoisal" and came up empty. Google sucks.
Allen is a zero. He isn't going anywhere. He doesn't, as that Dodger back office guy who got fired for using the term, have the "necessaries."
hey, I HAD that car.....!!!!!!
one of the first air conditioned cars......
' I give a high weight to smarts and temperment and honesty and management skills. Romney gets an "A" in all four.'
ditto. smart guy, good instincts, clean as a whistle.
""How is the guy going to be able to convince people that he'll nominate conservatives to the bench when they're getting mailings about his homosexual, gay marriage lobbyist liberal Democrat appointees in Massachusetts?""
Mitt presides over a state that runs amok with Democrats like Barney Frank, and the state judges that voted for homo marriage were certainly not his appointees. He has fought tirelessly to keep out front the ABSOLUTELY CRAZY issues that the dems keep trying to sneak in....and defeats them with plain talk and such clear phrasing, that the joke is the he could take over ANY job in the state...and does. (Big Dig).
Um, bitt, you're avoiding the question:
I know you've got a man crush on him, but if he appoints gay Democrats to the bench in Massachusetts, why shouldn't anyone trust his horrendous judgment and two-facedness as president?
Turn that around. If you've got a liberal with good judgement, who can lead, and who makes good decisions, he may be successful in furthering his liberal agenda.
Why the heck would I, as a conservative, want that???
FIRST I want someone who wants to take the country in the right direction on life, liberty, etc. THEN I pick the 'best driver', the one who has the abilities (political and otherwise) to make those goals into reality.
just so we can avoid blaming poor Mitt for things that aren't really his fault (not that anyone else will)....his judicial appointments have to make it by the Governor's Council, which is (and has been, for years) made up of eight Democrats, plus the Lt. Governor. That's 8-1. Imagine trying to get conservative judges through a Senate where the Dems had a 87-13 advantage.
I suppose we could blame him for not getting any Republicans elected to the council, but that's a different issue.
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.