Posted on 09/03/2007 3:24:18 PM PDT by asparagus
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Monday said he would welcome Republican rival Fred Thompson to the race, but also took some jabs at Thompson's long delay in formally announcing his candidacy.
Thompson, the "Law & Order" television actor and former senator from Tennessee, is expected to officially enter the race this week. Instead of attending a Wednesday night debate in Durham, N.H., Thompson will be in Los Angeles to appear on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno."
"I think it will boost the ratings for Jay Leno's show, but I'd rather be doing well in New Hampshire," said Romney, who is leading in most polls in this early voting state.
Thompson's candidacy has been a shadow on the GOP contest. He has equivocated about getting into the race, while his campaign organization has been in flux. His entry comes remarkably late in a campaign cycle that began days after the 2006 midterm elections.
"Well, I guess the only comment I'd make to Fred Thompson would be: Why the hurry? Why not take a little longer to think this over?" Romney jokingly told reporters. "From my standpoint, if he wants to wait until January or February, that would be ideal."
That's when the primaries unfold in rapid succession.
Romney spent Monday opening his fall campaign, marching in a Labor Day parade in Milford and attending retails stops elsewhere. He said voters would note who is there — and who is not.
"I think people will notice there have been a bunch of guys who have been working real hard to get to know voters across the country," Romney said.
As for Thompson's entry, Romney quipped: "I think he'll have some fun. We're going to presumably have some debates with him. We'll have had five without him."
I meant to say “apart from” not “apart of” just in cast you are going to town over that one, I was interrupted by a phone call.
You’re wrong again. Yawn.
You are a poseur who “frightens”(!) me about as much as any other DU troll, i.e., not at all.
I’ve engaged in dialog this far because I’ll admit, I don’t pay a lot of attention to the names, just to what they say, and yes, you had me fooled for your first few postings into believing you were a Republican.
Game’s over. You’ll have to find others to take your bait.
Happy fishing!
Hank
“Who do you prefer?” - Hank
Let future events identify the best guy. For now, I can only figure out the worst guys: all in the third tier, some in the second, and one in the first.
Mitt may fold up, but Thompson is just plain boring if you have talked to anyone that has been to his speeches. I think he is better jabbing at opponents then giving actual speeches. If he can figure out how to pull the facade off of Hillary and expose her for what she is then he has my vote. I wish I felt like he really wanted to be POTUS. He does not give you the idea that he has alot of energy.
Are you a hypocrite, or what?
Romney's position is a two-step goal - overturn Roe v. Wade, then, when there is the popular support for it (when it's feasible), pass a constitutional amendment.
Thompson's position is a one-step goal - overturn Roe v. Wade and let the states decide.
I agree with with first step. Even though I disagree with Romney's second step (not likely to happen in his term anyway), I favor Romney over Thompson at the moment because of the 'totality of the circumstances'. I'm not a single-issue voter.
Seems like a plausible stretch to have this include the unborn, but it's clearly not cut-and-dry.
That to unsecure these rights...Governments are instituted..
Thompson jokes about Romney-care.
You lumped me in with people you shouldn't have. Now you jump on me for pointing that out. But I would make a good psychological therapist, helping many to 'get the lead out'.
Which voters are you referring to ? Primary or general ? Both, although noticeably less in regard to primary voters, as they are more conservative. Maybe Thompson will show so more range when he actually starts campaigning, I don't know.
Just to let you know the name of the game here. There is only room in the GOP Presidential contest for Republicans, not RINOs. I make no apologies for rousting out the trash who do the dirty work for the rodentry. This isn't amateur hour, and it isn't the Democrat primary. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, perhaps another forum where you can worship the RINO is more suitable for you.
Nothing excuses using garbage language and personal attacks - I believe those are prohibited by the FR terms of service. If your goal is to win over low-class, low-brow people, then carry on - those are the only people who are going to respond positively to name-calling and vindictiveness. It's as if there's real anger and poison behind some of these people's posts - they need to lighten up for their own good.
Yeah, you've got the start of being deceived by the biggest con-man who has the temerity to run as a Republican for President. I've known the man 13 years, I formerly supported him in previous runs for office, I was up in MA at the end of his Senate run in '94, and I'm here to enlighten you that he'll tell you whatever you want to hear in order to get elected. He has no core, no principles, and is one of the single biggest political whores I've ever set my eyes on. As I have said before, the only people supporting him are #1, people that don't know his ghastly record of non-Conservatism and burying the Republican party in MA; #2, Mormons who will support any political candidate as long as they're one of their own, no matter how awful and destructive they are (Harry Reid, a prime example of that); #3, his flunkies, paid or otherwise; and #4, those that are anxious for him to eviscerate the Republican party once in office. Of course, there is a lot of overlap, but none of his "supporters" fail to fit into one of those categories, but the name of the game is the same. We will stop him before he greatly cripples our national party and repeats his Beacon Hill massacre. This RINO cancer must be excised.
Overexaggeration weakens your argument. It's foolish to judge Romney based on the pre-existing liberal nature of MA. Did you expect him to wave a magic wand and turn everyone into conservatives during his term? Romney's always been fiscally conservative. Yes, he's been inconsistent on abortion and gun rights. What about crime, welfare, economy & jobs, foreign policy, school choice, health care, reform? To call Romney a liberal because of one or two social issues is just plain wrong. By that standard, President Bush and nearly 95% of Republicans are liberals. The Republican party isn't as pure as you're projecting it to be. Maybe you should vote Constitution Party?
