Posted on 11/05/2007 1:17:00 PM PST by Bosco
Every time, like automatons, one or more Willard fans post this Michael Reagan passage, but it doesn’t apply.
Nowhere does Michael Reagan say Ronald Reagan was “adamantly pro-choice” because it’s a LIE.
Why can’t Willard apologize for lying about Ronald Reagan’s pro-life credentials?
National polls, this far out are totally meaningless.
You sound like Bill Clinton parsing words. Reagan was pro choice....get over it!
“Adamantly” is Willard’s word choice, and he was lying.
As for your “Reagan was pro-choice get over it” BS, well, I leave it to Reagan Man to put the truth on the record. Every time the Romney Sleaze Machine tries to elevate Slick Willard by stomping on the reputation of Ronald Reagan, my friend Reagan Man steps up and straightens out the record.
You obviously have never read anyting on Reagan...
You people sure can’t stand the truth. You act more like the posters over at DU. The truth is, Reagan was pro choice at one time.
Nothing can stand in the way of Willard’s Ascent to Power, not even the reputation of a great conservative like Ronald Reagan.
Nice Willard the Weatherman pic. LOL
Reagan was a great conservative....no one is arguing that. He was also liberal before he was conservative and pro choice before he was pro life.
Are you part of Willard’s Secret Police? Did he issue you a phony badge?
No, just the poster of truths, which you anti Mitters really hate.
Keep trying, maybe he'll notice you. Maybe he'll let you touch the hem of his garment!
Are those the real truths or the fake ones?
I saw the announcement and posted it.
Weyrich can endorse who he likes, and he did.
Only because they prove that RomneyTHErino could not even beat the Breckgirl.
How about Mitt's own family?
You have problems with that?
Mitt exemplifies the vesy best in conservative values in his personal life and family--where it counts most.
Snide, uninformed fulminations such as yours don't change that.
While I am endorsing no candidate as of yet (check my tagline) there is only one way that I can seriously assess candidates: whether they followed promises given during a campaign once they entered elective office. Not whether I agreed with their positions of the time because those can change.
As far as Romney goes, he made certain campaign promises in '94 that many of us disagree with but didn't get elected so we have no actual bills to compare. We then have the promises he made when running for governor a decade later followed by his actual actions, bills, vetos ie. a verifiable actual record. From what I saw he followed his word.
So now we have a presidential campaign full of promises, some that differ from statements, positions of previous. For me it is fair to say that even if Romney is stating positions that some may say is convenient to the conservative agenda he has shown that he knows who elected him and knows how to follow through on promises. I can live with that.
I'm sure many will disagree but all I know is I DO NOT want a Hillary presidency. I can't expect from those running any ideological purity-just whether any particular candidate shows through action that they remember who put them in office.
I think if Fred Thompson had endorsed the Human Life Amendment and Federal Marriage Amendment, he’d be taking off right now. But his refusal has made social conservatives wary and that could ultimately be the demise of his campaign.
I don’t think he tricked anybody in Massachusetts. They got just the liberal they expected to get.
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.