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?
A refreshing real conservative face. Thanks Antonius!
I respect intellectual honesty above all else. I believe Torie to be as such. And Howlin (thanks for the defense). While I will not embrace some of the tactics of the gay lobby, I refuse to believe that the denial of their existence, and yes, their right to exist, is a realistic way to view them as human beings. Subtract the gay aspect and you would be surprised by how many would agree with conservative ideals such as taxes, guns etc. Many gays are libs because their very existence is shunned by particular people in the Republican Party.
I have plenty of criticism for certain tactics, statements of many gay activists but particuarly for the more militant, because the storyline, like race, is that every idea, law, action supported by a lobby that is rejected by anyone is a sure sign of homophobia or racism and that is simply not true.
Romney's stand on the Boy Scouts is reasonable, as Torie said, because it identifies a reality.
Could you be on the wrong thread?
"morning-after" abortion pill, RU-486
THE MORNING AFTER PILL IS NOT RU-486!!!!!!!!!!! The morning after pill is a strong dose of birth control pill taken within 48 hrs of unprotected sex, you goofs!! RU-486 is a REAL live abortion, the kind that Planned Parenthood used to kill women as well as babies. How can people be so ill informed?!!
It would look like this:
I favor legalized abortion ... .
EV is for the spoiler candidate, as he has been throughout every election.
He is a 1%. Be sure to thank him for his efforts toward the current congress! (he's a liar if he tells you he voted R)
"You are nothing more than a shill for the liberals.
Why? By posting the fact that Mitt Romney is a big-government (read, HUGE government) liberal?
No conservative should be caught dead supporting this guy."
Huh. Is big government cutting 1.6 billion of spending of a 25 billion dollar budget in a single year? Wait, I get it. This is one of those games where words mean their opposite. Ok, ok I'll try one. You have a clue.
My husband went to a Scout meeting tonight; he looked so cute in his uniform!
I think Romney is getting a bumb rap here.
This is the time to separate the whaet and the chaffe. If Romney is a lib, lets get all the cards on the table now. We have a year to get it right.
I think it's great that Romney comes right out and says he was wrong in the past and he changed his mind. Took guts.
After a short break I come back to find you battling the moderate-centrist-liberal wing of Free Republic and winning as usual. They do get ticked off real easy. LOL
Maybe a miracle will happen before long and get the GOP back on track. We need some solid conservative candidates to emerge before Republicans make a bad choice from several poor candidates, and one horrific liberal from NYCity. This maybe a nightmare of historic proportions in the making for 2008. The road is long. Lets hope for the best.
How convenient. You get to harp on the speck of sawdust in Romney's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your candidate's eye.
Thanks, and I agree with your hopes.
How can "my candidate" have "a plank in his eye" when I don't even have a candidate?
What do you think of Hunter and Tancredo at this point?
Y'all really aren't making much sense.
Every post of his that I've read is negative...unless it is Alan Keyes. He'd find something to criticize about Christ Himself imo.
I'd vote for either in a general election.
Oh puhleeze...
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.