Posted on 01/14/2007 1:45:09 PM PST by JRochelle
ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.
snip/
On Wednesday, Romney said on an Internet podcast, "The Glenn and Helen Show," that he hopes states would continue to ease regulations on gun owners, and he expressed enthusiasm for guns and hunting. "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah,....
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
He was pro-homosexual agenda, now he says he's not,
Yeah, that's why he was the leading opponent of gay marriage. Get a grip dude. The party is saying no to you absolutists foisting more losing nobodys on us as candidates. You people are marginalized. We're going to support a winner. Meanwhile you and the other supporters of Growler Boy Duncan Hunter and Retreat and Defeat Ron Paul can meet in a phone booth to cry about how a governor should have single handidly overthrown Roe vs. Wade and ignore his conservative record on the night either Romney, Guiliani or McCain seal up the GOP nomination. Sorry! We're saying no to you fanatics because we don't want Hillary in a landslide!
Dear MikeA,
My understanding is that he, like many others, supports homosexual marriage in all but name. "Civil unions" and all that stuff.
Formerly, he also supported federal legislation going under the acronym of ENDA. Apparently, he has changed his mind on that.
Mr. Romney admits openly that he's changed on ENDA. Here's an article where he describes how he's changed:
http://www.nysun.com/article/45348
As for the rest of your post, this seems to me to be more evidence that the country club Republicans of Rockefeller, Javitz and Ford are trying to isolate and marginalize social conservatives.
Good luck if you think you can win elections without social conservatives.
sitetest
100% RINO flip flopper. If it wasn't for uber liberal Rudy Giuliani, Romney would be the most liberal Republican in the race.
Very good point about Reagan. Not a Second Amendment purist, but a great president anyway. People can make mistakes, and they can also change.
About Romney, the most important thing isn't what he believes, but what he'll do.
I think it's also important to keep in mind that the NRA has a lot of clout in Congress. A president who favors a few gun-control measures may not matter that much.
What don't you get?
Its not weather or not he owns a gun, its the fact that on Monday he says he does and then by Friday he says he really doesn't own it!
Can you not see what that is? Its called lying, telling a falsehood, whatever you like to call it, Its also called pandering, saying things to get a few votes, truth be damned. Its a consistent pattern for him. Thats why I can't believe the man is anything close to being a conservative.
For the record, I don't own a gun, don't want to, don't like guns. But I would never support restrictions on others to own guns.
And I don't give a dam* if Romney does or doesn't own one.
I submit to you that we should take Romney's word on the time-of-day -- or just about anything else -- before we take the Globe's.
If the Boston Globe is trying to destroy him, that counts in his favor so far as I'm concerned.
If the Boston Globe is lying in this story I suspect the Romney campaign would issue a press release saying so.
Can you point to any specific false info in the article?
Can you point me to anything the Globe has said about any Republican that is true (and not twisted).
This particular report may be true, for all I know. But, if it's in the Globe, I want separate and independent corroboration.
And, if you're a conservative, you should, too.
Everything the Globe wrote about Romney's record is true.
Various conservatives commentators have been pointing out Romney's record for well over a year.
Most comprehensive single source: www.massresistance.org
It's a matter of public record that Romney endorsed the Brady Bill and the federal Assault Weapons Ban as a 1994 candidate for U.S. Senate.
Romney's own gubernatorial campaign website reiterated his support for the AWB in 2002.
President Elect Hillorat doesn`t own a gun either.
If a conservative in a debate were to ask his liberal opponent why, given that shall-issue CCW laws have never caused a bloodbath in any of the 39 states that have passed them, he believes that they would cause a bloodbath in Massachusetts?
While I agree that there are some issues where the conservative agenda is too hard to explain to make much headway, I would think the RKBA is one which--given states' recent experiences with CCW--shouldn't have that problem.
..."Can we quit it with this Kerry-like "Flip-flop" comparison?"
Amen. I was on the treadmill today at 9:00 A.M. PST listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio while watching PMSNBC on the built-in TV. The reporterette was playing the U-tube footage of the Romney-Kennedy debate making the point to a young Boston Globe reporter that Romney had flipflopped on "gay rights" and "gay marriage." Was there anybody else on to rebut these remarks. Of course not! Just the Boston Globe hack backed by the DNC. Sheesh!
Boston Globe?....give me a break. I don't think they will support Romney for anything.
It is amusing that many here wish to stop bringing up the negative aspects of this brilliant businessman and devoted family man, this deeply spiritual, intelligent man. We must assess the whole.
Long-time, no-banter . . . how ya been Gary?
You're being decietful on the abortion issue (I cannot suppose you're just ignorant to Romney's record . . . you know it better than any ROmney-hater I know)
When was ROmney "Pro-life" politically before being "pro-choice" politically?
He's always said he's been "personally pro-life" (weak, I know . . . but that has been absolutely consistant) but please refer me to your source where Romney was politically "pro-life" before becoming politically "pro-choice." Also, the only label he's ever taken upon himself to describe himself is "pro-life". If he were such a political panderer tnen why didn't he go ahead and take upon himself the "pro-choice" label back in 1994 or 2002. His statements were very pro-choice as was his NARAL survey, but he never assumed the label of "pro-choice" even when it would have been to his advantage politically (he even repudiated the title when asked). He has not shied away from the "pro-life" label now that he's shifted.
AFA-Michigan (AKA Gary Glenn)
"Delusional" you say?
You must know something about "delusional" since I saw that you signed the letter with other 44 Romney-haters who think that "Romney is the Father of Gay Marriage."
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
To sign your name and confirm that you believe that faulty legal argument that lays the blame of Gay Marriage in Mass squarely on Romney himself (what about the activist judges, the gay rights groups, the dead-beat Dem legislature?) confirms that you must either be DELUSIONAL or be so hell-bent against Romney that you would sign anything that could hinder his candidacy.
It's funny though . . . despite all the "flurry and fury" of anti-Romney folks of late (YouTube Videos, "The Mitt ROmney Deception", your recent letter, Brownback getting some no-name Mass Conservatives on-board, etc . . . combined with attacks from the DNC and liberal MSM) ROmney has been steadily rising up as the favorite of GOP insiders and even GOP bloggers
Latest poll results:
http://gopbloggers.org/janpollresults.php
Jan poll discussion:
http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/004602.html
This following link show's how Romney's been rising steadily . . . and the attacks over the past few weeks have only helped strengthen him!
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/10/romneys-rise-among-gop-faithful-gop.html
Keep the attacks up!! They seem to be working!
Fine . . . pull out a dictionary on me!! :)
I appreciate your point . . . point taken.
Still, what made the "flip-flop" campaign against Kerry so effective (and funny) was to be able to show him going back and forth and back and forth time and time again on so many different issues. Mitt can't be criticized for this and so I don't think Kerry's nickname of the "flip-flopper" really fits Mitt.
Plus, all people and politicians change and so we're all "flip-floppers" then by your dictionary definition. Heck, Reagan used to be a Democrat, that dang "flip-flopper!"
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.