Posted on 05/15/2007 4:25:06 PM PDT by CounterCounterCulture
Republican Presidential Candidate Debate #2 – Columbia, South Carolina 05/15/07 - Official Discussion Thread
Watch live coverage of the First-in-the-South Republican Party Presidential Candidate debate on FOX News Channel and FOXNews.com on Tuesday, May 15, at 9 p.m. EDT (6 p.m. PDT).
Let me guess, you think that putting words in people’s mouths makes you right somehow. Sorry, not buying what you’re selling, Rudy.
No UN....sorry bunch. McLame is worried about what the world thinks if he had to torture a terrorist who doesn’t abide by any rules of engagement.
Ask our current captured soldiers how the terrorists are treating them. Applying geneva convention protections to terrorists isn’t going to save soldiers lives when they are captured.
Huckabee’s re-directing well here (lol)
No, and I actually don't care about the silly laws that the denizens of the Bay State care to burden themselves with. You are also the people that continue to elect John Kerry and Ted Kennedy; I am unsurprised that you also create such laws.
My reference was to the unconstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act, not to Massachusetts state law. Mitt Romney just got through babbling about his strong support for the federal Assault Weapons Bill, and to one poster's reference to his support for banning short-barreled shotguns -- in context, I had assumed (reasonably, I think) that he was referring the 1934 NFA, not some obscure code up in Massachusetts.
We get tortured wether or not we hand it out.
One of the freaky things that I can't stand about politicians is that they do this weasel-word thing. If the bill doesn't contain the word "amnesty," then he can claim he's not "supporting amnesty," even if the language of the bill describes amnesty exactly. The guy is just a Clinton-level weasel with the language parsing thing. "
You have been blessed with discernment!! Go with it. Listen carefully and you will 'hear' the real 'truth'.
Exactly!
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html
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.
Romney’s past positions on campaign-finance regulation, anathema to many social conservatives who believe such rules place unconstitutional limits on free speech, could complicate his ongoing efforts to court conservative leaders.
Romney already has had to explain his past support for abortion rights, another volatile issue among conservatives. At a private meeting with conservative House Republicans in Baltimore Friday, Romney devoted much of his time to explaining how his stance on abortion has evolved, said a conservative who attended.
While several Republicans who attended the Republican Study Committee (RSC) retreat greeted Romney’s remarks on abortion with skepticism, his condemnation of changes to campaign-finance rules struck a positive chord with the entire audience. Romney specifically criticized the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sponsored by his rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
“Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’” one conservative Republican said. “The place erupted. That was by far the biggest applause line.”
Romney also has criticized McCain on campaign finance while stumping in South Carolina, where President Bush turned the tide against McCain in the 2000 GOP presidential primary.
A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”
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.
“He believes there ought to be transparency and disclosure in a way so the public knows who’s raising money and who’s contributing money,” said Madden. “Right now I can say we make every effort that the campaign adheres to the disclosure and transparency requirements of campaign finance law now; 1994 was 15 years ago.”
Madden reiterated Romney’s belief that the 2002 campaign law hindered public participation.
Public-financed elections are an idea that Democrats in the Senate and House are planning to push this Congress; the idea is strongly opposed by conservative leaders.
Tom McClusky, the vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, an influential Washington-based grassroots advocacy organization representing evangelical Christians, said public financing of elections would distance lawmakers from voters.
“For groups like ours that work directly with the grass roots, it hurts us because the distance [to lawmakers] grows larger and larger,” said McClusky, who argued that if legislators did not have to make fundraising appeals, they “would no longer have to be worried that they’re answerable to their constituents.”
McClusky said he did not know whether Romney since had shifted his stance.
“Of course, this was Mitt Romney in 2002. Who knows? He might have changed his mind on that,” he said. “He always seems to want to come back to the table.”
Jeff Mazzella, the president of the Center for Individual Freedom, another conservative advocacy group, has published harsh criticisms of McCain because of his support for various campaign regulations. He was surprised to hear of Romney’s past positions.
“I was not familiar [with] Romney’s positions referenced in the articles you stated,” Mazzella said in an interview. “We’re adamantly opposed to the idea of taxing campaign donations, or eliminating PACs or any abridgement of the people’s right to assemble or speak.”
It remains to be seen, however, whether Romney will face as much skepticism on campaign finance as he has on abortion.
One House conservative who met with him last week noted disapprovingly that Romney freely admitted that he has been firmly opposed to abortion rights for only two and a half years. He was also unenthusiastic about what he called Romney’s cumbersome explanation.
“He spent a significant portion of his speech trying to convince members that he was pro-life now,” he said. “But on an issue like that is, it shouldn’t take a lot of time to say, ‘I’m pro-life.’
“The fact that it took paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation, and never had a hard-and-fast ‘I’m 100 percent pro-life from conception to natural death’” was disconcerting, the House Republican said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktH1FpNqlOc
OK! I’ve ruled out Paul, Rudy, McBlame and Tommy Thompson. Hunter is the man in this group of debators. Run! Fred! Run!
McCain is clear winner...kicking alpha sierra sierra and looking most presidential in field of the also rans
Exactly, the enemy doesn’t obey the rules. The idea that something we do will change the way they [AQ] treat our folks is nonsense. We didn’t mistreat the NVA prisoners. Did that help McCain’s treatment? When American lives are at risk by a non-state actor terrorist group, there are no rules except the ones we make up.
Like I said...Secretary of State Romney has a nce ring to it.
Hunter needs the attention of the whole country.
Sawed off shotguns are not even mentioned in the so called assault weapons BAN. They are not banned but highly regulated since 1934. Not that that high regulation has done anything to stop their use or possession.
No it wasnt for the economy, Huckabee
It was to help the morale of the people and to show our enemies that we were not beaten down..
I just saw that.Ron Paul is a disgrace but there are good men up there.I don’t like Rudy.
McCain would shut down CTU. Romney speaks in doublespeak. TThompson is at least being half way sensible. Brownback doesn’t like the UN (good). Duncan Hunter is not pulling any punches, he’d let Doyle and Bauer have their way with any terrorist. McCain is still a wuss.
Hey Dumba$$ McLame: They ARE torturing our troops. MORON!
Gilmore: I can sit on panels and issue reports. I would go to the UN. Weenie. Huckabee: Tells it like it is. Those raghead bastards did murder our citizens. Thank g*d one last question for Ron Paul. Ron: ST*U!!!!!!
;-)
Uh oh.... we may not sway any women, moderate dems and independents with that answer..... LOL.
I like it though.
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.