Duncan Hunter on the Issues
Freepmail me to join the Duncan Hunter Pinglist
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?
If he doesn't "favor gay marriage," then perhaps he shouldn't have ordered the justices of the peace of MA to perform gay marriage ceremonies or be fired.
And, you made my point for me: Mitt Romney favors gays in the Boy Scouts.
We have a difference opinion about the rule of law, and who decides what the law means. Romney would be a rogue executive if he failed to hew to court interpretations of legal text, however inane that interpretation might be. If he went so rogue, I would oppose him as vigorously as you do, because he would be unfit for executive office, any office. In fact he would be dangerous.
Well you agree with me at least, that Romney's comments on the boy scouts were not oxymoronic, or is conceding anything simply not your bag? You know, I find admitting to error good for the soul. I enjoy admitting it. I think it humanizes me. :)
I find it humorous, and highly revealing, to hear you praise Torie's views. Torie is FR's foremost self-admitted liberal. To see your "go Mitt go" tagline on top of it is really rich.
Birds of a feather flock together. And the liberals are quite naturally going to flock to Romney. After all, no Republican OR Democrat could have possibly implemented as much of the radical Left's agenda in MA as Mitt Romney has managed to do in a few short years. His deceptive skills just possibly could be even better than Slick Willie's...
No kidding! Then maybe Iran would not have fallen to the mullahs, Iran (with US support) would have kicked Saddam's ass in the Iran-Iraq war and later assasinated him, the Kurds would never have been gassed and Islamofascims wouldn't have control of the Iranian nuclear program.
Reagan had an acute sense of who the enemy was, who was double dealing and how to make friends and outflank your enemies, unlike the unestimable Jimmah (the worst president of the 20th century).
It isn't nice of you to change the subject, but if you must talk about Romney's failure to do his constitutional duties, we can do that again, I suppose.
I'm sure its better to have an idiot like George Allen who can't even go a week without embarrassing himself than a moderate Republican who doesn't spend 90% of his time complaining about abortions.
And you are FR's foremost pompous a$$.
Birds of a feather flock together. And the liberals are quite naturally going to flock to Romney.
Not enough to insult Torie, you now move on the torch?
I find it humorous, and highly revealing, to see you, of all people tossing out personal insults at others on this forum.
But it tells me one thing: whatever you all were discussing, they were winning; because you go without fail to the personal insults when you're fonts have written posts your mouth can't back up.
You are beneath contempt.
Let him run as a Dimocrat - he'd feel right at home there.
I was just commenting that our profound disagreement about the rule of law, and the courts, animated our disagreement about Romney's implementation of the insane Mass supreme court edict. I thought it a fair and illuminating comment. I guess you don't.
I would call them deceptive and wrong, not oxymoronic. But we all get to choose our own words, don't we...
Mitt Romney:"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
Not because you live but because you break and you are a liability to others when you break and are carried into the emergency room. Not because you drive but because you are a liability to others if you get into an accident.
There are differences and one can quibble about them but in a liberal state such as Massachusetts his approach was indeed more rational than a Ed Kennedy state paid health care approach.
I get along fine with Torie. Unlike you, he is an honest liberal. And I doubt seriously that he would take offense at my description. It's explicitly accurate. But I guess he can answer that question for himself.
Certainly. At least people would be paying something instead of us paying for their healthcare when they go into an emergency room. This particularly applies to young people who think they are invincible.
Come on. You've admitted to being a liberal here more times than I can count. In fact, you did so right on this thread. My comments were simply descriptive.
There is a huge difference between Torie and you, EV.
Torie isn't, and doesn't support, frauds.
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.