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 ...
MA Dems are pikers compared to national Dems. Don’t deceive yourself. Percentages just don’t tell the tale in this case.
Remember watching Kennedy take Mitt apart? Teddy’s the drunken uncle. A large percentage of the leaders of the RAT party are sober, and much more capable. They would turn a chameleon like the Mitt-flopper inside-out in about five minutes.
Thats what you judge Romney on. I wonder how Fred would have acted in the same circumstances. My belief, being a Senator is a lot easier than a Governor, that Fred may not have any intestinal fortitude, let alone what Romney had to get through four years of 88% Democratic Massachusetts. Romney would have a lot easier time transitioning to President, whereas Fred is used to being one in a 100 with no special responsibilities other having to run for election every 6 years. What did Fred do in the Senate exactly?
Ted rip apart Mitt?? Did I watch the same election? It was Mitt that gave him the closest race in his entire million year career. It was only when Kennedy played the Catholic card against Mormon Romney did the Irish legions come out and re-elect blubbering fool back to the Senate. He was on the ropes, you should have seen how sweaty and angry he got in those debates.
“border with Turkey be destabilized by virtue of the Kurdish effort”
The next President better crush any Turkish efforts to move on Kurdistan, as I suspect they’d be advised to do such. Nice to know he has somewhat of a grip of a couple of the dynamics there.
"Are you saying that if Mitt Romney becomes the 44th president he won't be helping the GOP?"Well, that's silly. I think he has the potential to swing the senate and possibly the house back to the GOP. And a Romney victory would certainly benefit the Massachusetts GOP.You bet your jackass he won't.
The guys who actually run the Dem Party these days are much more able than the Swimmer. You’re fooling yourself if you think the Dems in Boston are a fraction as capable and vicious as the ones who live and work inside the Beltway.
Romney’s nomination would tear the Republican coalition apart. Probably for good.
as handsome as the ass end of a bulldog, but let's not judge nearlydeadFred by his appearance. Let's judge him by his accomplishments. Besides voting for McCain/Feingold, what is his most notable accomplishment?
No no no. They are retards, don’t get me wrong. But it doesn’t take a genius to grease the wheels of State government. With numbers they are strong. Its like the Soviet Red Army, they can lose 10 for every German. But they have so many, they can preserve the hack pay-back systems, they can maintain the big government pork spending to keep the Unions in line (and pay off their many family members), they can keep the districts gerrymandered to their liking, they have every single special interest group in their pocket, they can override any veto they want, and to make matter worse, they have more money than God. On the national level, the Democrats have certain major advantages over the Republicans, but they cannot maintain the same hack system they own here.
Really? How So?
I judge him on what he did and didn’t do. He was a failure as a Governor, and a failure as a party leader.
Contrast that with Fred, who did what he said, kept his word, and although wasn’t the highest-ranking Republican official in the state (we had a useless destructive RINO Governor who, just like Romney, left his governorship to a rodent), he did a great job with keeping our Senate seats in GOP hands (neither Scumquist or Frist were up to the task).
The problem is that you guys continue to rationalize that because it was tough being a GOP Governor in a rodent state that it’s A-OK he abandoned it after a single term. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t cut it. You’d have to be a moron not to realize that it’s going to be hard, and if he didn’t know that going in, he’s even more naive than I first believed. He ran away when the going got tough. It ain’t easy being a GOP Governor in Rhode Island with a similar rodent percentage there, but yet Don Carcieri sticks it out. How ‘bout the semi-RINO Governor of Vermont ? He could flee but hasn’t yet. Ditto the Governor of Hawaii (which like MA, was GOP until the ‘50s).
Even the ultra-GOP state of Wyoming has a rodent Governor who didn’t wet his panties and flee after a single term despite a gargantuan GOP legislature. These folks all stuck it out despite the negative of their party label. Romney couldn’t hack it and fled. He’s no better than his RINO predecessors who went running, too. Unqualified for President, period.
“No one can refute my central point of his enormous shortcomings as a Chief Exec.”
Seems like MassachusettsGOP is doing a pretty good job at it.
“He’s unqualified, period.”
Because the mighty People’s Republic of Massachusetts didn’t suddenly make a huge shift to the right as a result of Romney’s governorship? Seriously...do really believe this stuff you’re saying?
No, he was “a Governor” for 4 years, but he was never a leader, at least not after the ‘04 elections. DeVal ain’t no leader, either, but he, like his predecessor, is “a Governor”, even if the power is in DiMasi and Therese Murray’s hands.
Folks like me will NEVER vote for him, ever. I don't vote for pro-aborts, ever.
Sorry, but after a thirty-five year plus record as such, his supposed "conversion" carries NO weight with me.
Maybe after he's sacrificed something for a decade or so for the cause, I'll take a look at him...
Romney’s nomination would tear the Republican coalition apart. Probably for good.I see no evidence of that happening in the polls; so far, he has broad support.
No, it was George Cabot Lodge that gave the Swimmer his closest race... in 1962, 53-45%. Willard got 41%. Hell, Ray Shamie got a smidge over 38% in the awful GOP year of 1982.
What are you smoking, Hoss ? Romney's lack of leadership will ensure the GOP won't win back the majority in Congress for the next 50 years.
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.