Posted on 02/26/2007 6:55:03 PM PST by sevenbak
That is SO true.
Here is the best excerpt from this passage:
"Let me explain the difference in this Mitt Romney business and the way Democrats are treated in this regard. Ted Kennedy's father -- we're not talking about a great-grandfather or great-great grandfather; we're talking about father. Ted Kennedy's father was a Third Reich sympathizer. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to pull him as ambassador of the Court of Saint James. (For those of you in Rio Linda, that's Great Britain.) He had to pull him out of there because he was a sympathizer to the Third Reich. Now, we don't hold this against Teddy. Teddy had nothing to do with that. Just as we don't hold Mitt Romney's grandfather, or great-grandfather, against him. But the lib media, the Drive-Bys, are definitely trying to do that. You take a look at who the media really goes after and you've gotta wonder whether there's fear there, fear driving it. Well, they just want to destroy every conservative they can. It's just part and parcel of the agenda that exists."
It is amazing how well the left wing media constantly puts out articles about how wonderful Guilanni is and when a conservative appears, they trash him. Wake up freepers....this should tell you all.
Another reason that Giuliani get such good press is that most of the press is based in New York and remembers all too well how dangerous and chaotic life was before Giuliani took office and how much he improved things.
You mean aside from his own words? Did you watch the 1994 debate when he out Kennedy'd Ted Kennedy? Or the 2002 debate, when he swore his allegiance to the cult of abortion? Don't tell me that my own eyes are victims of MSM-spin, when I can see the very video.
Amen, brother.
I liked a tagline that I saw on FreeRepublic tonight. "The Pro-Life movement is about making converts. Why not welcome someone who has converted"?
I know that Gov. Romney has fairly recently converted to the Pro-Life side, but lets make it easy for former Pro-Choicers to come in out of the cold.
Romney took in $6.5 million in a single day back in early January. That kind of prodigious fundraising did not go unnoticed by the MSM and the Clinton war room.
I know many Freepers are supporting Duncan Hunter and I can appreciate their support of his conservative positions. But lets not pull the plug on Romney just yet. I really think he's got the Libs running scared. Why else go back to his great-great Grandfather to try to dig up a little polygamist dirt? The things that the Clintons actually got away with are LIGHT YEARS BEYOND anything the opposition researchers are going to be able to ferret out on the Romneys.
Every perceptive person should have noticed, by now, that the media, most notably the Boston Globe, is after Romney. I believe the Globe had a series of articles about Romney flip-flops. But I don't see the media covering the flip-flops of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and other Democrats. (Kerry has become so extreme in his anti-war stance that only 12 other Democrats would support his withdrawal resolution last year.)
Romney would be a great candidate, and I wish social conservatives would rally behind him, since he has pledged allegiance to their cause. He has a fighting change to win the 2008 election, while I'm almost certain that someone like Duncan Hunter would be slaughtered.
Romney has always supported restrictions on abortion (even since 1994) before he became fully pro-life.
I would have like that too, but if he had, he would have accomplished absolutely nothing in the dem controlled Mass. What he did do, and the battles that he picked tells me he can win against Shrillary.
"daily re-inventions of his policies."
Please elaborate - daily? Or are you going for maximum kill?
Restrictions? He supported abortion on demand as recently as 2005. Now that may leave some window open for restrictions, but the man was basically pro-choice until his pollster advised him that it doesn't play well in the South Carolina primary.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
There is no flip-flip. His views on abortion at the time were that of most Americans. Abortion is legal but most Americans do support parental notification laws and no taxpayer funding of it. Romney's view came full circle into the the pro-life side during his term as Governor. We're not talking about a John Kerry flip-flop here, and he surely isn't the extreme pro-abortion candidate that Rudy was then and now.
I don't support Romney for other reasons but I do concede that he's the strongest candidate of the three. And he can raise money, he has business and public service background and the guy is literally a Saint. Never smoke, swore, or drank.
Watch Romney in 1994 and 2002 and reconcile that with the views of "most Americans." He was a radical pro-abortion campaigner, and he continued his views from the 1970s through to 2005, just a few months before he started up his presidential campaign in earnest.
We're not talking about a John Kerry flip-flop here
Agreed. Romney makes Kerry look steady like a rock.
the guy is literally a Saint.
Literally? He's been canonized?
"He was a radical pro-abortion campaigner,"
Wow, I have to see the proof of that!
Is abstaining from tea necessary for Sainthood?
I mean, why should these type of actions determine who is President?
The WH didn't become non-smoking until Clinton was in office. A sign of the times.
Does that mean that having a "smoking" WH under Reagan and Bush (the father) was scandalous?
Gee, can you get a cup of coffee at your local Marriott hotel? (Mormon owned)
Give me a break!
They can rest assured.
Romney did not govern "according to his religious beliefs" in Massachusetts. (Mormons are against same-sex marriage and abortion. As governor of Mass., Romney supported both.)
I'm only talking about the Presidential image, as noted in the post I replied to.
I could care less what the Marriott provides. (Is it a Mormon coincidence that the Marriott hotels are now smoke-free?)
NO! It has to do with providing what their customers want... nothing other than smoke-free rooms.
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.