Posted on 04/04/2007 3:02:28 PM PDT by JRochelle
No.
Two questions:
1- why is it a ‘smear’ to bring out his support for the Brady bill? Or his position against “assault weapons”?
2-Why don’t you and other supporters of him admit that it is silly and beneath him to pretend to be something he isn’t? He’s a dignified and patrician kind of guy.
It can’t be a “smear” if it is factual. I actually like the guy much more than McCain or Rudy, but it’s one thing to honestly change your position- after all POTUS is a very different job with a different constituency - it’s another to act like a hunter when you aren’t
The second is *NOT* only about hunting; when politicians presume that it is they really, really insult those of use who, while we support hunters, own firearms for self defense. At my core I really don’t want Mitt to repeat Dukakis in a tank and helmet.Respectfully.
Hell, I'm from Washington State, and don't live there. I was raised in Wisconsin but I live in the south, but I'm not a southerner.
Romney has a great past and hopefully a great future. The God, Guns and Gay crowd is going to attack anyone who is not of their own. It does not matter, because in the end, you will not have one of your own to vote for, and you will look pretty silly voting for someone you attacked repeatedly.
This causes third party drift, lost elections and the growth of the liberal elite.
If that is what you are working to achieve, then join the party of demented fools. Don't try to convert me. I'm a Republican and Romney is a traditional conservative. He like Reagan, has shifted politically on issues prior to a presidential run, and comparing Mitt to someone like Kerry is a insult. Kerry flipped and flopped while running in the same month and sometimes week.
No comparison is possible.
God, Guns and gay issues are not going to be in the forefront of the 2008 election, no matter how much you would like them to be. There is a global conflict underway and there are serious fiscal issues on the horizon. These are the hot issues, and candidates with no experience in these areas will not see the light of day.
First off, Mitt has admitted he is not a hardcore guns guy. But on the other hand he is not a Gun-a-phobe.
I think the reporter wanted to make his point by overreaching that Mitt has hunted only twice. I know he has gone a couple of hunting trips as Republican Governor’s Assocation president; once in Minnesota, and once in South Carolina. There could have been a few other times not in the news. Also, he hunted a few times during the time he spent on the ranch in Idaho.
I am not saying he is the best on the Guns issue, but I think he will be friendly towards the NRA.
Well if you listen to Mitt he sure thinks those are really important issues. He’s changed his views on gays and now guns. Thats the problem with him. He has so solid political belief.
I’ll never vote for Rudy but I can respect him more than I can Mitt. Rudy doesn’t change his positions at the drop of a hat.
"An aide said Wednesday that Romney was not trying to mislead anyone, although he confirmed Romney had been hunting only on those occasions in his life."
Personally I can't wait for the photo. It's GOTTA be coming.
#1 (Dukakis in the tank)
#2 (Kerry in the bunny suit)
#3 (Arist rendering of Mitt's core convictions?)
Actually, as to changing positions, the first thing he changed was his position on abortion. The newer positions reflect his presidential position and that will be the official position if elected. This is how political positions are staked out, for a National election.
Mitt is not as socially conservative as the base wants, so he has reflected that demand in his positions by moving at least half way. This is where he will stay if elected, and you can bank on it, should the issue be raised.
No electable politician will be able to satisfy the fringes of either party, and that's just a reality. You have to understand where the right wing and left wings of the two party's are politically and then compare to the majority of the electorate. You then vector yourself into a position that straddles the middle. This gives you potential votes. The rest is the hard work of earning them.
If you cannot allow a candidate to do this, he/she will not win under any circumstances, except for the situation where multiple parties vie for the largest piece of the pie which only occurs in Parliamentary systems, not ours. When the pie is split 5 ways, a minority can win control of the government on occasion..
Another Massachusetts turd (massturd?!) wants us to believe he’s a gunner.
Ain’t buyin’ it. Nope.
I would like to see a candidate doing target practice on human silhouettes.
FYI - Romney on with Hannity next on H&C.
The fact that he knows one end of a gun from the other is a plus.
Now THAT is refreshing.
A Romney supporter who admits he just says whatever he thinks will get him elected.
Principles?
Convictions?
Beliefs?
Nah, just say whatever you think the most people want to hear!
He is a businessman. Used to making and negotiating deals.
Which means give and take.
He thinks he can transfer that to politics. It doesn’t work because we aren’t interested in someone who will give on an issue to win a vote.
In politics core political beliefs are not negotiable. The voters aren’t willing to make a deal.
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.