Justice Blackmun, is that you?
Name me a person who ever lived, since Adam and Eve, who wasn't once in the womb. One.
Of course you aren't. You're supporting "multi-choice" Mitt.
****************
LOL! Clear and concise. I like it. :)
It changes all the time, actually. He's all over the place, proving he has no clue about the true issues that are at stake, and that he still could care less about saving the lives of the innocent unborn.
And, most of the time he takes a phony "states' rights" position that says that states can kill babies if they want to. Any claims to supporting the platform are always a "cover his butt" afterthought.
The below is from only two weeks ago.
Romney Muddles Abortion Stance
2008 Republican Backs State Abortion Leeway Until Federal Ban Possible
By TEDDY DAVIS
Aug. 22, 2007
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Tuesday in a Nevada television interview that he supports letting states "make their own decision" about whether to keep abortion legal.
"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level one size fits all for the whole nation," Romney told Nevada political columnist Jon Ralston in a televised interview. "Instead, I would let states make their choices."
Asked by Ralston if it was "OK" with him that Nevada is a "pro-choice state," Romney said, "I'd let states make their own decision in this regard. My view, of course, is I'm a pro-life individual. That's the position I support. But, I'd let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it."
Thank you. May God bless you and yours.
EV: Those certainly are disturbing quotes and they suggest that Romney will move left on lifestyle issues and life issues if nominated. His father got in candidate-fatal hot water by reversing himself on Vietnam.
Mitt Romney will do or say anything that he thinks will advance his own power.
You lumped yourself in with your comments.
"Both, although noticeably less in regard to primary voters, as they are more conservative. Maybe Thompson will show so more range when he actually starts campaigning, I don't know."
What is your definition of "range" ? Appealing to liberals ? Selling his core principles like Romney to the highest bidder ? That's not range, that's a demonstration of a political whore.
"Nothing excuses using garbage language and personal attacks - I believe those are prohibited by the FR terms of service."
Lecture yourself. Most, if not all, of your posts directed at me have been personal attacks.
"If your goal is to win over low-class, low-brow people, then carry on - those are the only people who are going to respond positively to name-calling and vindictiveness. It's as if there's real anger and poison behind some of these people's posts - they need to lighten up for their own good."
Repeated for your benefit: "Just to let you know the name of the game here. There is only room in the GOP Presidential contest for Republicans, not RINOs. I make no apologies for rousting out the trash who do the dirty work for the rodentry. This isn't amateur hour, and it isn't the Democrat primary. If that offends your delicate sensibilities, perhaps another forum where you can worship the RINO is more suitable for you."
"Overexaggeration weakens your argument."
I understate. And yet none of your comrades can refute a single point I have made about his shameful regime and what ruins he left behind. Nobody can.
"It's foolish to judge Romney based on the pre-existing liberal nature of MA. Did you expect him to wave a magic wand and turn everyone into conservatives during his term?"
This comment proves that you've read nothing I've written at all. Why don't you read my posts outlining what he promised to do, and what he needed to do. Call me naive, but I expected him to keep his word. Imagine that. How awful and judgmental to expect something like that. You know what they say about the quality of a man, don't you ? When you don't keep your word, that shows your character, or rather lack thereof.
"Romney's always been fiscally conservative. Yes, he's been inconsistent on abortion and gun rights.
Now the truth comes out. This is called "no core principles" and "selling out" for votes. I knew what he was pulling up in MA with the rodent voters, and frankly, at the time, I could care less. Since rodents are used to be lied to, a Republican doing so and trying to enact somewhat of a positive agenda if they actually vote for him was an acceptable practice. But after failing miserably, don't you dare come into a national primary and pull that same bull$hit on us. He must truly think we are that stupid.
"What about crime, welfare, economy & jobs, foreign policy, school choice, health care, reform? To call Romney a liberal because of one or two social issues is just plain wrong."
All I see is what he left behind and broke his promises on. It's all about him, and everything and everyone else is a distant 2nd (or 3rd). You claim to be a smart guy. You ought to be able to see that by now.
"By that standard, President Bush and nearly 95% of Republicans are liberals. The Republican party isn't as pure as you're projecting it to be."
The President has failed to do many things, most noticeably on illegals, and it will likely have ghastly long-term repercussions. The Congressional leadership has also been similarly lackluster, and that's not a view of a handful of people, but is the widespread opinion. If Dubya were seeking a third term, most of us here would be actively working to see him defeated in the primary. The goal of any party is to win as many seats with like-minded individuals as possible. But when party leaders start to help the opposite party with their goals, it's time for them to be removed. The latter describes Romney's actions in office perfectly. Gross incompetence.
"Maybe you should vote Constitution Party?"
I'm a Conservative Republican. Any votes for 3rd parties are wasted (and doesn't that party have the same view against fighting in the Middle East as the rodents ? Those Paleos can shove it). If at some point the Republican party decides to become a liberal party and kill the reason it has to exist to oppose that abominable and monstrous ideology, then and only then, will a walk-out occur. If this party nominates Rudy McRomney next year, that walk-out will occur, and Hillary will get her 3rd term.
Thank ewe. ;-D
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.