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).
Debate is on again now, for those who missed it. (like me)
GOA won’t mind if we post the whole article.
Will The Real Romney Please Stand Up?
by Erich Pratt
Director of Communications
As he travels through the South — contemplating a run for the presidency — Mitt Romney sounds like the modern-day incarnation of John Wayne.
He tells shooters how he used to hunt rabbits as a boy. He visits with attendees at gun shows, impressing them with his knowledge of the Bill of Rights. He quotes the “right to keep and bear arms” language from memory and assures gun owners he’s on their side.
But wait, isn’t this the same Mitt Romney — the former governor of Massachusetts — who boasted that his view on firearms was “not going to make me the hero” of the gun lobby?
In fact, it is one and the same man. So what happened to the candidate who promised that he would not lift a finger to “chip away” at the gun laws in Massachusetts — a state that has some of the most draconian gun restrictions in the union?
When Romney ran for Senate in 1994, he told the Boston Herald that he supported the Brady gun-control law and a ban on scores of semi-automatic firearms. Both laws were heavily supported by Democrats and — according to President Bill Clinton — were the reason that his party lost control of the Congress in 1994.
Ten years later, the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms was stripped from the law books. The banned guns became legal once again, and despite the Chicken Little cries from gun control advocates around the country, crime rates did not soar.
This should not be surprising. After the semi-auto ban expired in 2004, the Congressional Research Service admitted there was no evidence to support the notion that the ban had actually reduced crime, especially since — and here’s a great admission — the “banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders” before the ban was implemented.
Likewise, the Brady gun control law has done nothing to curb crime, as was reported in one of the nation’s leading anti-gun medical publications, the Journal of the American Medical Association. The journal definitively stated in 2000 that the Brady law has failed to reduce “homicide rates and overall suicide rates” in states after they were required to impose waiting periods and background checks.
But despite the failure of these gun laws, Romney did not back off his support for gun control during his run for governor in 2002.
“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate with Democratic candidate Shannon O’Brien. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
Perhaps Mr. Romney knows something that the criminologists don’t know — the criminologists who have actually studied these issues and have reported that gun control has failed to make people safer.
What we do know is that even in Massachusetts, Romney has tried to appease both sides of the aisle. As governor, Romney supported legislation to ease restrictions on gun licensing in the state, but he only did so at the expense of gun rights, as he signed a draconian ban on common, household firearms that are owned by millions of Americans across the nation.
This is kind of like the thief who sticks a gun in your ribs and demands $100, but then gives you $25 back to “soften” the blow.
Seeing that Mr. Romney likes to frequent both sides of the legislative aisle, Americans are going to want to know where he really stands on issues that are important to them. And when they go to polls next year, voters are going to be asking, “Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?”
http://gunowners.org/pres08/romney.htm
Yes that was clear early in the evening
LOL
You didn’t answer the questions. I’m not surprised.
Go ahead—support a liberal. It’s your vote.
He ALWAYS interrupts guest , even those who he agrees with . He is a horrible interviewer . I forgot who is was one night but I swear he didn’t let the guest get 2 words in for the whole interview.Annoys the hell out of me . He’s like trying to have a conversation with someone who is stoned on speed .
All I know is That I support controlled immigration and that I abhor “illegal” immigrationI am not an isolationist nor a globalist,I recognise we have to deal with both
Murtha is senile. And corrupt. This guy is nuts.
NSA got intercept on 9/10: "tomorrow is zero hour", coming out of saudi arabia.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/06/20/zero-day-usat.htm
But I'm sure they had nothing to do with it.
I think all of the candidate would be Great Presidents,but unfortunately with today’s political climate in America they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell.
You know the one thing you Liberaltarians are consistient with...besides your utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and Foreign Policy...is your never ending arrogance.
Ban Spork Assault Weapons!
I'm kinda glad we defended Australia. They seem to be a fighting friend we can count on.
Besides, what makes it okay in your world view to sell war materiel to an evil empire that is invading and killing everyone in sight?
Oh yeah, the guy who supported McCain-Feingold. Great "constiutionalist" position.
Gotta love how some freepers denounce McCain and Graham as "traitors" to the GOP because they're weak on illegals and support unconstitutional "bipartisan" initiatives, but when Fred votes the EXACT SAME WAY, by golly, he should be leader of the free world.
Yes. Yes he is...
The fault of the GOP, the Wall Street Journal, and FOX News. That should hearten you: real Americans are figuring this out.
Congress declared war. The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq was voted on by Congress and passed.
Look up the definition of "war" in the dictionary.
Congress passed a resolution "authorizing" the "use of arms" against "Iraq".
Congress declared war.
Paul is a dope for saying that they didn't.
...and you believe him.
Go to your post 1911, there is a line underneath my response that tells you specifically what post I am responding to.
I am so very tired of folks who ascribe meaning or intelligence from TV.
They don’t call it the “Idiot box” for no reason.
Stop being affected by what you see on television. Programming in general is lunacy for the masses, most of it is pure propoganda.
>>>>>At this time if we want a victory we must support Rudy.
So I take it you're a RudyBooster. Its not the political goal of this conservative forum to support or promote liberal candidates from any party. That includes Rudy Giuliani.
>>>>that was then this is now.
Wrong. Independents voted for Reagan in 80&84 because he was able to sell his conservative rightwing policies. People knew what Reagan offered was workable and he proved that for the most part of his two terms. The Reagan agenda form the 1980`s can work again.
OTOH. Giuliani offers a liberal policy that conservatives reject.
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.