Posted on 05/21/2007 8:29:14 PM PDT by Quicksilver
... Then we talked about terrorism and of all the candidates, Rudy Guiliani included, Romney communicated on Tuesday in the debate a better understanding of Islamic fundamentalism and who hates who and why than any candidate on the Republican side, or at least he can express it in terms that a lay person can understand. Rudy Guiliani, of course understands the on the ground results and how to respond to terrorism and understands the threat but in the debates as well as in interviews has needed to spend a great deal of time clarifying his positions on social issues.
Romney, in the debate and in my sit down with him put it this way, “There is a global jihadist effort. Violent, radical jihadists want to replace all the governments of the moderate Islamic states, replace them with a caliphate. And to do that, they also want to bring down the West, in particular us…And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent. We have to recognize that what we're doing in Iraq has enormous impact on what's going to happen in this global struggle, and that's why it's important for us to understand that if we were to just walk out precipitously, we could conceivably see the border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort, we could have the Iranians take over the Shi'a south, and perhaps most frightening, you could have al Qaeda play a dominant role among the Sunnis and then have a setting where you'd have something far worse than Afghanistan on their hands.” ...
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
None of that rhetoric is any different than Bush’s. Unfortunately for you, no one believes it anymore. Neither he nor Mitt Romney have any credibility left.
The National Review interview vindicates Romney. He said he needed to formulate an opinion and he looked at it and stated his full opinion to National Review.
You’re right, there aren’t guarantees. But what I’m looking for is someone who has consistently shown a committment to a given particular issue. In the case of Dubya, was he ever previous on record as being pro-abort ?
It does no such thing. You’d justify anything for this guy. It’s unreal.
No National Review is supporting him on this. The National Review guys are wrong?
“I’m against an amnesty and against anything that provides an incentive for people to come here illegally.
Bush says the same thing. No one with a brain is buyin’.
Some pols recognize when they support something and it doesn’t work out that they’re big enough to admit it,
Are you talking about Romney?
He was also leading the charge to investigate ChinaGate in the Senate, until the rodents halted it en masse...
...when nearlydeadFred capitulated to the Democrats. NearlydeadFred never was a governor, never rescued a failing enterprise and simply hasn't accomplished anything of noteworthiness and he's as handsome as the ass end of a bulldog to top it all off.
“Let me ask you something, what do you call someone who comes riding on a great white horse to save the MA GOP as he claimed to do back in ‘02, has one electoral setback in the next election, and then decides he doesn’t want anything to do with the arduous task of party building and decides instead to run for President, leaving the state to a hapless candidate to carry the party banner, and ultimately handing his office to a grossly incompetent Marxist ? I know what I call them. Unqualified.”
I just don’t understand this criticism. He served his full term. He didn’t quit in the middle of it; he simply decided not to run for reelection. It seems to me, he fulfilled his contract with the people of MA.
When a normal person gives two weeks’ notice and resigns from a company in order to pursue other opportunities, we normally call that a “career move.” Why is it that with Romney it’s called “cutting and running?”
When I hear that, I always wonder... "What is it about clumsy, disheveled, and mumbling that would make a winning candidate?"
You’re right, there aren’t guarantees. But what I’m looking for is someone who has consistently shown a committment to a given particular issue. In the case of Dubya, was he ever previous on record as being pro-abort ?I don't recall what his public record was before 2000. Here's 3 links I found in my notes from 2000; McCain, Forbes, Buchanan, Keyes, and Bauer all tried to cast doubt on his pro-life position:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/012200wh-gop-bush.html
That's cute. It rhymes, and like the Willardbots, makes absolutely no sense.
"finally figured out that the unconstitutional McCain/Feingold didn't succeed in "keeping the money out of campaigns?" Oh, he's a bright one, but I wouldn't trust him with the constitution. I guess you have lower standards...like a lib."
I disagreed with the bill, but I at least understood what he was trying to do. I'm not particularly enamored of watching multigazillionaires buying political office. I've seen it happen WAY too many times.
"...when nearlydeadFred capitulated to the Democrats. NearlydeadFred never was a governor, never rescued a failing enterprise and simply hasn't accomplished anything of noteworthiness and he's as handsome as the ass end of a bulldog to top it all off."
Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that you didn't know how a Senate Committee operates. It's not a one-man show, you have to have COOPERATION (y'know, what the rodents failed to provide). My mistake. As for the rest of the juvenile response, I'm sure if you met the man in person, he'd squash your ass like a bug.
It’s too bad. If Precious Willard and his “people” had been this aggressive in Ratsachusetts, we might’ve actually started to win some offices there. They just couldn’t be bothered.
Therein lies the problem. TRY to understand it and figure out why he is not qualified for the Presidency.
"He served his full term."
In MA, they are permitted more than a single term. This is not Virginia.
"He didn’t quit in the middle of it; he simply decided not to run for reelection."
In this case, it's exactly what he did, he quit midway, and long before the job was done. In doing so, he left the party WITHOUT A VIABLE SUCCESSOR. You don't leave your party in the lurch like that, especially when you are seeking a promotion within it.
"It seems to me, he fulfilled his contract with the people of MA."
He did not fulfill his contract with the Republican party to provide leadership. And if fulfilling his contract to the people of MA included standing aside for an incompetent Marxist that would undo whatever positive things he did, however late in the game, why bother running at all in the first place ? The MA Republicans would've been better off if he had stayed in Utah in '02, they certainly couldn't have done worse.
Bump!
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.