Change Begins With Us
Posted on 09/21/2007 1:05:48 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
It’s only Wednesday, but already it’s been a busy week for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is, of course, currently running for the Republican nomination for president. Since Monday, he held a press conference denouncing Hillary Clinton’s much-discussed national health-care plan, wrote a letter urging U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to bar Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from addressing the U.N., and unveiled a 68-page policy document titled, “Strategy for a Stronger America.” On Tuesday, Romney spoke with National Review Online about his week so far.
--snip--
Romney sounded more certain when the discussion moved to Iran. I asked him about his letter to Ban Ki-moon, requesting that the newly-elected secretary-general revoke Ahmadinejad’s invitation to address the U.N. General Assembly next week. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to ask the U.S. State Department simply to deny Ahmadinejad a visa?
“The invitation was extended by the secretary-general, and that’s the first place where, in my view, the invitation should be withdrawn,” Romney says. He repeated another point he made in his letter to Ban Ki-moon, which is that Ahmadinejad should be indicted for inciting genocide against the people of Israel.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
One does not have to want to vote for a candidate or like them but one should be honest and give credit where credit is due!
If one can’t be honest what good is that person of little faith thinking if they give credit some how it will detract from their guy!
You will never know what NYC was like after Koch and Dinkins this place was so slimy, hospitals and other city property was over taken by the drug dealers and the homeless.
It really was grimy place.
When Rudy took office he stopped the drive by shootings and the homeless from pissing everywhere, no more waves of drug dealers did I have to walk through to get my apt building.
You could go to city places and not feel yucky!
It is disappointing he is for gays and abortion but the other things he was great!
“We’ll keep getting regular reports,” Romney says, “But clearly, my view is that we’re going to go through a series of phases here in Iraq. The first is the one where we’re playing the front-line responsibility, the lead role. Ultimately that’s moving more towards what [Petraeus] calls an ‘overwatch’ responsibility or more of a support role. Sometime in the more distant future we’re going to have us playing a standby role where our troops are by and large in other nations and standing by as called upon.”
Standing by our current correct strategy on Iraq. Good!
WOSG
...sure and you mever said things that were not true or missed spoke you are just an angle here!
Time to accuse Slick Willard of plaigarism - Mitt Romney is stealing the Ronald Reagan conservative platform, positions and programs, and making it his own for 2008:
http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Strategy
# Challenges:
* Keeping Americans Safe at Home and Abroad
* Confronting Radical Jihad
* Combating Nuclear Terrorism
* Strengthening Latin American Allies and Confronting Tyrants
* Winning the Global Economic Competition
* Ending Our Dependence on Foreign Oil
* Curbing Out of Control Federal Spending
* Ending the Tide of Illegal Immigrants
* Reducing Spiraling Health Care Costs
* Confronting Threats to American Culture, Values, and Freedoms
And you are just a Beacon of correctness and a buncle of Sun Shine...
Bravo to Mitt for again calling out the Iranian thugs for what they are.
Maybe someone should then ask the other contenders to follow Mitt’s lead and raise this issue of the UN and Columbia letting that Ahmed-need-a-job nutcase loose on Manhattan.
I think your post (typos and all) expressed the point perfectly!
Nobody is perfect. Most folks would let a Mitt comment go after a day... Fact is, the Mitt-bashers hate him (anti-mormon, anti-yankee, or just a thing about Romneys) and find their own reasons, and use their favorite thing as a cudgel. I call it MDS - Bush-deragement-syndrome for the next President.
~”...I’d like to ask Mitt why, even after he’s spent millions and millions of dollars, that he can’t seem to get better than 18% in the polls!?”~
18%? Didn’t he just hit 10% a couple of months ago?
Seems the goalposts keep moving...
>>>Willard, why haven’t you apologized for lying about Ronald Reagan’s pro-life beliefs?<<<
If you had to apologize for every time you’ve overstated your case or been wrong on this site...
We won’t go there.
I’ve never lied about Ronald Reagan’s pro-life record.
Willard HAS lied about that.
Ronald Reagan was never “adamantly pro-choice.” Slick Willard lied.So, you're saying that Ronald Reagan as Governor of California signing into law pro-abortion legislation years before Roe v. Wade is not adamantly pro-choice. Okay, got it.
I can only imagine what you would be saying about Mitt Romney if he had done the same in 1968. Actually, I don't have to imagine, I see it daily on nearly every Romney thread.
Read his writings from the time: he was conflicted, was pushed into it by his advisors and regretted it almost immediately. That is not "adamantly pro-choice."
Adamanly pro-choice is "Hell yeah I signed it, and I'd do it again!"
Slick Willard is certainly smart enough to know he LIED, and there has been no apology or retraction either.
Being adamantly pro-choice means you support abortion on demand and most likely you also support Roe v Wade. Reagan never supported Roe v Wade and its judicially legislated provision granting legality to abortion on demand.
The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law did not grant abortions on demand. It was specific to the exceptions of substantial risk that would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, along with rape and incest. It was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the difficult abortion cases. Reagan was firmly in the prolife camp and adamantly opposed to most abortions in 1967. Reagan was pro-life until his death and publicly spoke out against Roe v Wade, calling it infanticide.
Reagan had been apprehensive about signing the law. He was afraid it would be abused. Within a year of passage abortions were being performed for most any reason.
Reagan said, "The reform law was based upon policing by the medical profession itself. Committees — medical and psychiatric — were to determine whether the individual wanting the abortion met the requirement of endangered health, life, mental health and so forth. I think it is very apparent that people are literally getting abortions on demand."
If Mitt Romney had done the same as Reagan in 1968 and had written passionately about how conflicted he was at the time, I believe, based on observation, that you would call him a liar. In my view, you're doing the same as you accuse Mitt Romney of doing. That's why it is difficult -- extremely so -- for me to take any of your assertions seriously.
Mitt Romney was pro-choice for over 30 years. He supported Roe v Wade as the law of the land. He spoke out on numerous occasions in defense of a womans constitutional right to have an abortion. IMO, that is being adamantly pro-abortion. Period. Changing your position and becoming pro-life is great. More people should make the switch. However, changing your position on the eve of a GOP presidential primary race is called, engaging in political expediency. Which is something Romney has engaged in his whole life on issues ranging from abortion, to gay rights and gun control.
This is in the context of a pre-Roe v. Wade world, nevertheless, I’d say that if Reagan had doubts about abuses then he should have not signed the legislation. I’m not being critical of Reagan, governors and presidents have to make tough decisions everyday and it’s not possible to get them all right. You just hope that they get the big ones right; often times it’s many, many years later before you know if it was right.
If you want to judge me based on a lie you believe I would tell, in your fanciful, hypothetical situation, well, I can't help you. That is such an incredibly dishonorable proposition, there is no way I can respond to it, nor is there any further need.
I know about Mitt Romney’s political evolution. I see it as Romney being unbound from the restraints of the realities of GOP Massachusetts politics. The national stage is much more conservative friendly.
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.