Giuliani/McCain Campaigns on "Life Support" . . . They Flip-Flop on Ames Straw Poll

Elect Romney in 2008 ^ | Jeff Fuller

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Jeff: You've hit the nail on the head. Neither one of these two would be pulling out if they thought they were going to get the results they want.

McCain is probably the more interesting. After Rudy pulled out, he should have looked at the situation as an opportunity to pick up some Rudy votes.

He must see the situation so dire, there's no hope. This illegal immigration mess this week may have helped push him over the edge. He's toast.

On the good side--Iowans again did their job of winnowing the field. We just didn't get to the Straw Poll. The rest of the country can thank us.

[Theodore R.]

I have read that Reagan in 1967 signed abortion into law in CA because:

1. He thought he was following the wishes of the legislature and the CA population: it was they who made the decision.

2. He never expected abortion to become routine birth control for some peoples.

3. He thought abortion would be a “last resort” in the medical community.

Or, did he originally support abortion, as Nancy still does? Or did he simply once again, as with SDO in 1981, not do his homework?

[Theodore R.]

Wrong, again, “Mitt” was a Democrat during 1992, when he voted in the MA primary for the popular Paul Tsongas.

[Theodore R.]

Romney’s overall resume stacks up well if you believe all on it. But would he really have the heart to go after the Democrat? I noticed that Giuliani in the debate this week referred to erroneous Democrats more than anyone else did. I will vote for the most anti-GWB person still in the race at the time of the TX primary. And that may be no one.

[Theodore R.]

Reagan cast his first vote at 21 in 1932 for the Roosevelt-Garner ticket. He was still voting Democrat in 1948 for HST. I think he first bolted to support Rep. Nixon for the Senate in 1950, but it may have been for Eisenhower in 1952 instead.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Only the primary? Did he switch for the general?

Still, we can all agree. Reagan can be forgiven for past mistakes. Fred can be forgiven for past mistakes and even current associations like CFR. But Mitt? No, he must be drawn, quartered and burned at the stake.

[DBrow]

You are a much better journalist than many who hang that shingle out, Jeff, don’t talk yourself down!

As for the charter buses, it may or may not be true, I agree. If true, while a clever move, it may not be a polite one if the goal is to make trouble for everyone else. What would be next, booking all the nice hotel rooms?

I’ll wait and see if there’s corroboration.

[Theodore R.]

If one votes in a primary, he is a member of that party for two years in a state like MA that permits voting in the primary of one’s choice on election day. TX has the same setup. Mitt was back in the GOP in 1994 for his own race against EMK. I don’t know what he did wrong in that race.

[iowamark]

Actually, Reagan campaigned for Helen Douglas against Nixon in 1950. He and Nixon were never at all close.

[DBrow]

“I heard that Reagan was a Democrat when he was a ward-leader early in his life.”

lol and Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican working on Goldwater’s campaign when she met Saul Alinsky!

[WFTR]

I have felt that refusing to participate in the straw poll would be something of an insult to Iowa and would hurt a candidate's chances of winning Iowa in the general election. I'm not in Iowa, but that's just the impression that I've gotten from reading things about the straw poll and what others have said about it. Do you think that's accurate? If Rudy Giuliani doesn't participate in the straw poll but wins the nomination anyway, will his lack of participation make him weaker in Iowa in the general election?

In some ways, having Giuliani and McCain quit the straw poll could help narrow the race more quickly.

If Fred Thompson announces in July and has the chance to go to a straw poll where Mitt Romney is his only major competition, he has no excuse not to make some kind of effort at the straw poll. If he won, he'd deliver a huge blow against Mr. Romney. If he came in second with a comfortable margin over the "second-tier" candidates, he'd only be doing what was expected of him and wouldn't be hurt. He would also be helping himself by showing respect for Iowa. If he ended up coming in third behind Tommy Thompson, his campaign would be hurt badly. Even with only one month to organize, if he can't beat Tommy Thompson, the demand for a Fred Thompson candidacy isn't that strong.

If Fred Thompson delays his announcement long enough to have an excuse not to participate, then the straw poll could become a good test for the second-tier candidates. Tommy Thompson coming in second wouldn't persuade anyone that he's the strongest of the second tier, but if one of the other candidates came in second, he'd get a tremendous boost. If one of the second-tier candidates tried to make a good run in Iowa and didn't do well even with McCain and Giuliani out of the poll, he might realize that his campaign will not succeed and that he should leave the race.

Bill

[fabian]

Reagan knew that he opened the door for an evil and changed due to that. Romney, likewise has seen how evil legalized abortion is. Even if people here are not supporting him they should at least be charitable enough to take him at his word. He is not known to be a liar by any stretch.

[fabian]

so Reagan didn’t actually sign the abortion law in California? That was being for legal abortion...health of the mother is opening pandoras box of evil and he realized how bad of a law it was. So where did I lie? Reagan was for limited abortion legalization. I never said he was a pro abortion person. Can you please be a bit more rational in your debate? And why can’t you give Romney the same charity and belief in his word that he sees legal abortion as being evil?

[dirtboy]

Where do we begin with your latest steaming delivery to FR?

so Reagan didn’t actually sign the abortion law in California? That was being for legal abortion...health of the mother is opening pandoras box of evil and he realized how bad of a law it was.

After it was abused. Reagan did NOT sign a law legalizing abortion on demand.

So where did I lie? Reagan was for limited abortion legalization.

The lie is right there in your sentence. All of as sudden, you start using the word "limited". The word you omitted before. And, as Orwell once noted, omission is the most powerful form of lie.

