Romney Shoots and Scores!

CBN ^ | 1.31.07 | The Brody File

[Registered]

The Brody File

David Brody

CBN News Capitol Hill Correspondent

Romney Shoots and Scores!

January 31, 2007 (SUBMITTED AT 9:29am)

Mitt Romney needed this. And he got it. Jim Bopp, is the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee and he's endorsing Mitt Romney. Read it here. This is a big deal folks. Let me give you an analogy. It's like if you were competing against a half dozen players to become the starting point guard on your college basketball team ( read: President of the United States) and Magic Johnson came out and said "I want this guy as my starting point guard." Well, people would take notice. And when you bring Jim Bopp in as your "Magic Johnson," you've just dunked in the face of your opponents. 
This would be called a "political facial." Since day one, Romney has been pulling all the right levers. If they were going to make a sequel to the Tom Cruise movie, "All the Right Moves," Romney would be the lead. His press team is dynamic and he's out in front in terms of responding to criticism or world events. And now, another key endorsement from a key pro-life figure. Romney needed this because of his past pro-choice position back in 1994. But he' says that now he's "seen the light" and Bopp says he believes Romney is sincere on this issue. 

Ok, so Bopp endorses Romney. You may ask, "how is that going to translate into more votes?" The answer is a little complex but here goes. Bopp works for a powerful organization. That powerful organization works in conjunction wiht other pro-family groups. It's called spreading the word. Many of these groups work so closely together that they tend to listen to one another. Bopp's word goes a long way. Already, two of my sources within these groups are saying this bodes well for Romney. A Bopp endorsement could mean that down the road other major national pro-family groups will come on board for Romney. It's a snowball effect. It translates into these groups mobilizing for Romney and putting the get out the vote operation into high gear. Thus, the votes to possibly, possiblly, put Romney over the top.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

“Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.”

---

Should be, “Americans DO have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I’m proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms.”

[gura]

Romney's advantage is that's he a Governor, and all the Dem's have are Senators. If history is any clue that means he'd be a near certain winner.

I know a couple of people who have seen him speak and have said that he's electric in person and if the GOP has the presidency again, that person _has_ to be well spoken.

[Antoninus]

You are either deliberately repeating that falsehood over and over or you are confusing it with Hillary's plan. Newt Gingrich supported Romney's plan as it mirrors his own. Check it out on Newt's website.

Yeah, and Newt also sat down with the Clintons to "discuss" healthcare way back when. Just because Newt backs something doesn't make it good. How does forcing people who don't want to have health insurance to deposit $10,000 into a state-administered account equal conservatism? It doesn't! It's just more of the heavy hand of government reaching into people's pockets and forcing them to part with more of their resources.

Government interference created the problem in healthcare. Now they think that more government interference will solve it? Haven't we been down this road before?

[Antoninus]

So if Rudy or Romney wins the primaries, that means conservatives voted for them then during the primaries. You're in favor of nullifying the will of primary voters to stay home in a snit in the general and let the Dim win. How nice of you.

Not in the states which have open primaries. It won't mean that at all. But that's beside the point.

I have always said if the liberals in the GOP want to run a liberal candidate and can fool enough people to get him past the primaries, good for them. They shouldn't cry, however, when informed conservatives and party activists fail to vote for/contribute to/work for such a candidate. I've seen here in NJ first hand what happens when conservatives put party over principle. Soon, you're left with neither.

If liberal Republicans want to put forward a liberal candidate, they should be willing to do so with liberal money, liberal supporters, and liberal voters. I won't help them.

[Beagle8U]

"The candidate reiterated his support for an assault weapons ban contained in Congress' crime bill, and the Brady law which imposes a five-day waiting period on handgun purchases. `I don't think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect,' Romney said.
Source: Joe Battenfeld in Boston Herald Aug 1, 1994"

That is his record, until he changes his position he will have problems with gun groups.

It wont effect crime but he wants it anyway?

[redgirlinabluestate]

As to the AWB -- If you look into it a bit further and talk to anyone from the NRA you will see that in Mass, if Mitt had vetoed the assault weapons ban bill it would have been overturned and became law as the Dems wanted. You know the leftists control the legislature.

So he worked with the NRA and the Dems in the legislature to get the worst parts out of the bill. So, yes, he signed the bill, but it could have been much worse had he not worked with the NRA to craft it.

The assault weapons ban even won the backing of Massachusetts gun owners in part because it included provisions that would extend the term of a firearm identification card and license to carry from four to six years and create a Firearm License Review Board to provide an appeals process for people whose firearm license applications have been denied.

Again, it was a compromise with the heavily liberal, gun-grabbing state legislature.

[LiveFree99]

Not so fast, redgirl. In 2004 Romney signed a law in Mass. outlawing "assault weapons," i.e., basically any firearm the government doesn't like. Don't worry, the gun rights activists in NH will be slamming Romney over this, big time!

