Posted on 06/26/2007 8:20:58 AM PDT by Reaganesque
I had a chance to interview Bob Bennett today while in Boston. He had some interesting things to say about Romney and those Senators who "support" him:
Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady” amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Fred Thompson voted against this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
You should also check this:
http://gunowners.org/pres08/thompson2.htm
Guess who voted for the Domestic Confiscation gun ban?
I guess we'll have to remember what Ronald Reagan said: A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75
It’s consistency that is the difference. That’s what I want out of a leader, not someone who promises and flips and flops then does whatever he/she darn well pleases once elected. Sorta like what we saw today in the Senate.
Not to say that Mitt is a bum, he is certainly better than the Hildabeast, but I think there are better choices. As always, YMMV :)
IMHO, when Romney defended his Mormon faith at the second debate, he was defending people of ALL faiths.
Liberal Giuliani is laboring to dump conservatives and believers off the Repub party flotilla. If he won, he'd have secular liberals controlling the entire US govt.
We need as president a person of strong faith who recognizes the culturally-destructive morally relativistic times in which we live.
Presidential ================= Post-menopausal.
Further, many of the other candidates (including yours) have issues with flips on immigraton, abortion, CFR, the war etc... If that was the only criteria we wouldn't be able to vote for anyone!
BTW Republican U.S. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho also supports Romney. Craig published an article in the Idaho State Journal on March 12, 2007 summarizing Gov. Romney's record on gun rights and concluded that the 2A was actually protected under Romney's watch, not weakened. Romney's right on Second Amendment
More evidence:
“US Senator Larry Craig supports Romney”
Wow! The same Larry Craig that just voted for amnesty?
What a glowing endorsement.
Good point. I think that's exactly why the voter approval study conducted by Frank Luntz during the last debate skyrocketed in favor of Mitt when he was defending his faith.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1848852/posts
Most senators are not in my good graces right now.
Does it make up for it that Sen Jim DeMint one of THE most vocal anti-amnesty senators also supports Mitt?
And, don't forget about James Bopp, Jr. who is part of Mitt's campaign -- he just won a ruling in the SCOTUS to strike parts of that 1st Amendment assaulting McCain-Feingold bill.
In any event, I am not worried about Sen Craig, since Mitt's own position on illegal immigration is very strong as indicated by the list of his prior actions provided to you further up the thread. He already has a strong record on immigration issues.
Mitt is for a strong border and internal enforcement and security. He strongly supports a wall, fence or other effective restraint along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Romney calls for border barrier first, The Dallas Morning News, April 12, 2007)
Romney also said that McCain's proposed "Z visa" should be called an "A visa" -- "because it's amnesty and that's what it stands for."
At the first debate many were surprised at the presidential aura given off by Romney. This is something you cannot buy, nor can a paid consultant hand it to you.
Romney displays an easy sense of humor. His quick, smiling "are you kidding" comeback at the first debate about another "clinton" in the WH was priceless.
The four Romney factors that conservatives warm to are ---his defense of his faith, assiduously courting conservatives, his presidential aura, and warm sense of humor.
When stacked up against all other candidates-------especially Hillary-----these factors certainly tilt in Romney's favor.
I would add that conservatives are turned off by globalists----any candidate who does not perceive issues through the prism of the red, white and blue, will be given their walking papers.
Support whoever you want.
Personally, I think the LAST THING this country needs is another Harvard MBA / son-of-a-former politician in the White House.
These spoiled rich kids are wrecking things, not too surprising when you are born with that silver spoon.
OR...better yet, is Mitt Romney is own man..or does HE take orders from Orrin ( Just another poster boy for TERM LIMITS.!! ) Hatch..?
Bttt!
I continue to flip-flop about whether Romney is my “I’m okay with him” second choice candidate, or whether he’s my “I might vote for him if he gets the nomination but I’ll have to hold my nose” second choice candidate.
However, as I continue to learn more about him, the fact that he’s from another political dynasty family is a major turnoff. I’ve had it with the plutocracy — Bushes, Kennedys, Chafees, Rockefellers, Gores, Caseys (in PA), etc. I’m at the point where I’m opposing anyone from a “ruling class” political family just on principle. Romney’s had success in the private sector, which is a point in his favor and is the reason I will not rule him out in the general election. But it still bothers me.
The thing that worries me is that if we choose Fred over Mitt (and those two are (realistically) our only two choices - sorry Hunterfans), then we lose one of our strongest arguments against the insider Dems which we still have if we nominate Mitt:
Vote for the GOP nominee (Mitt) -- a TRUE outsider -- for REAL change --- to fix Washington (finally). (Fred can't claim outsider status either). And, if there is anything we know, we know the voters hate Washington right now and reject the status quo or more of the same.
We also lose another strong argument we could use against the dems:
Vote for the GOP nominee (Mitt) -- a proven manager and executive leader -- unlike the DNC candidates who have no real executive experience whatsoever. (Fred has no executive experience either).
Romney is also our stronger candidate to argue on behalf of family values against the dems too.
Anyway, I think the dems will attempt to exploit the Fred insider/lobbying thing hard.
Just something to consider.....
Mitt’s my man. :-)
Bob Bennett voted FOR cloture today - to keep the immigration bill alive!
Sounds like you fell for the liberal Globe version of events instead of the conservative NRA-ILA
GOA, not NRA my friend.
NRA has on occasion thrown certain gun owners under the bus as “appeasement” to protect others.
Don’t buy it? Read both sides on the same bill:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018
http://www.gunowners.org/a061207.htm
Incrementalism and arbitrary judgments are incompatible with the spirit and intent of the 2nd amendment. Mitt doesn’t get it, IMO. Mind you he is not as bad as Hillary et al, but there are better choices.
No, it's not. Most Americans could care less.
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.