Posted on 05/09/2007 4:47:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
He’s not outright hostile to conservatives like Guiliani, at least. And at least he’s not a crazy maverick like McCain. At least he’s doing SOMETHING.
If he’s the one left after the primaries, I’d vote for him, simply because I think we can hold his feet to the fire with more success than we would with Rudy or McCain. And if he nominates a Conservative VP, all the better.
Naturally, I’m still pulling for Hunter, but I digress...
no — this shows that you mis-read what he said.
He is not saying conservatives would not care if he switched. He is saying the liberal media only cares when people switch to pro-life — as if that is a decsion that must be explained and defended.
Governor Mitt Romney is calling for the repeal of McCain-Feingold.
In fact, prior to the passage of McCain-Feingold, liberal Governor Mitt Romney supported even more stringent restrictions on political speech than M-F accomplished. He wanted to ban PACs, limit campaign spending, and even TAX POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
Romney's about-face on campaign funding
By Alexander Bolton
February 08, 2007
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who strongly criticized campaign-finance regulations in a private meeting with House conservatives last week, once touted dramatic restructuring measures such as taxing political contributions and placing spending limits on federal campaigns.
*snip*
A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
McCain and his allies on campaign finance included similar proposals in the first campaign-finance reform package they introduced in Congress in 1995, said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, who was at the center of the fight to pass the changes. McCain and his allies later dropped the spending limits and PAC ban because they proved to be too controversial, she said.
During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.
Mitt Romney in his own words: His passionate support for CFR - His current hypocrisy on display
It is.
Yeah, me too.
Thanks much for the clarification and links!
Wow! This is an exciting development and my hat’s off to you. Although Shawn’s defined mission is the reformation of LDS, he may well find a place on his program for this topic. Good luck and keep us posted!
The disadvantage that Romney has, one that I don’t think he can overcome with me, is that he MAY have actually experienced some sort of conservative conversion but he’s got little, beyond his own word, to prove it. If he had an actual record demonstrating his new conservative stance and how it effects his governance, that would be enough to convince most people. But he doesn’t. His conversion seems to have happened AFTER he left office, or at least it didn’t effect his policies very much while he was in office. The bottom line is that he talks the talk now (for the most part) but he’s got to walk the walk in order to convince me that he’s not just spouting a bunch of campaignspeak purposely designed and packaged to appeal to the largest segment of Republican voters.
"I've consistently taken issue with the lying Romney-campaign sourced spin on UP's homepage, because it is rife with deception, and does little but attempt to cloud the facts about Romney's extreme liberal record as Governor of Massachusetts."The information on my Free Republic home page is carefully researched from many different sources with all the links provided so the readers can investigate if they wish. I started my study of Mitt Romney out of personal curiosity without any prior knowledge or bias regarding Romney. I have no ties or contacts within the Romney campaign organization.
I have read information cited by EternalVigilance (EV), his accusations about Romney's record, and investigated the credentials of the authors and their credibility. However, I didn't stop there and continued to research the evidence in support of Gov. Romney and the credentials and credibility of his supporters.
EV and I have come to completely different conclusions regarding Gov. Romney's record and conservative credentials. EV is free to decide and believe anything he wishes, but describing Gov. Romney's record as extremely liberal is ridiculous hyperbole and not credible by any rational standard.
The pro-Romney bent to the content of my homepage arises from consistently concluding that his supporters are more credible than his detractors. The more study I do, the more I favor the candidacy of Mitt Romney. That is my right and the readers will judge if the information is credible.
Reagan mistakenly signed a law BEFORE he had any idea how much carnage would be created by abortion.
He became pro-life sometime after that, but certainly by 1975. Remember, abortion DIDN’T become commonplace until 1973 and it is likely that the full scope of the bloodshed wasn’t even known until late 1974 or early 1975.
Why do you insist on smearing Reagan to make Romney seem more conservative? Could it be that Romney doesn’t actually have a socially conservative record to run on?
Secrets of Romneycare
[Governor Romney appears to have been straining at gnats while swallowing camels]
The impact of this law on employers is substantial. The original bill required employers with more than 10 full-time workers to provide all of them (and their families) with health insurance or to opt out of that requirement by paying a $295 annual tax per worker into a state fund. This modest penalty was highly publicized by the bill's supporters as proof that the bill would not be a heavy burden on businesses. Nevertheless, Gov. Romney vetoed it, perhaps to display his Republican credentials as a tax-cutter.
The Massachusetts House of Representatives overrode the veto -- but the reality is that the $295 penalty is small potatoes compared with the other obligations in the law. Say, for example, you open a restaurant and don't provide health coverage. If the chef's spouse or child is rushed to the hospital and can't pay because they don't have insurance, you -- the employer -- are responsible for up to 100% of the cost of that medical care. There is no cap on your obligation. Once the costs reach $50,000, the state will start billing you and fine you $5,000 a week for every week you are late in filling out the paperwork on your uncovered employees (Section 44). These provisions are onerous enough to motivate the owners of small businesses to limit their full-time workforce to 10 people, or even to lay employees off.
Yep.
Daily Policy Digest
ROMNEYCARE'S FINE PRINT
Massachusetts's new universal health coverage law is being hailed as a model for what other states should do. But before you conclude that your state should enact a similar law, you might want to know how it would affect you. A careful reading of the Massachusetts law turns up surprises, says Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York, who is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths.
Massachusetts aims to achieve universal coverage with a double mandate: All residents must have health coverage (Section 12) and all employers with more than 10 workers must assume ultimate financial responsibility if employees or their immediate family members need expensive medical care and can't pay for it (Sections 32, 44).
What is the impact on individuals?
The state will offer subsidies to help low income residents pay for coverage (Section 19), but most of the uninsured earn too much to be eligible.
An individual making $29,000 or more would probably have to pay the full cost or find a job that provides health insurance. Individual coverage costs about $3,600 in Massachusetts -- a hefty bill.
Moreover, under the new law, individuals purchasing their own insurance must buy HMO policies. Preferred provider plans (PPOs) -- which give you more ability to choose your own doctors and treatments -- are not allowed (Section 65). It's one thing to criticize, says McCaughey, but there are alternatives to make health insurance more affordable. State legislators have pushed up prices by requiring policies to cover chiropractics, acupuncture and other services that are worthwhile -- if you can afford them. But mandating them is like passing a law that the only car you can buy is a Lexus, when all you can afford is a Ford Focus. People should be allowed to buy basic, high deductible insurance without costly extras.
Source: Betsy McCaughey, "Romneycare's Fine Print," Wall Street Journal, May 5, 2006.
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.