Posted on 02/26/2007 6:55:03 PM PST by sevenbak
RUSH: This is unbelievable! How many wives has Romney had? He may be the one guy in the race that's only had one. Rudy's been divorced. McCain's been divorced. I don't know about some of the others, but why are they doing this? You might ask: Why this kind of a hit piece on Mitt Romney? Obviously they're afraid of the guy. They're trying to destroy him. This is just classic Drive-By Media stuff that is designed to cause problems for Romney...
...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.
Click here for full transcript
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_022607/content/01125105.guest.html
(Excerpt) Read more at rushlimbaugh.com ...
AP Reports Romney Family’s Polygamy, But Not Obama’s | Sweetness & Light
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-horrified-by-romney-familys-polygamy-but-not-obamas
Yes, the old YouTube canard. He said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare (which was the consensus at the time in America) and that his personal beliefs shouldn't be imposed on others. Funny, but I didn't hear anything about supporting partial-birth abortions or taxpayers funding abortion (I gotta give Teddy credit though - he nailed Romney with that "multiple choice" zinger).
Sorry, I don't see a flip-flop, just someone who followed the herd at the time but realized how wrong he was.
Well, you know what I mean. Romney being who he is will make it that much harder for the MSM to define him even more.
Show me many major chains that aren't smoke free?
When was the last time any liberal did any of this?
FACT: As Governor Of Massachusetts, When Governor Romney Was Presented With Legislation On Life Issues, He Has Sided With Life:
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Provided For The "Morning After Pill" Without A Prescription.
- Governor Romney Fought The Battle To Promote Abstinence Education In The Classroom.
- Governor Romney Vetoed Legislation That Would Have Redefined In Massachusetts The Longstanding Definition Of The Beginning Of Human Life From Fertilization To Implantation.
- Governor Romney Has Supported Parental Notification Laws And Opposed Efforts To Weaken Parental Involvement.
- Governor Romney Supports Adult Stem Cell Research But Has Opposed Efforts To Advance Embryo Destructive Research In Massachusetts And He Has Not Supported Public Funding For Embryo Destructive Research.
This isn't my issue, it is yours. I was talking about a Presidential candidate. You are the one who brought up the hotels.
Hyatt still has smoking-rooms, last I checked.
Do your own research if you wish. I'm finished with the topic.
I love that! I don't understand those who reject the converted. We hope and pray for conversion and then when someone does convert in words and actions, he is rejected and his conversion is deemed too recent, too little, too late etc....
Sadly, if this course is maintained, we will most likely end up with someone who is not converted at all.
The 'press' fear a committed person of principle since they do not know how to interact with such an individual. They only cover attendance at church visits, not participate in them. Further, they know that a leader who is not the captive of Secular Humanism is liable to start shooting at their sacred cows like abortion, political correctness, national sovereignty, the New World Order, etc. They are rightly threatened by such rectitude and reformation.
I woudl vote for Ron Paul over Romney if there was any chance he could defeat Hillary. Sadly, there is not. Roeny has the backign and skills to pull the middle, nto jsut the right. He's the only one, besides perhaps Rudy that could do that, and Rudy is much more liberal than Romney's attackers even accuse him of.
I wouldn't --- ever. Ron Paul voted against the surge, against the President, and against the troops. The troops and the WOT should come first.
You got it!
Ron Paul is SO far to the right - granted he is very close to the foul line that he may be out of play in some ballparks - that I believe he might actually be THE MOST electable vs. Hilary because he can also garner a populist appeal . . .
I respectfully disagree with you, and maybe just about everyone else from maybe Rush Limbaugh to others in the Republican elite on Romney's electability against Hilary - they are just TOO much alike - like picking State of Washington apples v. Michigan apples in your produce section.
I do NOT think the GOP should at all be intimidated of going apples to oranges - although v. Hilary it might be more of a pear!
Ron Paul is one of the very few Republicans solidly on the populist side of the fence regarding foreign policy right now. . . MySpace popularity is the highest of any GOP candidate . . .maybe meaningless . . . And once he is privy to alot of the things WE don't know that ONLY the President gets to know about I'd bet he will learn some compromise to the military and just maybe validate George W. a bit by invoking his constitutional rights as Commander in Chief . . . maybe just sit back and allow those Israeli F-15's safe passage across Northern Iraq to bomb Tehran as much as they should be bombed! The objective in Iraq has already been (painfully) accomplished after the initial blitzkreig and it just costs too much - in life and dollars. We can't afford it.
Ron Paul was an early opponent of CAFTA - not any surprise - which eventually narrowly passed in the House 217-215. I think many Iowa and California and Texas and other farmers are disappointed that George W. Bush didn't at least TRY to exercise his veto powers over CAFTA.
I'll go with the National Taxpayer's Union champion v. Hilary as the truly electable GOP nominee - and Condi Rice to move up one peg in the government as the VP nominee out of St. Paul in September 2008 . . .
Some of Ron Paul comments on the record regarding Iraq and CAFTA can now be found - among other MANY other sites - at:
http://iowansforronpaul2008.blogspot.com/
http://californiansforronpaul2008.blogspot.com/
Problem is, our electorate has shifted to the center on so many issues, thanks to Hollywood and the liberal media. We are not "left", and I hope we never are, but let's face it, with as divided as the country is, there is no way a strong armed conservative that fights each and every battle tooth and nail will get elected in the general election.
A leader of such a diverse populous has to steer the mass in the "right" direction by picking the battles that will win back conservative values and principles. This is what Mitt was faced with in Massechusets, yet he did such a good job of balanceing, that the liberals there gave him an "F" grade.
I still think he's the man to beat.
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.