I never said he was a pro abortion person.

You said this:

Reagan was for legalized abortion too until his heart changed

So you did claim he was pro-abort.

Can you please be a bit more rational in your debate?

Can you quit lying by omission?

And why can’t you give Romney the same charity and belief in his word that he sees legal abortion as being evil?

Sorry, but that does not jibe with him trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion in 1994, and running as pro-choice in 2002. Quite frankly, Mitt is now running for the GOP nomination and needs to be pro-life. In his last two elections, he was pro-choice (and pushing being pro-abort) when it suited that election. So he is completely unconvincing now, given that history.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Just heard there's a chance Fred may be getting in the Straw Poll. This is getting interesting.

Again, Rudy and McCain would not have pulled out if they thought they were going to win.

[fabian]

Reagan open the door to abortion, whether it was limited or not it is still killing an unborn baby. That didn’t make him a pro abort and I never said that. A pro abort is unapologetic for most all abortions. Reagan was sorry he open that evil door. What I said is true, he legalized abortion. To be more accurate I should have said limited, that is true. But for the health of the mother is not very limited and he should have known that. You are just not accurate in calling me a liar. Anyways, I forgive Reagan for that because he was a man who wasn’t perfect like all of us and admitted to his mistake. And I can see that same sincerity in Romney’s admission to being wrong. His heart changed on it well before he started his run for president. I think you are being very uncharitable and judgemental towards him.
And your method of debate by calling my points which were true, although should have been more accurate, steaming dodo, is pretty low. Don’t know how you wish to convince people of your points by insulting them. And then mincing words to try and uphold your assertions.

[dirtboy]

And your method of debate by calling my points which were true, although should have been more accurate, steaming dodo, is pretty low

Wrong. I called you on your omissions. You are trying to draw moral equivalence between Reagan and Romney with such, and that is a crock. Reagan signed a very limited abortion bill that subsequently was abused. I posted Romney's explicityly pro-Roe quotes from 1994. THERE IS UTTERLY NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

Heck, Mitt was pro-Roe in the 2002 election as well. But now he's pro-life? And we are supposed to disregard the fact that his conversion coincides with his drive for a new office?

Been there, done that, won't get fooled again. Your sense of false indignation is only trumped by your lack of any sense of shame for attempting this worn-out gambit that good conservative freepers have shot down repeatedly over the last few months.

[dirtboy]

That didn’t make him a pro abort and I never said that. That didn’t make him a pro abort and I never said that. A pro abort is unapologetic for most all abortions.

Wrong. A pro-abort enables abortion on demand. They always have that dodge of "Well, I'm personally against abortion, BUT..." However, their support of Roe and abortion "rights" is what makes legal abortion on demand possible.

Reagan did NOT sign a bill that allowed for abortion on demand. But you said Reagan favored legalized abortion (which was a lie by omission). Mitt, however, praised Roe and said it should be defended - and Roe enabled abortion on demand. Ergo, Mitt was pro-abort, despite his "BUT..." routine.

[fabian]

there is some similarities...Reagan open the door to many abortions, Romney went along with keeping legal abortions law. Certainly there is some moral similarities. I never said they were equivalent but that they had both changed their minds. Reagan did become much more pro life after that. Romney is now very pro life. Very similar...maybe you don’t want to see that? You choose to project a negative onto Romney that isn’t there. And I have not been shameless and indignant. You are the one that stoops and calls me a liar and steaming dodo. Clearly I never called Reagan a pro abort. You put those words in my mouth. I think you need to be a little more objective and charitable in your arguement because you come off as a pompous person.

[dirtboy]

there is some similarities...Reagan open the door to many abortions, Romney went along with keeping legal abortions law. Certainly there is some moral similarities.

Ah, comparing a very limited law that got abused ... to supporting Roe ... is similar?

I never said they were equivalent but that they had both changed their minds.

You tried the moral equivalence gambit. We've seen it a hundred times with Rudy and Mitt boosters - "see, look, Reagan was pro-choice too at one point!" It is the ONLY reason for you to raise this - an attempt at moral equivalence. But there is NO equivalence to Reagan signing a VERY limited bill in 1967 and Mitt trying to run to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion in 1994. NONE. NADA. ZIP.

Reagan did become much more pro life after that. And that did NOT coincide with his running for president a year later.

Romney is now very pro life. Very similar...maybe you don’t want to see that?

More like I'm not willing to be fooled by that.

You choose to project a negative onto Romney that isn’t there.

Silly me. Politicians NEVER flip positions when running for a new office.

And I have not been shameless and indignant.

Yeah, right. You've been trying the righteous indignation route for being called on your gambit.

You are the one that stoops and calls me a liar and steaming dodo.

Lies by omission, baby. You yourself said you left of "limited" regarding the bill Reagan signed. Lies by omission in your attempt at moral equivalence.

Clearly I never called Reagan a pro abort.

Lie by distortion. You said this:

Reagan was for legalized abortion

Which in common terms means Reagan was pro-abort. If you are in favor of legalized abortion, YOU ARE PRO-ABORT - but Reagan was NOT in favor of legalized abortion).

You put those words in my mouth. I think you need to be a little more objective and charitable in your arguement because you come off as a pompous person.

I'm not the one trying the worn-out Reagan/Romney/Rudy moral equivalence crap. And as far as being charitable - I have no good will whatsoever for weasesl who try that crap. I suggest you take the advice given on this thread by another poster and stop even trying to rationalize this now.