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 ...
The primary thing that highlights Mitt Romney’s utter lack of leadership is his utter lack of consistency on any core principle of our republic.
He’s a follower of his pollsters and focus groups’ versions of what they believe the universe of voters in question wants.
Follow, follow, follow...all in the service of the advancement of himself...that is the only consistent thing about Mitt Romney.
In 2002 while campaigning for Governor, he campaigned for pro-abstitence education. He campaigned against lowering the age of consent. He campaigned for the death penalty. He campaigned for deporting illegal immigrants. Those were unpopular in Massachusetts in 2002.
If you are going to criticize Mitt then please be consistent.
BTW, you do know that after supporting CFR, he has concluded it hasn’t worked. It was meant as an experiment. Some pols recognize when they support something and it doesn’t work out that they’re big enough to admit it, while others continue to support it long after it’s a disaster. The difference between cheap hacks and leaders.
As for his notable accomplishments, I’d consider his cleaning up my state of the most corrupt gubernatorial administration in the past century as his crowning achievement. He was also leading the charge to investigate ChinaGate in the Senate, until the rodents halted it en masse. He’s also done quite well in his campaigning to keep our Senate seats Republican. Thanks to his efforts, we have kept our Senate seats rodent-free since after 1994.
The only argument you have against Romney is that he didn’t run for re-election. Agreed. He should have. But that doesn’t make him a lousy Governor, it doesn’t make him a lousy Executive Officer. It doesn’t mean he didn’t Govern. He set out to try and do what he wanted. He pushed for four years on the Death Penalty, Cutting Taxes, Building a Legislature, fighting Corruption, fighting Gay Marriage, Holding the line on Abortion, Cutting Spending and Balancing the Budget. He was defeated in many areas even after pulling over 1/3 of the Democrats to his side. He showed the initiative to lead, and he did as good as anyone could have. Its that leadership that makes him Presidential stuff. I can’t blame him for not running for re-election, the media would have hounded him on his previous pledge never to resign for a promotion (as two of his successors did), and he could spend more money and spend more time fighting the Democrats to get a few more victories on his own. Kerry Healey wanted the chance, and he gave it to her. She told him he wasn’t needed (fearing he was too Conservative), and she hence lost and allowed nature to continue to widdle at our Republican Minority. He fought his fight.
Sounds like you are the one killing the coalition.
Romney's lack of leadership will ensure the GOP won't win back the majority in Congress for the next 50 years.That's even more absurd.
He's refuted the fact that Romney was a disaster ? Um, no. Are you even reading these posts ?
"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?"
I don't expect miracles, and if you bothered to read my other posts as you claimed, you'd know that all he had to do was set the state on course to having a viable GOP minority bloc (they're a long ways away from a majority, obviously). Romney tried once... once... to attempt to do that, and it failed. Now, rather than try, try again, he gave up... completely. He kicked the feet out from under what was left and nailed the coffin lid closed. Now he wants to be rewarded with the Presidency ? Sorry. No dice.
There’s just so many red flags all over the place. Even if he HAD legitimate core principles, his AWOL “leadership” (lack of) proves he’s not up to the task of a Chief Executive job, either on Beacon Hill or on Capitol Hill.
so farSo, you agree. :)
No, I'm not. I'm just not "in coalition" with this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/v/P_w9pquznG4
I find him extremely repellent.
No, it’s one of several arguments. When one fails to do their job, does that qualify them for promotion ? Of course not. You fall back to your rationalizations, and it just doesn’t wash. Don Carcieri is far more qualified to run.
Did Romney actively and aggressively campaign for GOP candidates in ‘06 in MA ?
Wrong again. He has, to use your words, "broad support." But, that won't last. So far, he's had the field to himself. His vast amounts of personal wealth have allowed him to run endless numbers of television ads, deceptive ones, without much in the way of challenge.
But, I assure you, the voters will be shown his true record. In fact, I promise you that they will.
You need a new line, Hoss. Jump on the Fred wagon before you sink in quicksand, quicksilver.
I find him extremely repellent.Given your crusade against Mutt Romney the past few months I can believe that.
Yup, I’ve proved it ad infinitum. The best you can come up with is, “He tried.” Yup, he tried for 5 minutes. He stopped trying. Remember, I supported him in 1994 and 2002. I don’t turn on people unless they give me reason to. He’s given me more than I can count.
Ron Paul is a nut. He makes the incompetent Romney AND Rudy look stable and respectable, and that’s quite a feat.
3 to 4000 more little children were brutally killed and ripped from the womb today in our country, because of the decades of support for that practice from liberal politicians like Mitt Romney. What could conceivably be more repellent than that?
Have you really listened to that ‘02 debate? It is enough to make a person puke, especially in the context of the things Romney is saying today.
Jump on the Fred wagon before you sink in quicksand, quicksilver.I will give Fred every chance to sway me, if he ever decides to run. I do think that it is much harder for senators to win, however.
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.