Posted on 01/09/2007 6:41:03 PM PST by Reagan Man
With the 2008 presidential campaign looming just on the horizon, speculation about political fortunes abounds. On the Democrat side, Lady Hillary is waiting in the wings, and the media's profilers have found their fair-haired boy in Barack Obama. On the Republican side, the picture is murkier. Often the Vice-president would be the logical choice to carry the incumbent party's torch, but Dick Cheney won't be running and, even if he did, he wouldn't win. Of course, Arizona Senator John McCain is still around, but he arouses suspicion among conservatives. Seeming worn, tired, erratic and untrustworthy, many think the old soldier should just fade away.
Enter Mitt Romney. Inching ever closer to a presidential run, the former CEO and outgoing Governor of Massachusetts is emerging as the Barack Obama of the GOP. And the analogy is apt. He has the resonant voice, the good looks, the statesman-like bearing and, going Obama two better, great hair and unobtrusive ears.
But Romney shares another commonality with Obama: He's a liberal in his party masquerading as something more palatable. Yes, sugar and spice and dealing the deck twice, that's what little politicians are made of.
As to this point, another politico he can be compared to is Al Gore. Like Gore, Romney has flip-flopped on abortion, only in the other direction. While he now claims to be pro-life, he supported legalization of the "morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486. Moreover, as recently as his 2002 run for governor his platform stated,
"The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
Of course, Romney says that his views have "evolved." But I strongly suspect his adaptation relates more to the evolution of political ambitions than that of conscience. Call me cynical, but unless you've been cloistered in an ancient monastery for the duration, I'm very suspicious of deep personal growth occurring between ages 55 and 59.
According to Romney, unlike himself, the "paradigm" of marriage is not "evolving," and his high profile stand against anti-marriage has garnered him much publicity of late. But here, too, Romney has been about as consistent as March weather, with a track record that belies his newfound traditionalism.
In a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, Romney hailed Bill Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as a "step in the right direction" and "the first of a number of steps" toward homosexuals serving "openly" in the military.
Then, Brian Camenker points out the following in The Mitt Romney Deception:
- "Romney's campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston's ‘Gay Pride' events," issuing pink fliers stating, "Mitt and Kerry [running mate Kerry Healey] wish you a great Pride weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference."
- Romney advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions.
- Romney opposed the Boy Scouts' policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters and prevented the organization from participating publicly in the 2002 Olympics.
- The Boston Globe wrote in 2005, "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents - including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
- Romney promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it.
Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time." My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left.
Equally damning, though, is that in a very ominous way he can be compared to yet another infamous poseur, Hillary Clinton. On April 12, 2006, Romney signed a bill into law that creates a universal health system intrusive enough to be the envy of socialists everywhere. The plan mandates that every Ma. resident must obtain health insurance by July 1, 2007, or face a fine that could exceed 1,200 dollars a year. Of course, this scheme includes the creation of a new bureaucracy, one that will, using Big Brother's infinite wisdom, determine how much you can afford to pay. Wow, thanks for the help, Mitt. Or, is it "Vinny the Chin"? I mean, this sounds like an offer you just can't refuse.
To justify his socialist brainchild, Romney uses the argument that it is no different from requiring people to carry car insurance. Ah, speciousness, thy name is Romney. Mr. Governor, you can choose not to own a car.
Everyone must have a body.
But remember this when Romney touts his credentials as a fiscal conservative. While he may boast of his steadfast refusal to raise taxes, it rings hollow when he turns around and mandates citizen expenditures and levies fines. But liberals are adept at revenue-raising sleight-of-hand; when another tax increase would raise voter ire, they simply deem it a toll, fine, fee or, I love this one, a "surcharge." I prefer honest theft myself.
President Bush is often excoriated for betraying his conservative base, a perception that contributes to poll numbers lower than Ted Kennedy's jowls. What is forgotten, however, is that while campaigning for the presidency in 2000, Bush accused the Republican Congress of trying ". . . to balance the budget on the backs of the poor," a line that could have been culled from Democrat talking points. Folks, the president never cast himself as anything but exactly what he is. We just weren't listening.
Are we listening now?
Ah, those Massachusetts liberals: Studds, Frank, Kennedy and Willard Mitt Romney. It just seems to roll off the tongue.
Bernie Sanders for veep, anyone?
What do you think of Mitt? I'm serious; I would value your opinion as somebody who has watched him in action.
I so glad you asked. I have been told by one or two of the serial bashers of Rudy and Romney, that it is their duty to EDUCATE us about the personal shortcomings and political failures of the candidates, so that we won't make the mistake of supporting them.
Never mind that they're doing the work that best belongs to democrats --- they see themselves as doing God's work for us. They are our Knights in shining armor, rescuing us from ourselves!
Is the picture becoming clearer?
Well with all respect Torie I don't know what you are talking about since "hardwired opinion" doesn't really make sense..but if you don't want to debate the issue then I am FINE with that, take care,
Jeremy.
ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
At least he HAS a team, EV.
It's just you and Keyes now.
It seems to really bother you that people on FR actually LIKE each other. Wonder why.
Just catching up and I'm ROTF at your post! You nailed it, sistah!
Seriously, I'll grant you that he wins once in a VERY fare while; however, the exception doesn't prove the rule.
Yep, you're right... Ronald Reagan was just horrid for this nation. /S
It's really funny that it is the Mormon, Romney, who has had only one wife.
No one has even mentioned that he was at the top of his class in Law School while McCain was near the bottom of his. Guiliani has been mayor of NYC, but what other experience has he had?
Divorced two. Once informed his wife of his divorce from her through a PRESS CONFERENCE! Allowing his girlfriend in to Gracie Mansion while he was still married and had his family living!
I will never vote for a scoundrel like this.
Oh, The Prig Patrol!
These are the same people who warned people away from seeing Happy Feet because a PENGUIN had a plastic drink holder around its neck, disparated Mary Cheney for having a baby, and attacked Suzanne Somers today for saying it didn't matter that her house burned to the ground, at least she nobody died and she didn't have a son in Iraq....
These are SMALL people who have to boss other people on anonymous internet forums around because in their real lives, they're losers!
LOL!
"Everybody" deems themselves an expert on sex. It is one issue, that most everybody has experienced, and observed, and care about, and thought about. Does that help? Cheers.
hehehehehehehehe
Do not miss 206.
Really?
Do you know how many weeks it takes for a fetus to be considered To be "term"?
How the hell can someone be a "middle of the roader" on such an issue?
Forty weeks. OK? It is forty weeks.
I'll hit the rack in a few minutes, while still wondering just how people can be so effing stupid.
Interesting info from when Romney signed that law:
State moves on assault weapons ban
President Bush supported the Federal Assault Weapons ban at that time:
President Bush said he supports extending the ban...Ken Lisaius, a White House spokesman, said Bush still supports the ban, but is waiting for the House to act.
The law was seen by gun supporters as the best that could be done in MA:
Senator Richard T. Moore, an Uxbridge Democrat who received an A+ rating from the Gun Owners Action League, said the bill will help lawful gun owners.
''There weren't the votes to repeal it, certainly," Moore said. ''I felt the votes were there to continue the ban, and if we're going to continue it, we want to make sure it's one that doesn't seriously affect those who are willing to follow the law."
So Romney's position in MA was essentially the same as GWB's in Texas and Washington. I suppose you have been all over GWB for his RINOism.
His first wife divorced him, from what I've read. And it was nothing on par with the previous two I've mentioned.
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.