[LiveFree99]

Again, it was a compromise with the heavily liberal, gun-grabbing state legislature.

Oh great, that's just what we need, another Republican "moderate" who'll comprimise our rights away, NOT!!! I'm looking for a candidate to take a strong stand and call the liberals out, and Mitt as heck isn't the one.

[Beagle8U]

I have read the things you put in your last post. I wasn't bashing Mitt, just pointing out what shows as his record if you check the sites that rank candidates on issues.

On the issues has him ranked as strongly opposing the absolute right to gun ownership.

He ratings may change. The endorsements of the NRA has come under fire in the past few years because you can go from an F to A rating in one year based on a vote that would have passed anyway. They may ignore a lifetime of being anti-gun.

The GOA is now looked at more by gun owners to see someones real views over time.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, despite the little troll posting Mitt's recent pro-2A flip-flop, he endorsed the AWB, is all for making it permanent, and apparently thinks RKBA is all about hunting.

Not what we need...

[redgirlinabluestate]

Republican "moderate" who'll comprimise our rights away,

I hate to do it again. But when I hear such myopic statements, I feel compelled to remind everyone of what Ronald Reagan said about such hard-headedness:

When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it. "Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.

I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'

If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.

~~ Ronald Reagan, in his autobiography, An American Life .

Just one of the many important lessons Reagan left behind. Forgive me if I tend to be more impressed with RR's leadership skills than yours.

[LiveFree99]

Yes, Mitt is one of those pandering politicians who comes out in favor of the right to keep and bear sporting goods.

Romney was trolling a big firearms tradeshow in Florida a couple of weeks ago. It may have been the poorly written articles, but apparently Mitt isn't quite sure if he owns a gun, or perhaps he was just being his usual coy self and didn't want to admit to it.

[LiveFree99]

Aw, c'mon redgirl, you know you don't hate to do it again. But if standing up for the mainstream meaning of the Second Amendment makes me a "radical conservative" in your mind, then so be it.

[redgirlinabluestate]

I'm not calling anyone any names or labeling anyone (except as myopic!ooops!). The only thing I wanted to offer is that Ronald Reagan did not consider himself a radical conservative and extolled the virtues of compromise. That's all.

[LiveFree99]

One of the great things about Ronaldus Magnus was that he was almost always on the offense. On an issue he'd push for a move 100 yards to the RIGHT, fight as hard and as smart as he could, and then wind up with a move 75 yards to the right. The end result was that conservatism was advanced.

Now, compare this with Romney and other Republican "moderates." They're almost never on the offense. The liberals will push for a move 100 yards to the LEFT, and the moderates might fight for a bit but in the end settle for a move 75 yards to the left. The end result is that conservatism loses ground. Romney may have been in a bad position in 2004, but the liberals got the big prize of a permanent gun ban in exchange for crumbs, which can and probably will be taken away now that the governor is a Rat. I don't want to see the same scenario repeated with Romney as president.

[Beagle8U]

"Romney may have been in a bad position in 2004, but the liberals got the big prize of a permanent gun ban in exchange for crumbs, which can and probably will be taken away now that the governor is a Rat. I don't want to see the same scenario repeated with Romney as president."

That is a good point and one I often make in explaining why I may think a candidate for POTUS could be a poor choice.

To get elected in the NE or the left coast they pretty much have endorse and vote for things that wouldn't fly in the south and the heartland.

That is fine and may be the best you could hope for there, but if they are going to run on a POTUS ticket they have to win the red state Republicans.

Thats why NE Republicans have such a high mountain to try to climb.

[Toadman]

Excellent post on Reagan. I'll read is book.

[Hatteras]

He might not be too bad, considering the democrat alternative, but it's.... it's.... it's just that he and his office staff appeared on TLC's "While You Were Out" for heaven's sake! I'll have a hard time voting for President, a person that would stoop to this level.

Of course, it might help in pulling in the soccer mom crowd...

[redgirlinabluestate]

That's all fine and you make some good points. Obviously, the 2nd amendment is your #1 issue or you wouldn't be discounting the only conservative now running who is electable. However, I tend to look around and rely on the other people supporting him, like Jim DeMint, Ann Coulter and Pete Hoekstra, who are all big on the 2nd Amendment and they feel comfortable with Romney. They know him better than I do.

While that is your issue, the WOT is mine and Romney appears to be unappeasable on fighting Islamic jihadism.

See Romney Dazzles on Foreign Policy:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775168/posts

We have different priorities and you are free to prioritize as you see fit.

[Peach]

Mitt Romney needed this. And he got it. Jim Bopp, is the general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee and he's endorsing Mitt Romney.

Excellent news! I won't read the threads because I'm sure the bashers have probably shown up because as far as I can tell, none of the candidates are conservative enough for the social conservatives.