Asking Mitt - An interview with Governor Romney

National Review Online ^ | September 19, 2007 | Stephen Spruiell

[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was extended by the secretary-general, and that’s the first place where, in my view, the invitation should be withdrawn,” Romney says.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--

[restornu]

Ole to a Weasle!

A penny for a spool of thread,
A penny for a needle.
That’s the way the money goes,
Pop! goes the weasel.

Round and round the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel.
The monkey stopped to pull up his socks
And Pop goes the weasel.

Three wise men of Gotham
Went to sea in a bowl;
If the bowl had been stronger
My song had been longer.

Ladies and gentlemen come to supper—
Hot boiled beans and very good butter.

I had a little husband no bigger than my thumb,
I put him in a pint pot, and there I bid him drum,
I bought a little handkerchief to wipe his little nose,
And a pair of little garters to tie his little hose.

There were once two cats of Kilkenny.
Each thought there was one cat too many;
So they fought and they fit,
And they scratched and they bit,
Till, excepting their nails,
And the tips of their tails,
Instead of two cats, there weren’t any.

[restornu]

What Reagan man excuse is made of!

[WOSG]

“Mitt Romney is not unique at all.” “BS!”

Not BS, Truth. I gave multiple examples, not Reagan, others.
Like GHW Bush. This is about the double-standard people apply to Romney. Add Sam Brownback and Fred Thompson to the list of evolvers based on early comments. But no, only Romney’s 1994 statements count as a ‘lifelong prochioce’ view, the pro-choice statements of others should be ignored.... hmmmm.

[WOSG]

“If you posted that, you’d be a liar.”
It’s no less a lie to insinuate that Mitt Romney is pro-choice and ignore his pro-life actions and current prolife positions. That is my point.

[WOSG]

“This isn’t about Reagan, GHW Bush, John McCain, GW BUsh Sam Brownback or anyone else for that matter. This is all about Mitt Boy and his shifts on the abortion issue just before his run for president.”

That’s right. This is not about the fact that Reagan, GHWBush, G W Bush, had evolution of positions
... and the fact that McCain, Thompson, Brownback, and Rudy all have past statements, actions and positions about abortion that they would like to put aside as they run for President...

this is about the fact that Romney - if you exclude every other Republican candidate who’s shifted in this topic - is “unique”!

Reagan man, take the blinders off. All these things you accuse Romney of, these others have done it as well.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>Reagan man, take the blinders off. All these things you accuse Romney of, these others have done it as well.

BS! I see fine. And I'm not buying Mitt Romney as a conservative. His shifts on the issues of abortion, along with gays and guns have nothing to do with anyother politico, alive or dead. His support for nationalized healthcare is also not a conservative position. RomneyCare like Hillarycare is more big govt. No thanks.

[CheyennePress]

>>>
The damage is done. Trying to back off now just makes you look foolish.<<<

You’re really not one to be chastising others about looking foolish. You’re pretty good about doing that and on a regular basis.

I know you like to make a sport of name-calling, but frankly, that amounts to as much as a competition amongst your local water aerobics class.

[CheyennePress]

>>>Obviously you view Romney`s record through the prism of anti-conservative politics. <<<

See what I mean? Like Romney referring to Reagan as adamantly pro-choice, you’ve made an overstatement.

But unlike Romney, I don’t expect you to say that you admire, anyone. You full well know that the line I quoted is a load of horse manure, but you’re going to keep running with it.

[CheyennePress]

You’re not tired of anything. You just like to piss and moan and make your infinite infantile arguments. Must wear you out to split those hairs all day long.

Just like the one above where you said this was about Romney and then proceeded to list 12 points about Reagan.

Why don’t you quit lying? Or what, you don’t like your own tactics used against you? . What, when you’ve expended all of your credibility? *rolls eyes*

And the thing is, I bet you have a hard time telling when I’m being serious and when I’m just immitating you.

No, the point in all of this is that Romney’s record is 100% Pro-Life. No matter how much you blow your smoke, that’s the reality of it.

[CheyennePress]

>>Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a woman having a right to kill her unborn child.<<

Which is perhaps why Fred Thompson is opposed to making it illegal?

[Reagan Man]

"Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a woman having a right to kill her unborn child."

>>>>>Which is perhaps why Fred Thompson is opposed to making it illegal?

Your lack of knowledge is astounding. Fred Thompson believes Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned. Period. Btw, you ought to read the Constitution and get informed. Specifically these two parts:

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That means abortion is a states rights issue. This idea goes back to the beginning of the nation. The Framers/Founders called it Federalism. Something most conservatives and candidate Fred Thompson support. Now, if you want a Reagan style Human Rights amendment added to the Constitution --- which I would support --- you'll have to go through a process that is outlined in the Constitution itself. A process that has been successful only 17 times in our history.

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[SoConPubbie]

Really?

Here is what she said:

"Though I prefer Mitt, Giuliani would be second in the hard work and efficient category."

That sure seems at least to be a strong implication that Giuliani would be her second pick BECAUSE of her statement "hard work and efficient". Either that, or she needs to construct her sentences in a better manner.

[SoConPubbie]

Can you read?

Unless what Reagan Man has posted concerning Romney being Pro Roe vs. Wade until 2005 there is no comparison between him and Thompson. You have one statement in 1994 from Thompson and a ton of statements AND ACTIONs on the part of Romney up until 2005.

Can you prove by Romney’s record that Reagan Man is incorrect about Romney being Pro-choice or at least pro Roe vs. Wade until 2005?

Do you not see the difference or do you just choose to ignore the difference because Mitt is your man?

[SoConPubbie]

I applaud him for cleaning up New York City. But that is so far down my list of priorities with respect to a President that in real terms is doesn’t even register, especially when he has been a consistent liberal on all other issues. When you add in his pandering and flip-flopping during this campaign, and the damage that a Rudy presidency would cause not only to the conservative cause, but to the Republican party as well, he is the last man I would vote for!

[restornu]

I applaud him for cleaning up New York City. But that is so far down my list of priorities with respect to a President

***

I agree with you for some reason he could not clean up his house it is a shame he does have talent!

[CheyennePress]

>>>Your lack of knowledge is astounding. Fred Thompson believes Roe v Wade is bad law and should be overturned. Period.<<<

That doesn't make abortion illegal. And I noted that Fred Thompson opposes making it illegal. And he does. He has openly says he doesn't want prosecution brought against women who murder their children--only making it illegal to medically perform an abortion. In other words, it's not the murder he's concerned about. He just doesn't want a board-certified physician assisting in the process. I'm not sure what sense that makes. It's not a pro-life argument. If abortion is murder, it should be treated as such. If a fetus is a living human, it should be treated as such and granted all of the protections granted under the Constitution.

>>>Btw, you ought to read the Constitution and get informed. Specifically these two parts: .... That means abortion is a states rights issue <<<

Well, given my ASTOUNDING lack of knowlege, I obviously would never refer to the 14th Amendment, would I?

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

So actually, reading that 14th amendment, it's looking the Constitution is saying that the states don't really have any say whatsoever regarding abortion. If you want to call yourself Pro-Life.

Regarding your other point, that's all fine, well, and good. But I do believe the President has a pretty big say in the direction that policy is determined in this country. If the President wants to steer the nation towards a particular reform, he can very well do it. Particularly when his party is in power. That's the political reality of the beast.

But what do I know. My lack of knowlege is "astounding."