Posted on 02/16/2007 7:07:34 PM PST by Keyes2000mt
I think I'm done with the campaign of Willard Mitt Romney. I'm tired of it. His campaign and the potential for his nomination has jumped the shark. No Republican candidate for President has ever more deserved the title "Multiple Choice Mitt."
I'm tired of the explanations and I'm tired of the dodges.
First there was abortion. He was for it, then really for it, then really, really for it, then indifferent to it, and now against it. Some of his supporters and people on his campaign have called Sam Brownback pro-choice. At least Sam has never been multiple choice. And when Sam became pro-life, he actually fought the pro-life fight. I'm not aware of Mitt Romney ever passionately fighting the fight for life. He has, at best, been luke warm -- playing it safe, but not actually advocating. And he's played it so safe, that on stem cell research, he's been willing to split the baby with parental consent.
Then there was campaign finance reform. Mitt was for it more than McCain before he was against it more than McCain He's tried to caveat his way out of it, but his caveats have been so nuanced as to be meaningless.
Read on . . .
Let's not forget taxes. Multiple Choice Mitt opposed President Bush's tax cuts and favored a federal gas tax hike as late as 2003.
Oh, there is homosexuality too. Mitt was going to be more gay and more abortion friendly than Ted Kennedy in 1994. Now he's not. At least he's been consistent on gay marriage since he came out in opposition to it in his gubernatorial term.
Finally, there is voting for Paul Tsongas. In 1992, Mitt Romney voted for Tsongas. He explains this now as trying to pick the weakest guy to go up against George H. W. Bush. But, in 1994, Mitt Romney said he did so because "Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton."
I'm tired of running into these stories. I'm tired of the hedges. I'm tired of the dodges. And I'm tired of the caveated nuance. So let me put this straight and bluntly. I'm more than happy to support my man Mitt if he is the Republican nominee. But, like Hillary Clinton, he is a political opportunist who I increasingly see as someone without principle, only a weather vane.
Multiple Choice Mitt had me at hello. He lost me on the flip.
Maybe if you could point to actual wrongdoing by Hunter, you'd have a point.
Instead, you are just another scumball seeking to drag down a principled conservative with more nonsensical claims.
The earlier you root out a problem, the cheaper it is to do so.
But I thought he had agreed to raise money for John McCain! Is it possible he would raise money for one campaign while favoring another? Or do I have my facts wrong?
Where is our George Washington? Is that asking too much?
I'd settle for our Eisenhower at this point. At least he understood that government governs best when they are on the golf course by 2 pm.
You wrote:
[you are just another scumball]
Coming from you... that's a compliment.
I’m raising questions that are going to sink Hunter. He’s been asked these questions out here in California and he will be asked these same questions when the campaigning gets going. I hope you guys come up with a better reply then calling people “scumball”.
His past “friendships” with corrupt people will keep him from getting elected. The media will never present Hunter in a positive light, and therefore he will never be President.
Back it up, jack. We don't cotton to bogus allegations here.
Therefore, I would expect you to also make the same claim about Rudy, since corrupt Bernie Kerick was a business partner of Rudy's before Rudy pushed him (apparently without vetting him) for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
ping to the latest slime attack on Hunter.
like Mitt, and I hope he gets a chance tell us what he wants to do as President.
It must chafe you that Mitt screwed up so badly. So you therefore must raise bogus allegations against Hunter to make you feel better.
We've come to expect that from the RINO fields of broken dreams.
"Flip flop on abortion? Reagan and G.H.W. Bush both flipped."
I don't believe Reagan ever flipped.
In the sixties he already seemed against abortion, but like many, or even most of us, did not form an actual stand on the emerging issue until a few years later.
That is a far cry from an almost 60 year old politician firmly sticking with, and publicly and (effectively)defending a pro abortion position during the intense abortion wars of the 1970s, 80s and 90s, and then switching to the opposite view in 2004.
He was never a consideration for me.
No kidding. It's really scary to realize that there is NO ONE on both sides worth voting for.
[Back it up, jack. We don't cotton to bogus allegations here.]
It'll be guilt by association. That's how the media will present it. We'll nominate Hunter as the perfect Republican, and he'll be the next Walter Mondale.
Hunter doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.
Too many people, for the first time in the Republican party's history, are insisting on a perfect candidate.
***That's because no one even comes close to Duncan Hunter.
[make the same claim about Rudy, since corrupt Bernie Kerick was a business partner of Rudy]
For sure. Rudy can't win either. He couldn't even win a senate seat against a homemaker from Arkansas.
I personally like Newt, but I don't think he'll do any better then Hunter.
Mr. Romney has forgotten the first rule of holes.
But he's got a heck of a shovel.
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.